Identifying Emerging Technologies and Skills Required for Construction 4.0
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this form, but it has a chance of acceptance after a major revision. My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1- Abstract gives information on the main feature of the performed study, but some details about the fabrication of specimens and conducted tests must be added.
2- Authors must clarify necessity of the performed review. Aims and objectives of the performed review, and also differences with the previous review papers must be clearly mentioned.
3- The literature study must be enriched. For instance, authors must read and refer to the relevant papers: (a) https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159782 (b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131614 and other research works.
4- Authors must clearly emphasized the limitations and strengths of their review.
5- Authors must add several images from reviewed papers.
6- Appropriate reference for Fig. 6 is required.
7- The conclusion must be more than just a summary of the manuscript. List of references must be updated based on the proposed papers. Please provide all changes by red color in the revised version.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the article titled “Identifying Emerging Technologies and Skills Needed for Construction 4.0”. The comments and suggested adjustments were of great contribution to improving the article.
In the attached file we provide a summary of the comments with our respective actions. All changes made are highlighted in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript conducted a state of the art review on emerging technologies and skills required for construction 4.0. Overall, this is an interesting paper, and the structure was well organised. I suggest it can be accepted for publication in Buildings, after the following comments being well addressed.
1 The title is clear and concise. However, the abstract could provide a bit more detail about the specific objectives and key findings of the paper.
2 Consider providing more context for each identified technology and skill, explaining why they are important in Construction 4.0.
3. More future research should be included in conclusion part.
Good
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the article titled “Identifying Emerging Technologies and Skills Needed for Construction 4.0”. The comments and suggested adjustments were of great contribution to improving the article.
In the attached file we provide a summary of the comments with our respective actions. All changes made are highlighted in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper analyses, through a literature review, new technologies and professional skills needed in the construction 4.0 context.
The abstract clearly explains the knowledge base scenario, the research questions, and the results presented in the paper.
References are complete and up-to-date. Two self citations can be found [93, 94] and are not useful for the paper final result. Please try to consider whether to keep them in the text.
On line 143 "terms related to skill and competencies" are mentioned. How are these selected/chosen? Are these the 46 mentioned on line 167?
Why are book and book chapters excluded, while conferences proceedings are used (lines 165-166)? Better explain the references choices.
Which are the 46 terms identified (line 167)? Are these related to the 46 different technology-related terms on line 194?
On line 459 'Figure 5' is mentioned. Maybe you meant 'Figure 6'? Double check table and figures references.
Le final part of the section '5. Conclusions' is quite summarized. Please better explain your final point of view based on the review with its limitations and possible future implementations.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing the article titled “Identifying Emerging Technologies and Skills Needed for Construction 4.0”. The comments and suggested adjustments were of great contribution to improving the article.
In the attached file we provide a summary of the comments with our respective actions. All changes made are highlighted in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved and corresponding modifications have been conducted. In my opinion, the current version can be considered for publication.
Minor editing of English language required.
