Value Creation with Project Risk Management: A Holistic Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper is well written, and systematically studies the problem of project risk management from the perspective of value creation, but there are the following problems : 1. Abstract: The purpose and significance of the study need to be modified. The results should be more detailed. 2. The order of the key words should be adjusted for the third and fourth exchange. 3. In Section 2.2, the title should be revised as this section focuses on project risk management methods 4. Section 4 is also background introduction. Should it be placed in Section 2 ?

Comments on the Quality of English Language Use more accurate language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors ahve used SLR approach while they did not reflect PRSIMA diagram in the manuscript. 

The authors must mention the sources of the exisitng studies used in the analysis and they shall add it  in the methdology section.

Limitaions and future directions must be given in the manuscript as a separate section.

The authors have also used content analysis while PRIMA has its own method of analysis, further, if such type of study is not condcuted before, authors must got register this title from PRISMA.

Authors must include most recent studies and cite them properly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need adequate prooreading

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written, contains a lot of interesting information, but it completely lacks the practical part. 

That's why I proposed to the author the introduction of a Case study to show the practical usefulness of scientific analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the topic chosen for your article seems really interesting. It is therefore potentially publishable in this journal but, I think it requires a little further effort to make it truly appealing. In some passages of your manuscript I suggest to simplify the text to facilitate the reading. For example, when you resort to excessive use of bullet points within the manuscript. In my opinion, they could be eliminated somewhere by transforming everything into a linear and fluid discussion. This would certainly help the reading of the manuscript. Furthermore, you must rethink all the figures in the manuscript, as they are illegible.

Please find below some suggestions that I hope will help to improve your work:

you must add the email address of all authors;

please check the editing of the manuscript, especially the spaces;

correct the bibliographical references inserted in the text. For example, line 111: “according to [46–48]” must be “according to Andersen (2016) [46], Kenis et al. (2009) [47] and Packendorff (1995) [48]”. This applies whenever reference is made to an author. Please check the text and always apply;

line 136: perhaps the “(1)” should be eliminated and the numbering after “phases” should start from 1. Please check;

in my opinion the numbering of paragraph 5 should be revised. For example, 5.1.1-5.1.4 could be used to highlight the answers to the research questions and 5.2 to highlight the discrepancies in the results present in the literature. Please check;

is it really necessary to use blue in figure 5? Please check;

finally, again in my opinion, greater emphasis should be given to the various aspects present in the literature. Specifically, the different problems faced and resolved by the different authors should be highlighted more (in this regard, for example, an analysis of their presence in the various articles over time could help. In summary, if at a certain point these disappear it means that on these aspects there is nothing more to say and that there is a certain sharing of views on the part of the same authors who address this topic). The same should be done for the issues that are still debated by the authors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing in English is quite good but, in some passages the text could be simplified. Try to write in simple, concise English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf