Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents the results of a literature review examining the barriers to safety performance in the construction industry, with a focus on developing nations, and presents a range of possible solutions towards overcoming those barriers.

Introduction

The paper has a very detailed introduction section. This section could benefit from a reduction in size and scope, as there appears to be some repetition between the themes of the introduction and the "results" of the literature review. Perhaps the introduction could more briefly set out the scope, and they the categories of barriers emerge in the results section.

Method

There is no detail in the methods section as to how the literature was searched, evaluated, or chosen for the analysis. There is mention of "screening and reviewing", but no description of what this actually entailed. To this end, the paper could be criticised for being methodologically flawed. I would recommend that the authors describe in more detail their literature review methodology, referring to established protocols for literature review. This topic would indeed lend itself to a systematic review methodology.

Results and Conclusions

The results are detailed, but often self-evident, and seems on occasion to repeat much of what has already been stated in the introduction. The results highlight those factors that appear frequently in the literature searched. However, does this metric actually reflect how important these factors might be, or which might be the most important to address based on return on investment and ability to be addressed in context? I would recommend the authors adopt a more rigorous framework for ranking potential barriers and solutions, beyond simply how frequently they are mentioned.

There is also no links described between the "popular" barriers and the recommendations made. How were these recommendations generated? If they do not clearly map onto the results of the research, then how can they be scientifically defended? Is there any evidence form the research undertaken that these recommendations will yield enhanced safety? The links need to be more clear.

Author Response

The followings are the specific responses to the comments from reviewers.

 

Response: All the concerns have been noted and worked upon

COMMENTS

 Reviewer 1:

• The paper presents the results of a literature review examining the barriers to safety performance in the construction industry, with a focus on developing nations, and presents a range of possible solutions towards overcoming those barriers.
• Introduction

The paper has a very detailed introduction section. This section could benefit from a reduction in size and scope, as there appears to be some repetition between the themes of the introduction and the "results" of the literature review. Perhaps the introduction could more briefly set out the scope, and they the categories of barriers emerge in the results section.

Thanks for your comment. We removed the repetition which happened in the introduction and results and try to briefly set out the introduction.

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

• Method

There is no detail in the methods section as to how the literature was searched, evaluated, or chosen for the analysis. There is mention of "screening and reviewing", but no description of what this actually entailed. To this end, the paper could be criticised for being methodologically flawed. I would recommend that the authors describe in more detail their literature review methodology, referring to established protocols for literature review. This topic would indeed lend itself to a systematic review methodology.

Thanks for your comment. The method which was used in this manuscript was clarified more you can see that at method section in the revised manuscript.

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

• Results and Conclusions

The results are detailed, but often self-evident, and seems on occasion to repeat much of what has already been stated in the introduction. The results highlight those factors that appear frequently in the literature searched. However, does this metric actually reflect how important these factors might be, or which might be the most important to address based on return on investment and ability to be addressed in context? I would recommend the authors adopt a more rigorous framework for ranking potential barriers and solutions, beyond simply how frequently they are mentioned.

There is also no links described between the "popular" barriers and the recommendations made. How were these recommendations generated? If they do not clearly map onto the results of the research, then how can they be scientifically defended? Is there any evidence form the research undertaken that these recommendations will yield enhanced safety? The links need to be more clear.

Thanks for your comment. The abstract and the title of manuscript were changed to be clearer. Also, we want to confirm that’s the objective of the study is to identify and classifying the barriers that hinder the implementation of safety in projects and illustrate ways to improve safety performance in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry. For that you can see 64 general safety barriers in manuscript that classified to 12 Behavior Barriers, 29 Management Barriers, 10 Awareness Barriers, 13 Culture Barriers and ways to improve safety performance. The ways were found in the sources which were reviewed during the extract the barriers and it were as recommendations for that under each of way there is clarification about it and the reader or searcher in future studies can made a correlation between them and specific barriers.

As added value depending on the number of sources beside the identification and classification of the barriers, we try to rank these barriers for more benefit but this was not the objective of this study.

The manuscript mainly talks about Safety Barriers identification, classification and ways to improve safety performance in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry were recommendations based on previous studies which we have mentioned it in the manuscript for that the evidence of the impact of these ways on safety environment was based on the previous studies mentioned under each way.

 

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

 

The manuscript has been extensively revised to improve the overall quality and at same time to take into consideration the comments and criticisms from the reviewer.

---------------------------------------------------

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you authors for the interesting manuscript with a title "Safety Barriers and ways to overcome them, in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry: Review Study". Several comments for the improvements of the manuscript are follow:

1. In the manuscript the presented barriers are focus on social aspects; This focus can be mentioned in the manuscript;
2. The title can be more representing the social aspects where are analysed in the manuscript;
3. The barriers and drivers can be presented with a development of safe environment for AEC industry;
4. In the manuscript the newly literature source (from 2021 year) can by presented in literature analysis and reference list;
5. The sustainability aspect must by mentioned in the manuscript;

Reviewer

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

• Thank you, authors, for the interesting manuscript with a title "Safety Barriers and ways to overcome them, in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry: Review Study". Several comments for the improvements of the manuscript are follow:

 

• In the manuscript the presented barriers are focus on social aspects; This focus can be mentioned in the manuscript;

Thanks for your comment. The manuscript talks about 4 categories of barriers: Management barriers, Culture barriers, Awareness barriers, Behavior barriers and ways to overcome on it. Mainly as you said social aspects for that we have confirmed on that in abstract of manuscript.

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

• The title can be more representing the social aspects where are analyzed in the manuscript;

Thanks for your comment. The manuscript talks about 4 categories of barriers: Management barriers, Culture barriers, Awareness barriers, Behavior barriers and ways to overcome on it. The title of the manuscript was changed to be clearer and reflecting the content of the manuscript.

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

• The barriers and drivers can be presented with a development of safe environment for AEC industry;

Thanks for your comment. We have confirmed that in abstract of manuscript

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

• In the manuscript the newly literature source (from 2021 year) can by presented in literature analysis and reference list;

Thanks for your comment. New sources 2021 were added to the revised manuscript

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

 

• The sustainability aspect must by mentioned in the manuscript

Thanks for your comment. We have confirmed on that in abstract of manuscript

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript.

 

The manuscript has been extensively revised to improve the overall quality and at same time to take into consideration the comments and criticisms from the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing the suggestions from the initial review. There is still considerable work to be done with respect to English language editorial matters, but the journal editors should assist in this regard.

Author Response

Date:	1 March. 2021
To:	Dear   Reviewers  Sustainability Journal  Reference#: sustainability-1100561
Subject:	Detailed Responses to Comments/Criticisms from Reviewers
Manuscript Title	Submission Title: Safety Barriers identification, classification and ways to improve safety performance in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry: Review Study
Dear      Reviewers     Sustainability Journal     Thank you for sending through the reviewer’s reports. The authors greatly appreciate the constructive comments by the reviewers in order to improve the manuscript. The manuscript has been extensively revised to improve the overall quality and at same time to take into consideration the comments and criticisms from the reviewers. We would like to thank the reviewers who spent time to review our manuscript and found it sound and interesting.   Please consider our paper for possible publication in your esteemed journal.         Sincerely yours,

The followings are the specific responses to the comments from reviewers.

 

Response: All the concerns have been noted and worked upon

COMMENTS

 Reviewer 1:

• Thank you for addressing the suggestions from the initial review. There is still considerable work to be done with respect to English language editorial matters, but the journal editors should assist in this regard.

This Comment has been considered see the revised manuscript with track changes.

The manuscript has been extensively revised to improve the overall quality and at same time to take into consideration the comments and criticisms from the reviewer.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc