A Strategic AHP-Based Framework for Mitigating Delays in Road Construction Projects in the Philippines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the abstract, the authors should focus on the AHP framework and specific findings.
2. Although mentioned in the abstract and introduction, the environmental engineering principles are not operationalized in the framework. Either clearly integrate sustainability actions in the delay mitigation strategies or revise the abstract to avoid overstating the environmental focus.
3. In the introduction section, this study does not sufficiently distinguish itself from prior studies as AHP has been used for identifying construction delays. Reorganize the literature review thematically and compare similar AHP studies to establish gaps.
4. The use of regression to validate AHP weights is unusual and not standard in MCDM literature. The authors should justify the use of regression for validation.
5. The results section is very long and repetitive. Each factor is described in multiple paragraphs, often duplicating content from tables or previous sections.
6. The use of MATLAB code is a strength but should be described in a reproducible manner. A supplementary file with the code is suggested.
7. The strategic framework lacks a clear implementation roadmap.
8. In the conclusion section, there is no discussion of the study’s limitations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

 

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see attached file for our point by point response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the paper adopts a commonly used method, the Analytical Hierarchy Process, combined with surveys to analyze the causes of road construction delays in the Philippines and propose corresponding strategies based on the findings. The overall level of innovation is limited, the paper reads more like an investigative case study than an academic research article. However, the findings can still provide useful reference  for construction management practice and may be considered for publication. Below are some comments for the authors‘ consideration:

1. In the Introduction section, please include some recent studies that have applied the AHP method in construction, particularly in road projects. Emphasize the limitations in existing research and the specific contribution this paper aims to make.
2. Please round the values in Table 6 to 2 or 3 decimal places to improve readability. Currently the digits are too long which affect the clarity of the presentation.
3. In the validation process, only 10 experts were involved, with just one expert from the consultants sector and one from academe. This might lead to biased results. Please consider involving a more balanced group of experts.
4. The authors mostly repeat what has been done in the study in the conclusion section, . It is suggested to revise this part to highlight the key findings, consider to use bullet points.
5. Consider to add some field construction case to help validate the main delay factors and examine whether the proposed strategies are effective in practice.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

 

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see attached file for our point by point response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to have the chance to review the article “A strategic AHP-based framework for mitigating delays in road construction projects in the Philippines”. The introduction provided some background. More details are needed to explain and justify the study. The aims are stated and they are fairly clear. 

The section of literature review was neither provided nor considered construction delays, whether or not road construction and other construction projects. In the subsequent framework development section, factors causing delays were extracted from literature and summarised in Table 3 without explanation. Detailed discussion of these factors were seen only in Section 3.3 (Criteria Analysis).

Like many AHP studies, the research design follows a conventional approach: developing a framework based on literature and incorporating expert input. Many studies have adopted similar AHP methodologies. The rationale for choosing AHP over alternative methods is not explained. It is also unclear whether the findings align with similar studies.

The research design can be presented more clearly. For example, the regression analysis used to validate the relationship between AHP weight rankings and expert-rated delay severity lacks detail. It should clarify how delay severity ratings were collected, who provided the ratings, and the methods behind the process.

For the experts involved in the AHP, the information of the experts is limited, mentioned their experience and the sectors they represent only. On separate issue, what are the potential sources of error or limitations?

Last but not least, the abstract is long. I would suggest revising it to ensure compliance with the guidelines.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

 

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see attached file for our point by point response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Abstract is generally well written; however, I would recommend that the authors consider rearranging some of the content, specifically, by introducing the causes of delays at the very beginning of the Abstract. This would immediately set the context for the study. Additionally, the authors should ensure that these causes are explicitly tailored to the Philippine road construction context, as that is the core focus of the paper. This suggestion is left to the authors’ discretion, especially since these causes are already mentioned later in the Abstract under the findings.

The authors should also enhance the list of keywords. The currently provided keywords are insufficient and not adequately aligned with the central themes and scope of this study. More relevant and specific keywords should be included to improve the paper’s discoverability and relevance.

The Introduction is also well written; however, I suggest that the authors consider rearranging certain ideas to develop a more rhythmic and cohesive storyline. For instance, in the second sentence of the first paragraph, the authors begin to discuss the challenges associated with delays in road construction projects and then again revisit similar challenges in the third paragraph. This creates some repetition. Likewise, although the fourth and fifth paragraphs introduce the AHP method, they both focus on its applications in the construction sector and present fragmented content without establishing clear continuity between them. A reorganization of the Introduction could help build a clearer and more logical flow of ideas to strengthen the rationale.

Additionally, the first paragraph of the Methodology section and the second-last paragraph of the Introduction appear to cover the same topic, namely, the proposed framework. This creates redundancy, which should be avoided unless it serves a necessary purpose. The authors should ensure content is not unnecessarily repeated across sections.

Given that Section 2.3 in the Methodology discusses the proposed framework in detail, would it not be appropriate to include a graphical representation of the framework? A visual depiction would greatly enhance clarity and provide a stronger basis for understanding the methodological approach.

Furthermore, the rationale for using multiple methods, such as literature analysis, expert surveys, AHP, regression analysis, and the development of a framework, to identify the critical factors causing delays in road construction projects needs to be better justified. Are these methods interconnected or interdependent? Does each method build upon the outputs of the others, or are they being applied as standalone analyses? Clarifying their relationships would enhance the methodological coherence.

Finally, the developed framework presented in Figure 5 requires further explanation. Currently, it appears that stakeholders, groups, factors, and rankings are presented in isolation, with little or no interconnection among them. Why is that the case? For instance, would delays or shortages in materials not have an impact on poor planning or other associated issues? A more integrated and interconnected conceptual framework would provide greater clarity and realism. I may encourage the authors to revise the framework to reflect such interdependencies where applicable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

 

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see attached file for our point by point response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all my comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their time, constructive feedback, and positive assessment. We are grateful that the revised manuscript has satisfactorily addressed all comments. Your insights greatly helped improve the clarity, structure, and overall quality of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to review the revised manuscript, in which the abstract, background, literature review and methodologies have been updated. The profiles of the experts are also presented. My remaining comments are: the large number of keywords is unusual, and the full form of acronym (e.g. ANP) should be provided when first used in the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Further review and edits are suggested. They have not been done in this version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

 

Thank you for your valuable insights. please see attached file for our point by point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considerably improved the paper and I am now accepting it for further publishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and constructive feedback throughout the review process. We are truly grateful for the positive assessment and acceptance of the revised manuscript for publication. Your insights have significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx