Big Data Technology in Construction Safety Management: Application Status, Trend and Challenge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review comment

This manuscript reports on Big data technology in construction safety management from application status, trend, and challenge. The authors have used a systematic literature review approach to demonstrate the current state of research on big data technology fueling construction safety management. This is a relevant topic of continuous discussion within the construction industry. The subject is topical and aligns with the constituent theme of Buildings. Though the manuscript's topic is appropriate, the overall quality of the paper needs significant improvement to bring it to the standard of a Q1 article. So, having gone through this manuscript thoroughly. I have serious concerns with the research methodology, result analysis, and manuscript originality. I propose that the manuscript be declined or be subject to a revise and resubmit.

Abstract.

• Line 13 – 19: The sentence is too long. Keep it short for clarity.

Introduction:

Some categorical statements require citations (see below). It would help if you had references to back up your argument.

• Line 39: please Include references
• Line 40: Also include reference

Research methodology

This section will require some significant work. Comments below:

• Line 124-125: Rephrase the sentence. 'September 2021' appeared twice in the sentence.
• Why have the authors limited their search to only WoS and Google scholar? This needs to be justified.
• Line 159: The authors have to clearly explain how they arrived at 64 papers. Perhaps a table or figure would be helpful to show the step-by-step process from the initial search, screening, eligibility, and final included articles.
• Were conference papers included in the final identified papers (64)
• There is no clear indication of the year under investigation. This should be made clear a the beginning of the research methodology section. With clear justification as to why this is considered.
• I can not see the relevance of Table 3. Maybe beter presented using bar chart.

Overview of Big Data technologies

• Line 216 and 217: Please rewrite the sentences. Both sentences started with 'In recent years
• This section reads more like a literature review. It is meant to present your result from the 64 final articles. A systematic review uses typically quantitative methods to synthesize and summarize the results. I suggest that the results should be presented using figures and tables etc. This section requires significant rework.

Conclusion section

• This section needs to be revised once other corrections have been made. This section should be able to answer the ‘So What’ question.
• The research implications should be presented.
• It will be helpful for the authors to explain the research's limitations in a separate section.

General comments

• The manuscript will benefit from professional proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally, a good research paper is presented on an interesting topic area and the work has been reasonably well written. Constructive comments and suggestions for improvement are:

1. the text could be tighter so try to go carefully through a revision and take out any superfluous wording.
2. The methodology is the major area of revision - namely, state the interpretavist philosophical stance and inductive reasoning adopted. At present elements, epistemology is largely missing from this work. 
3.  In the discussion, far more explicit reference should be given to the practical and theoretical implications of this work and the limitations and directions for future work should be stated more strongly than they presently are.
4. After an in-depth analysis of literature presented, the conclusions seem rather brief. Please expand. 

Overall, a good paper and worthy of publication.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf