Assessing the COVID-19 Impact of Projects under Construction with Monte Carlo Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper that has the potential to contribute to the body of knowledge on the subject. The authors should consider the following:

1.       Title: The title does not reflect the content of the paper. This needs to be revised.

2.       The abstract should acknowledge existing research on the impact of Covid on the construction industry and in light of this specify the research gap that their study addresses.

3.       Introduction: In lines 37-40, the authors refer to existing literature and research. This needs to be cited here. It would be useful if the authors develop this paragraph further to clarify the research gap.

4.       Section 2.3. This is an important section where the research gap is addressed. While an argument is put forward for the current research, this needs to be developed further to clearly demonstrate the need for a study “to quantify the impact of the epidemic on the construction industry, the risk of delaying project schedule and increasing costs, the degree of impact on schedule and cost, and the probability of occurrence”. In addition, the aim seems to be multifaceted. It would be useful if the authors indicated an overarching aim that captures the different aspects of the research instead of indicating all the issues here.

5.       Expert interviews: A discussion on the sampling approach needs to be included. In addition, a comment on the adequacy of the sample size should also be indicated.

6.       Analysis of Interview data: The authors should describe the approach taken to analyse the qualitative data.

 

7.       Questionnaire distribution and collection: A discussion on the sampling approach needs to be included. In addition, a comment on the adequacy of the sample size should also be indicated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Some grammatical errors and typos throughout the manuscript. One more round of editing is needed (i.e., lines 118, 130, etc.)

Most of the literature review is based on studies focusing on the impact of the pandemic in Asia. As an international journal and due to a title and introduction that appears to generalize to a wider range of countries and continents, I recommend including references and analysis from other parts of the world.

What is MRT? The first time mentioned is on Line 134, with no prior explanation of the abbreviation.

The first time we read about the resources/experts concept used in this study is in Table 1, where we see A, B, C, etc. What are these letters, who are they, etc., needs to be explained before Table 1, or the table needs to be edited or moved to after such explanations in Section 3. The note at the bottom of Table 1 is helpful but confusing at the same time. Why not use et al. for references with multiple authors, and why use A, B, C, ... letters when these references are already numbered in the references list? I recommend switching letters to the corresponding numbers in the references list.

The demographics of neither the six experts nor the questionnaire respondents are sufficiently described. It sounds like such information was collected but not shared in the study. The readers need to know more about the expert and other subjects' demographics and how they were selected.

There are some clarity issues in the case study. For example, section 3.6.1 states that the "budget" was 101,989,707. However, in the results section (line 345), it states that the project was completed for that same amount which would mean that the project was on budget, which is clear that was not the case. Please clarify.

Please add limitations of your study and future research recommendations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The athours have made appropriate corrections