Development of a BIM-Based Metaverse Virtual World for Collaborative Architectural Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this study is timely and relevant, particularly considering the growing integration of BIM with immersive technologies like VR/AR/MR within metaverse platforms. The primary objective of this study is to develop an immersive, BIM-based virtual environment that facilitates collaborative and interactive architectural design within the context of the metaverse. It aims to explore how the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) with Virtual Reality (VR) and other immersive technologies (AR/MR) can enhance design processes, improve communication among stakeholders, and support professional development in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry.

The overall level of the paper is good. It gives valuable information supported by data. I have just a few comments on the manuscript.

The study employs a prototype-based applied research methodology. It is not entirely clear what is novel about your prototype: Is it the multi-user capability? Asynchronous interaction? Real-time data updating? Please give more information. This helps the reader to clearly understand the contribution of the study. Also, this would strengthen the discussion and the conclusions of the paper.

Limitations of the study should be explained.

Based on the key findings and conclusions, it may be better to give more recommendations for future analyses.

Author Response

Review comment 1: The topic of this study is timely and relevant, particularly considering the growing integration of BIM with immersive technologies like VR/AR/MR within metaverse platforms. The primary objective of this study is to develop an immersive, BIM-based virtual environment that facilitates collaborative and interactive architectural design within the context of the metaverse. It aims to explore how the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) with Virtual Reality (VR) and other immersive technologies (AR/MR) can enhance design processes, improve communication among stakeholders, and support professional development in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry.

The overall level of the paper is good. It gives valuable information supported by data. I have just a few comments on the manuscript.

The study employs a prototype-based applied research methodology. It is not entirely clear what is novel about your prototype: Is it the multi-user capability? Asynchronous interaction? Real-time data updating? Please give more information. This helps the reader to clearly understand the contribution of the study. Also, this would strengthen the discussion and the conclusions of the paper.

Limitations of the study should be explained.

Based on the key findings and conclusions, it may be better to give more recommendations for future analyses.

Response: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the novel contributions of our prototype. The key innovations include its multi-user capability within a persistent virtual environment, support for both synchronous and asynchronous interactions, and real-time BIM data updating that ensures workflow continuity and collaboration across distributed teams. These features collectively differentiate our platform from existing BIM–VR systems, which often lack persistence, scalability, and integrated communication tools.

We have revised the manuscript to explicitly highlight these aspects in the methodology and discussion sections, strengthening the reader’s understanding of our contributions. Additionally, we have added a dedicated section outlining the study’s limitations, including sample size constraints and the scope focused primarily on the technical framework rather than comprehensive usability testing.

Finally, we have expanded the recommendations for future research to the platform is designed to be extensible: planned extensions include integration of 4D and 5D BIM data (scheduling and cost information), as well as emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, augmented reality overlays, and 5G networking. These enhancements will further augment the virtual world’s role as a central hub for building lifecycle activities.

The limitations were presented the proposed framework but has limitations, including unaddressed cybersecurity concerns, reliance on high-bandwidth networks, hardware barriers for VR use, and the need for user training to support broader adoption.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

What is provided is a relatively clear explanation of the work that was undertaken. The work could have been enhanced by undertaking a systematic literature review before embarking on the experimental work. Several research projects such as PrismArch are to some extent similar to the work undertaken. You could have also consider Youcanplan for stakeholder engagement. Defining the reason for adopting the research methodology which seems to be designed science would have added validity to the approach. The aim of the research could have been more clearly articulated. The Key Performance Indicator’s of architectural practice and the requirements of the architectural process would have formed a good basis for evaluating the benefits of the VR approach. The requirements of design review could have been expanded on. The benefits established could have been linked back to the KPI. Controlling standards in this areas  such a Iso IEC 25010 could have been mentioned along with theories of human computer interface design. The paper focuses on visuality Multiphysics incorporating aspects such as acoustics and haptic responses could have been mentioned. They are as an interface for multiple representational forms and the integration of discussion trees and totems could have been mentioned. Although this paper is not specifically about Ai and Agents some mention of this possibly in the conclusion would have added to the paper. The users spent 20 minutes some mention of issues arising for more prolonged use of VR could have been mentioned. Further research could have been proposed as part of the conclusion. It is basically a good paper but would benefit from further refinement.

Author Response

Review Comment:

What is provided is a relatively clear explanation of the work that was undertaken. The work could have been enhanced by undertaking a systematic literature review before embarking on the experimental work. Several research projects, such as PrismArch are to some extent similar to the work undertaken. You could have also consider Youcanplan for stakeholder engagement. Defining the reason for adopting the research methodology, which seems to be designed science would have added validity to the approach. The aim of the research could have been more clearly articulated. The Key Performance Indicator’s of architectural practice and the requirements of the architectural process would have formed a good basis for evaluating the benefits of the VR approach. The requirements of design review could have been expanded on. The benefits established could have been linked back to the KPI. Controlling standards in this areas  such a Iso IEC 25010 could have been mentioned along with theories of human computer interface design. The paper focuses on visuality Multiphysics incorporating aspects such as acoustics and haptic responses could have been mentioned. They are as an interface for multiple representational forms and the integration of discussion trees and totems could have been mentioned. Although this paper is not specifically about Ai and Agents some mention of this possibly in the conclusion would have added to the paper. The users spent 20 minutes some mention of issues arising for more prolonged use of VR could have been mentioned. Further research could have been proposed as part of the conclusion. It is basically a good paper but would benefit from further refinement.

Response: We would also like to emphasize that this study represents preliminary and prerequisite research in an emerging field. We appreciate your perspective in evaluating the contribution of this work as part of the early development of collaborative virtual environments.  

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review. We appreciate your suggestions for enhancing the depth and rigor of our research. In response, we have revised the manuscript to clarify the research aim and more explicitly articulate the rationale behind our methodology, which aligns with a design science approach. We acknowledge that a systematic literature review prior to the experimental work would have provided stronger theoretical grounding. To address this, we have expanded the background section to more clearly position our research in relation to relevant projects such as PrismArch and stakeholder engagement.

Our current focus is primarily on visual collaboration; extending the framework to incorporate multiphysics elements like acoustics and haptics, as well as integrating AI, software agents, and advanced interaction techniques such as discussion trees and totems, represents a significant expansion that would benefit from larger-scale, multidisciplinary research initiatives.

While these aspects are recognized as important, they are beyond the scope of the current research. This study focuses on foundational developments, with more comprehensive investigations into areas such as linkage to KPIs, multiphysics integration, AI agents, and the effects of prolonged VR use to be addressed in future research initiatives.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Referee Report

Article Title:Development of a BIM-based Virtual World for Collaborative and Interactive Architectural Design towards the Metaverse

1. The title is too long and complex; a more concise and focused title is recommended.
2. The abstract lacks clarity regarding the original contributions and research outcomes.
3. No quantitative data is included in the abstract to support the study’s novelty or technical scope.
4. The introduction is too general; the relationship between BIM, VR, and the metaverse should be linked to a specific architectural problem.
5. The literature review is descriptive rather than critical; studies are listed without analytical depth.
6. The research gap is not clearly identified; it is unclear how this study differs from or builds upon previous work.
7. Despite the inclusion of recent sources, the review lacks synthesis and theoretical positioning.
8. The definition of the metaverse is overextended and lacks contextual anchoring within AEC-specific challenges.
9. The methodology lacks a clear research question, hypothesis, or systematic framework.
10. The user testing sample size (15 users, 9 recurrent) is too limited for meaningful conclusions.
11. User demographics (e.g., profession, age, background) are not provided.
12. The user interaction time (approx. 20 minutes per user) is too short for valid usability assessment.
13. The experimental setup lacks control variables or measurable parameters for platform performance.
14. While tools (Unreal Engine, EOS, Datasmith) are well explained, the rationale behind their selection is missing.
15. No comparison with alternative engines (e.g., Unity, Twinmotion) is offered.
16. There is no assessment of system performance metrics such as latency, frame rate, or processing load.
17. Security, data integrity, and user authentication protocols are only briefly mentioned.
18. The scalability of the platform for larger projects or user groups is not addressed.
19. The integration of cloud systems (Amazon S3) is explained, but without technical evaluation or limitations.
20. Figures and tables are low in resolution and difficult to interpret in places.
21. Tables (particularly Table 2 and Table 3) are not well formatted and lack numerical indicators.
22. There is no graphical or statistical representation of user trends or feedback.
23. Survey data is presented qualitatively; quantification of preferences would enhance clarity.
24. Visuals are not sufficiently annotated or explained in the figure captions.
25. The discussion section reiterates previous content and lacks critical depth or comparative analysis.
26. The study’s limitations (e.g., sample size, lack of longitudinal data) are not acknowledged.
27. The research contributions are vaguely stated in the conclusion.
28. There is no implementation scenario or real-world case application discussed (e.g., construction site use, design education).
29. Suggestions for future work are generic (e.g., "AR, AI, 5G") without concrete research objectives.
30. The manuscript contains redundant phrasing and lacks linguistic polish. Terms like “collaboration,” “real-time,” and “immersive” are overly repeated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful review of our manuscript. Based on your suggestions, we have revised the paper to improve its clarity and coherence. We have restructured the manuscript to better present the proposed framework for developing collaborative technical systems for virtual worlds.

We would also like to emphasize that this study represents preliminary and prerequisite research in an emerging field. We appreciate your perspective in evaluating the contribution of this work as part of the early development of collaborative virtual environments.  

Review comment 1: The title is too long and complex; a more concise and focused title is recommended.

and

Review comment 2: The abstract lacks clarity regarding the original contributions and research outcomes.

Response: Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. In response, we have made substantial revisions to the manuscript to enhance its clarity, structure, and technical contribution. The abstract has been completely rewritten to highlight the research’s novelty, specifically addressing the technological limitations of current BIM-based collaboration systems. The revised version emphasizes the integration of XR, particularly VR, into large-scale, multi-user design workflows, moving beyond traditional BIM–VR visualization tools. The proposed BIM-based Virtual World (BIM-VW) framework tackles critical issues such as limited real-time collaborative support, data loss during model transfers, non-persistent VR sessions, system complexity that excludes non-technical participants, and fragmented communication workflows. Our solution introduces a persistent, scalable, multi-user virtual environment that maintains BIM data integrity while enabling synchronous collaboration and seamless communication. Additionally, the research addresses the current lack of standardized frameworks for the use of Virtual Worlds in the AEC industry, contributing to the foundational development of shared definitions and protocols necessary for metaverse-based collaboration.

Review comment 3: No quantitative data is included in the abstract to support the study’s novelty or technical scope.

Response: We have revised the literature review to provide a clearer synthesis and stronger theoretical positioning. The updated background traces the evolution of the metaverse concept and its integration with BIM and VR in the AEC industry, highlighting key challenges and advancements. We also position our proposed BIM–VW framework within this context as a necessary evolution toward persistent, multi-user collaboration platforms, connecting our work to current research and industry developments.

Review comment 4: The introduction is too general; the relationship between BIM, VR, and the metaverse should be linked to a specific architectural problem.

and

Review comment 5: The literature review is descriptive rather than critical; studies are listed without analytical depth.

Response: We have refined the definition of the metaverse to focus specifically on AEC challenges, emphasizing technological issues in BIM-based collaboration such as scalability, data loss, session persistence, system complexity, and communication. Our proposed BIM-VW framework addresses these industry-specific needs by enabling scalable, real-time, multi-user collaboration within a persistent virtual environment, grounded in standardized frameworks relevant to AEC workflows.

Review comment 6: The research gap is not clearly identified; it is unclear how this study differs from or builds upon previous work.

and

Review comment 7: Despite the inclusion of recent sources, the review lacks synthesis and theoretical positioning.

Response: This research proposes a systematic and technical framework that integrates BIM, VR, and Virtual World (VW) technologies to overcome fragmentation in existing BIM–VR collaborative workflows within the AEC sector. The framework is designed around a clear objective: to enable persistent, scalable, and real-time multi-user collaboration across all design and construction phases.

Our approach begins with identifying key barriers in current BIM–VR systems, such as limited user support, data loss, lack of session persistence, system complexity, and fragmented communication. To address these, the framework incorporates user-friendly interfaces with customizable training, supports synchronous and asynchronous multi-user interactions via avatars, and ensures data continuity through cloud-based version control and persistent virtual environments.

The methodology is structured around integrating nine essential VW characteristics—shared temporality, real-time interaction, shared spatiality, persistence, continuous operation, intelligent agents, and unified data management—with core BIM functionalities such as parametric object libraries, property management, interoperability, and platform scalability.

Review comment 8: The definition of the metaverse is overextended and lacks contextual anchoring within AEC-specific challenges.

Response: We have developed a systematic technical framework that integrates BIM, VR, and Virtual Worlds to address key challenges in BIM–VR collaboration for AEC projects. The framework supports real-time, multi-user collaboration with persistent data management, user-friendly interfaces, and cloud-based synchronization. It combines essential Virtual World features with BIM functionalities to create an immersive, scalable platform accessible across multiple devices. This structured approach clearly defines the research focus and methodology, addressing the concerns about clarity and systematic design.

Review comment 9: The methodology lacks a clear research question, hypothesis, or systematic framework.

And

Review comment 15: No comparison with alternative engines (e.g., Unity, Twinmotion) is offered.

Response: We have clarified in the methodology section how the proposed workflow fundamentally differs from traditional game engine processes. Unlike conventional game engine pipelines, which often require manual data exports and task-specific sessions, our framework enables persistent, real-time collaboration with continuous BIM data integration. This comparison highlights the novelty of our approach, focusing on interoperability, version control, and multi-user design interaction, directly addressing AEC-specific collaborative needs.

Review comment 10: The user testing sample size (15 users, 9 recurrent) is too limited for meaningful conclusions.

and

Review comment 11: User demographics (e.g., profession, age, background) are not provided.

and

Review comment 12: The user interaction time (approx. 20 minutes per user) is too short for valid usability assessment.

and

Review comment 13: The experimental setup lacks control variables or measurable parameters for platform performance.

Response The one-month evaluation with 15 users focused primarily on validating the technical framework rather than extensive usability testing. A real-world case study at KNU demonstrated the platform’s capabilities using high-resolution GIS data for collaborative urban design. We acknowledge the limitations in sample size and session length and plan more comprehensive user studies with controlled variables in future research.

Review comment 14: While tools (Unreal Engine, EOS, Datasmith) are well explained, the rationale behind their selection is missing.

And

Review comment 20: The integration of cloud systems (Amazon S3) is explained, but without technical evaluation or limitations.

Response: We provided logical rational for the tools unitized in the methodology of this research

Review comment 17: There is no assessment of system performance metrics such as latency, frame rate, or processing load.

and

Review comment 18: Security, data integrity, and user authentication protocols are only briefly mentioned.

Response: We acknowledge that a comprehensive system performance analysis would require detailed investigation into hardware capabilities and performance benchmarking. However, the primary focus of this research is on the development of the technical framework, its functional components, and collaborative content workflows. Future studies will include performance evaluations across different hardware setups to complement this foundational work.

Review comment 19: The scalability of the platform for larger projects or user groups is not addressed.

Response: The one-month evaluation was conducted as part of a graduate school program at Kyungpook National University (KNU), involving 15 users—9 of whom were recurrent—who collectively engaged in 106 hours on the platform, averaging approximately 20 minutes per session. We acknowledge that the sample size and session length limit the scope of usability conclusions. However, the primary focus of this research is the development and validation of the technical framework and system architecture rather than comprehensive usability testing.

To complement this, we included a detailed application scenario as a case study centered on collaborative urban design at KNU. This scenario integrates Cesium for Unreal Engine to stream high-resolution GIS and geospatial data, generating an accurate and immersive 3D model of the campus and its surroundings.

Review comment 21: Figures and tables are low in resolution and difficult to interpret in places.

and

Review comment 22: Tables (particularly Table 2 and Table 3) are not well formatted and lack numerical indicators.

Response: We have updated all figures and tables to improve clarity and resolution. Figures have been replaced with high-quality versions to ensure better readability. Tables 2 have been reformatted for consistency, and numerical indicators have been added to clearly present and table 3 has been represented as images

Review comment 23: There is no graphical or statistical representation of user trends or feedback.

and

Review comment 24: Survey data is presented qualitatively; quantification of preferences would enhance clarity.

and

Review comment 25: Visuals are not sufficiently annotated or explained in the figure captions.

and

Review comment 26: The discussion section reiterates previous content and lacks critical depth or comparative

Response: We acknowledge that a comprehensive system performance analysis would require detailed investigation into hardware capabilities and performance benchmarking. However, the primary focus of this research is on the development of the technical framework, its functional components, and collaborative content workflows. Future studies will include performance evaluations across different hardware setups to complement this foundational work.

Review comment 27: The study’s limitations (e.g., sample size, lack of longitudinal data) are not acknowledged.

Response: The discussion section has been completely revised to clearly present the potential applications, benefits, and implications of the proposed framework for collaborative design and AEC workflows. We acknowledge the limitations in sample size and session length and plan more comprehensive user studies with controlled variables in future research.

Review comment 28: The research contributions are vaguely stated in the conclusion.

Response: We have rewritten the research contributions section to clearly highlight the technical innovations, practical applications, and theoretical advancements introduced by this study.

Review comment 29: There is no implementation scenario or real-world case application discussed (e.g., construction site use, design education).

Response: The discussion section has been revised to highlight the framework’s applications and benefits for collaborative AEC workflows, supported by a case study on urban design using Kyungpook National University as an example.

Review comment 30: Suggestions for future work are generic (e.g., "AR, AI, 5G") without concrete research objectives.

Response: We have revised the suggestions for future work to include more specific research objectives.

Review comment 31: The manuscript contains redundant phrasing and lacks linguistic polish. Terms like “collaboration,” “real-time,” and “immersive” are repeated.

Response: We have carefully revised the manuscript to eliminate redundant phrasing and improve overall linguistic clarity. Repetitive terms such as “collaboration,” “real-time,” and “immersive” have been reduced or replaced with context-appropriate alternatives to enhance readability.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been adapted to meet an acceptable standard

Author Response

Response to reviewers

Thank you very much for your thoughtful, extensive, and in-depth review. We truly appreciate the time and care you dedicated to improving our research throughout the review process. Your insightful feedback has significantly enhanced the quality, clarity, and coherence of the manuscript. In response to your valuable suggestions, we have made substantial revisions to align the paper with the high standards expected for a publication of this caliber. We are sincerely grateful for your contribution to strengthening our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a timely and innovative study on the integration of BIM and VR technologies within virtual worlds for architectural collaboration. The concept is highly relevant in the context of the metaverse and digital transformation in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. The work attempts to bridge gaps in current BIM–VR systems by proposing a persistent, scalable, multi-user virtual environment aimed at enhancing real-time collaboration and data continuity.

The paper is well-positioned for the Special Issue “Architecture in the Digital Age” and aligns with the current discourse on immersive design technologies and digital workflows in architectural practice.

Strengths

• Topical Relevance: The subject matter is highly relevant and addresses a rapidly emerging trend in the digital design landscape.

• Integrated Framework: The development of a BIM-based Virtual World (BIM-VW) is conceptually strong and technically well-supported.

• Prototype Implementation: The inclusion of a real-world use case adds practical depth and validates the technical feasibility of the proposed approach.

• Technical Detailing: The selection and description of core technologies (e.g., Unreal Engine, EOS, Amazon S3) are clearly articulated.

• Collaborative Orientation: The focus on multi-user access, data persistence, and immersive environments is well-aligned with current industry challenges.

Points for Improvement

1. Comparative Analysis with Other Platforms
   While Unreal Engine and Datasmith are well-justified, the study would benefit from a comparative discussion of alternative platforms (e.g., Unity, Twinmotion) to contextualize the technological choices.

2. Tabular and Visual Data Representation
   Some figures and tables (e.g., Table 2 and Table 3) could be enhanced with clearer formatting and numerical data to improve interpretability. Figure captions may also benefit from more descriptive annotations.

3. User Evaluation Scope
   The user testing is somewhat limited in terms of sample size and session duration. Although this is acknowledged in the manuscript, future versions may include more structured feedback or statistical visualization of user interaction trends.

4. Security and Data Management
   The discussion on data security, user authentication, and platform stability could be expanded. These are key factors in the scalability and institutional adoption of metaverse-based collaborative platforms.

5. Performance Metrics
   While the paper focuses on the conceptual and technical framework, basic system performance indicators such as latency, frame rate, or cloud-based synchronization metrics would strengthen the technical validation of the platform.

Author Response

Response to reviewers

Thank you very much for your thoughtful, extensive, and in-depth review. We truly appreciate the time and care you dedicated to improving our research throughout the review process. Your insightful feedback has significantly enhanced the quality, clarity, and coherence of the manuscript. In response to your valuable suggestions, we have made substantial revisions to align the paper with the high standards expected for a publication of this caliber. We are sincerely grateful for your contribution to strengthening our work.

Reviewer comment 1: Strengths

Topical Relevance: The subject matter is highly relevant and addresses a rapidly emerging trend in the digital design landscape.

Integrated Framework: The development of a BIM-based Virtual World (BIM-VW) is conceptually strong and technically well-supported.

Prototype Implementation: The inclusion of a real-world use case adds practical depth and validates the technical feasibility of the proposed approach.

Technical Detailing: The selection and description of core technologies (e.g., Unreal Engine, EOS, Amazon S3) are clearly articulated.

Collaborative Orientation: The focus on multi-user access, data persistence, and immersive environments is well-aligned with current industry challenges.

Response to Reviewer Comment 1:

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the relevance and innovation of our work in integrating BIM and VR technologies within a persistent virtual world for architectural collaboration. Your acknowledgment of the topical relevance, technical soundness, and practical implementation of our proposed framework is both motivating and reassuring.

We are especially grateful for your recognition of the alignment between our research and the goals of the Special Issue “Architecture in the Digital Age.” Your positive assessment of the integrated framework, the clarity in our technical description, and the inclusion of a real-world use case strengthens our confidence in the value of this contribution to the AEC community.

In response to your review and to further improve the manuscript, we have carefully revised the paper to enhance its clarity, coherence, and alignment with the high standards of this publication. Thank you again for your invaluable input and support throughout the review process.

 

 

Reviewer comment 2: Points for Improvement

Comparative Analysis with Other Platforms

While Unreal Engine and Datasmith are well-justified, the study would benefit from a comparative discussion of alternative platforms (e.g., Unity, Twinmotion) to contextualize the technological choices.

Tabular and Visual Data Representation

Some figures and tables (e.g., Table 2 and Table 3) could be enhanced with clearer formatting and numerical data to improve interpretability. Figure captions may also benefit from more descriptive annotations.

User Evaluation Scope

The user testing is somewhat limited in terms of sample size and session duration. Although this is acknowledged in the manuscript, future versions may include more structured feedback or statistical visualization of user interaction trends.

Security and Data Management

The discussion on data security, user authentication, and platform stability could be expanded. These are key factors in the scalability and institutional adoption of metaverse-based collaborative platforms.

Performance Metrics

While the paper focuses on the conceptual and technical framework, basic system performance indicators such as latency, frame rate, or cloud-based synchronization metrics would strengthen the technical validation of the platform.

Response to Reviewer Comment 2:

Comparative Analysis with Other Platforms

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We fully acknowledge the importance of comparative analysis in highlighting the relative strengths and limitations of different tools. However, in this study, our primary focus is on the development process and system architecture of the proposed BIM-based Virtual World (BIM-VW), rather than establishing a direct comparison between platforms.

A detailed comparative analysis tends to position one tool over another, which may shift the emphasis away from our intended contribution—namely, providing a replicable and adaptable framework for integrating BIM with immersive technologies. By outlining the technical workflow and implementation using both Unreal Engine and Unity 3D, we aim to offer a foundation upon which future researchers and practitioners can assess, extend, or tailor these tools based on their specific needs or project contexts.

That said, we believe our presented methodology provides enough technical depth and transparency to support future comparative studies, and we encourage such investigations as valuable next steps in advancing BIM–VR integration in metaverse applications.

That said, based on your suggestion, we have clarified our rationale for selecting Unreal Engine over Twinmotion and Unity 3D. These justifications have been added and elaborated in lines 402–428 and 479–486 of the revised manuscript to enhance transparency regarding our technical choices.

Tabular and Visual Data Representation

Thank you for your feedback regarding the clarity and formatting of the tables. In response, we have made several improvements to enhance the interpretability and presentation of our data.

Specifically, Table 1 and Table 3 have been replaced with Figures 11 and 12 (a), (b), and (c). These visualizations were introduced to present the same essential information in a more intuitive and accessible format, addressing the need for improved clarity and visual comprehension.

Additionally, Table 2 has been revised with improved formatting and the inclusion of numerical data to better support interpretation. We have also updated the title to be more descriptive, ensuring that its content is immediately clear to readers.

User Evaluation Scope

Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that the current user testing phase is limited in terms of sample size and session duration. As noted in the manuscript, this initial evaluation was intended as a proof of concept to validate the technical feasibility and collaborative functionality of the proposed BIM-VW environment.

Security and Data Management and Performance Metrics
Based on your valuable suggestion, we have revised the manuscript to include additional detail regarding the system metrics used during evaluation. These additions are now presented in lines 668 to 674, offering greater transparency into the testing process and system usage data.

Furthermore, to address the broader implications of deploying such environments in real-world applications, we have also introduced a preliminary discussion on potential security considerations within metaverse-based collaborative platforms. This conceptual framing is included in lines 716 to 732 and is intended as a foundation for future research on secure multi-user interaction in immersive AEC workflows.