A Systematic Review of Current Strategies and Methods for BIM Implementation in the Academic Field

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper on BIM. The first question I raised to myself when reviewing this paper was "why is it needed?" What is the underlying research question? Any systematic review MUST be underpinned by a need and research question. However, this paper is more akin to a catalogue of research rather than a critical review. I do not believe the work makes a contribution - no new insights and directions for future research are presented.

A review paper, in my opinion, should take a comprehensive overview of a subject, bring together the material and come to some interesting conclusions. All the authors have done is summarise!

There are four main elements that I look for in a review:

1) The review should be authoritative, critical and add value to the literature;
2) The paper should primarily be a review, and it can use case study material from experience at the international, country or city levels. The conclusions should relate to the review elements of the paper and not the case study;
3) In all cases, the discussion must be in the context of the relevant peer-reviewed literature, and as relevant, the grey literature. More general conclusions should be drawn so that the paper is of interest to a wide range of readers; and
4) The review should be interesting, readable, up to date and be written in such a way that it will provide valuable insights and encourage discussion and debate.

Unfortunately, the paper does not tick any of the above boxes. I can understand that my review may appear to frustrate the author(s). 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

My sincere appreciation for your comments and suggestions, as well as your dedicated time to revise the article. In the following document you will be able to find the answer for each of the points made.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper on BIM. The first question I raised to myself when reviewing this paper was "why is it needed?" What is the underlying research question? Any systematic review MUST be underpinned by a need and research question. However, this paper is more akin to a catalogue of research rather than a critical review. I do not believe the work makes a contribution - no new insights and directions for future research are presented.

Dear reviewer. Thanks for your comments. Certainly the previous version had some problems in its structure and content. We have changed the introduction and approach in order to clarify the needs of the study, the research questions (now clearly defined), and the discussion section with a clearer scientific and critical review. The aim of the contribution has been deepened and its scope and limitations have been presented.

A review paper, in my opinion, should take a comprehensive overview of a subject, bring together the material and come to some interesting conclusions. All the authors have done is summarise!

There are four main elements that I look for in a review:

1) The review should be authoritative, critical and add value to the literature;
2) The paper should primarily be a review, and it can use case study material from experience at the international, country or city levels. The conclusions should relate to the review elements of the paper and not the case study;
3) In all cases, the discussion must be in the context of the relevant peer-reviewed literature, and as relevant, the grey literature. More general conclusions should be drawn so that the paper is of interest to a wide range of readers; and
4) The review should be interesting, readable, up to date and be written in such a way that it will provide valuable insights and encourage discussion and debate.

Thanks again for your valuable comments. As we have commented, the table of contents and discussion have been revised and rewritten, and the final conclusions have been arranged. An attempt has been made to go deeper into the topics that required a more critical view in order to explain the added value of the study. The writing of the article has been modified to clarify the relationship between the discussion, the conclusions and the review elements of the study.

Unfortunately, the paper does not tick any of the above boxes. I can understand that my review may appear to frustrate the author(s). 

Dear reviewer, We think that the idea of a review is to have an external point of view that can improve the paper. We have developed the research taking into account some issues that we have identified in our country and based on our experience, and as you have identified, some improvements more deep, scientific, related, and critical were needed for the next step of the study. Thanks for your time, and we hope you like the new version. Best.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Examining the way in which the BIM method is taught in higher education institutions is an important issue and has significant implications for industry. However, in order to emphasize the contribution of the article, and for the purpose of understanding its usefulness, authors are advised to refer to the following comments.

1. General comments

Corrections are required regarding grammar, and the editing of sentences. It is important to use the right words for accurate presentation. If the text is improved, the message you intend to convey will be much clearer and more understandable. Some examples that require appropriate consideration are presented below.

1. General comments

1. The title. It is not clear from the title which presentation the authors are referring to. The title should be unified and understandable. It is recommended that authors formulate the title accurately.
2. Subtitle. The subheading cannot be a continuation of the title. Authors are advised to formulate a unified and meaningful title.
3. Abstract. The meaning of the acronym for the term "BIM" should be presented.
4. Abstract. "This article focuses on analyzing what and how AEC (Architecture, Engineering and Construction) degrees are doing to develop BIM implementations in university educational settings." - The sentence is not understood. It should be corrected for further understanding.
5. Introduction and Background, lines 47-50. "However, it is also necessary to reflect…" - The sentence is not understood. It should be corrected for further understanding.
6. Results. A subsection was presented as "results" within an entire chapter called "results". The title should be reworded for proper distinction.

2. Specific comments

2.1. Abstract.

1. The use of the word "required" is not understood. It is important to explain who required and where it was required.
2. The abstract should explain the purpose of the study and its importance. It is advisable to rephrase it to emphasize the contribution of the research conducted.

2.2 Introduction and Background.

1. The authors note that companies maintain certain standards when it comes to implementing BIM, but universities offer different proposals without cooperating with each other, which slows down and delays the process, makes it less efficient, and also does not achieve the desired results. It is not clear why BIM application standards are compared to educational guidelines. It is not clear which companies, where, which standards, which universities, why they are required to cooperate with each other and how this affects the industry. What are the references that they do not achieve their purpose?
2. The authors also state standards in relation to universities and emphasize that their consolidation is required but do not explain what standards are involved and why consolidation is required. It is important to explain the various arguments that the authors use for further understanding.
3. The authors emphasize the architects and technical architects as important to the process but it is not clear the distinction between them and what is this process. The sentence must be worded accurately for further understanding.
4. The authors emphasize the change in education but do not explain how it is done. The sentence should be reworded for more understanding.
5. The question the paper is trying to answer was not presented in detail. A comprehensive background must be presented to understand the question. It is necessary to explain how the authors try to answer it and why it is important. It is required to detail how this paper differs from articles that have dealt with it.

2.3 Materials and Methods

1. It is required to explain the methods used and why they were chosen.
2. The aims of the study are not clear and do not relate to the extensive literature in the field. These goals should be given already at the introductory stage.
3. The presentation of the research method should include the type of institutions in relation to which the literature review is conducted, as there are differences in terms of the training, content and practices accepted in the various industries.

2.4 Results

1. The authors indicate only in the results stage that their purpose is to implement methodologies in Spain. This purpose is not mentioned in the introduction and requires details both in relation to the teaching method in Spain and in relation to the requirements of industry in Spain.
2. The authors present a classification table that includes summaries of articles selected for presentation. It is not clear how it promotes their review in terms of concepts that are important for authors to inspect.

2.5 Discussion

1. It is necessary to present the results clearly according to basic concepts presented in advance in order to understand their meaning.
2. It is important to present the results in relation to other studies in the field.

2.6 Conclusions

1. A distinction must be made between standards for the use of BIM and curricula, which are broader and serve other purposes. If the authors want to compare them it is important that they explain why they chose to do so.
2. It is important to note the limitations of the study presented.
3. It is advisable to present the added value of the study, how the main questions in it were answered, and what else needs to be done to complete it.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

My sincere appreciation for your comments and suggestions, as well as your dedicated time to revise the article. In the following document you will be able to find the answer for each of the points made.

Examining the way in which the BIM method is taught in higher education institutions is an important issue and has significant implications for industry. However, in order to emphasize the contribution of the article, and for the purpose of understanding its usefulness, authors are advised to refer to the following comments.

1. General comments

Corrections are required regarding grammar, and the editing of sentences. It is important to use the right words for accurate presentation. If the text is improved, the message you intend to convey will be much clearer and more understandable. Some examples that require appropriate consideration are presented below.

Dear reviewer, we have improved all the paper with new text, and new type of explanations. Our idea is, if it is necessary, in the next step and prior to the publication, to send the paper to an English Proof. Editing service.

1. General comments

1. The title. It is not clear from the title which presentation the authors are referring to. The title should be unified and understandable. It is recommended that authors formulate the title accurately.

Indeed, it was not clear and has been revised and modified to detail the subject.

2. The subheading cannot be a continuation of the title. Authors are advised to formulate a unified and meaningful title.

The wording that this comment is referencing has been modified.

1. Abstract. The meaning of the acronym for the term "BIM" should be presented.

The acronym has been presented for the first time, both in the Abstract and in the Introduction sections.

1. Abstract. "This article focuses on analyzing what and how AEC (Architecture, Engineering and Construction) degrees are doing to develop BIM implementations in university educational settings." - The sentence is not understood. It should be corrected for further understanding.

In order to not create confusion about the focus of the article, the abstract has been revised and rewritten to make it more understandable.

1. Introduction and Background, lines 47-50. "However, it is also necessary to reflect…" - The sentence is not understood. It should be corrected for further understanding.

The explanation and grammar of this sentence have been corrected.

6. A subsection was presented as "results" within an entire chapter called "results". The title should be reworded for proper distinction.

The subsection has been detailed for differentiation and clarification.

 

 

2. Specific comments

2.1. Abstract.

1. The use of the word "required" is not understood. It is important to explain who required and where it was required.

It has been detailed in an introductory way in the abstract and in detail in the introduction.

2. The abstract should explain the purpose of the study and its importance. It is advisable to rephrase it to emphasize the contribution of the research conducted.

The paragraph has been rewritten to make the purpose of the study clearer.

2.2 Introduction and Background.

1. The authors note that companies maintain certain standards when it comes to implementing BIM, but universities offer different proposals without cooperating with each other, which slows down and delays the process, makes it less efficient, and also does not achieve the desired results. It is not clear why BIM application standards are compared to educational guidelines. It is not clear which companies, where, which standards, which universities, why they are required to cooperate with each other and how this affects the industry. What are the references that they do not achieve their purpose?

It has been detailed in the first paragraphs of the introduction and referenced to deepen and better explain the relationship between BIM standards in industry and in education.

1. The authors also state standards in relation to universities and emphasize that their consolidation is required but do not explain what standards are involved and why consolidation is required. It is important to explain the various arguments that the authors use for further understanding.

As with the previous point, it has been described in more detail in the introduction.

3. The authors emphasize the architects and technical architects as important to the process but it is not clear the distinction between them and what is this process. The sentence must be worded accurately for further understanding.

It has been modified to clarify the agents involved and the process referred to in the article.

1. The authors emphasize the change in education but do not explain how it is done. The sentence should be reworded for more understanding.

This part of the introduction has been modified to better explain the methodological change undergone by education through technology and the exploratory research done in this study.

5. The question the paper is trying to answer was not presented in detail. A comprehensive background must be presented to understand the question. It is necessary to explain how the authors try to answer it and why it is important. It is required to detail how this paper differs from articles that have dealt with it.

This point has been further elaborated in the introduction to show the purpose and importance of the study, and the conclusions detail the difference between this study and others that have dealt with the subject.

 

2.3 Materials and Methods

1. It is required to explain the methods used and why they were chosen.

We have referenced the method in order to avoid some repetitions of text that have been previously performed.

1. The aims of the study are not clear and do not relate to the extensive literature in the field. These goals should be given already at the introductory stage.

They have been detailed in this point, as well as in the abstract and the introduction. An attempt has also been made to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria, to better explain the flow that was carried out and its purpose.

1. The presentation of the research method should include the type of institutions in relation to which the literature review is conducted, as there are differences in terms of the training, content and practices accepted in the various industries.

The first paragraph of Materials & Methods was further elaborated.

2.4 Results

1. The authors indicate only in the results stage that their purpose is to implement methodologies in Spain. This purpose is not mentioned in the introduction and requires details both in relation to the teaching method in Spain and in relation to the requirements of industry in Spain.

This point has been revised throughout the article to make it clearer.

2. The authors present a classification table that includes summaries of articles selected for presentation. It is not clear how it promotes their review in terms of concepts that are important for authors to inspect.

The explanation of each section has been better defined to clarify the concepts being pursued in the study.

2.5 Discussion

1. It is necessary to present the results clearly according to basic concepts presented in advance in order to understand their meaning.

The entire discussion section has been revised to give it more depth and coherence in relation to the research questions and has been divided into subtopics for clarification.

2. It is important to present the results in relation to other studies in the field.

This section has been arranged and referenced in greater depth.

2.6 Conclusions

1. A distinction must be made between standards for the use of BIM and curricula, which are broader and serve other purposes. If the authors want to compare them it is important that they explain why they chose to do so.

Both in the introduction and in the discussion and conclusions we have tried to clarify this comparison.

2. It is important to note the limitations of the study presented.

A paragraph has been added presenting the limitations.

1. It is advisable to present the added value of the study, how the main questions in it were answered, and what else needs to be done to complete it.

The entire section on conclusions has been modified to clarify this point.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper has considerable impact on the increased use of BIM and other related digital approaches to teaching. There are trends in the presented data that should be taken further and studied to explore direct impact of academic approaches to using BIM. 

Author Response

This paper has considerable impact on the increased use of BIM and other related digital approaches to teaching. There are trends in the presented data that should be taken further and studied to explore direct impact of academic approaches to using BIM. 

Dear reviewer,

My sincere appreciation for your comments and suggestions, as well as your dedicated time to revise the article. We have done some changes following the suggestions of the other reviewers. We hope that this new version can be published.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The impression is that the authors invested a lot of their time and energy to prepare another version of their research. Although this version is more detailed, it is still not clear what the added value of this paper is to the scientific community to which it is addressed. Moreover, the basic analogy of the paper, conducted between BIM standards and the curriculum, is not understood. Presenting a basic need and a reasoned explanation for the research are conditions for its publication. If the authors choose to fulfill this condition, it is recommended to carry out a comprehensive editorial work of English and style. Beyond that it is important to address a number of substantive comments.

1. Abstract. From the text in the introduction, the question arises as to whether the European directives demanded to certify all public works in the BIM methodology or whether this was only a recommendation. It was also not understood from the text whether institutions sought to integrate BIM as a result. The facts must be stated and a causal connection must be presented.
2. Introduction and background. A. The authors presented parts of the Spanish construction industry but, nevertheless, noted that at the European and national level the construction industry is showing increasing interest in BIM (Lines 73-74). Accuracy must be maintained and the section reformulated. B. The authors mention various publications but do not present them as a reference. Furthermore, the AGE abbreviation is used in various ways. References, explanations and proofreading are required.
3. Materials and Methods. Although the paper noted, in its abstract and introduction, the integration of BIM in institutions in Spain as a starting point for the examination, this reference does not appear in the objectives presented and there is no discussion of the relevance of the results to institutions in Spain. The objectives should be reformulated and the results examined with regard to the method used in institutions in Spain, if this is indeed the objective. This again raises the question of the need and relevance of the data.
4. Results. The authors admit that it is difficult to identify which articles are most relevant to a methodological application in Spain and therefore it is not known what the value of the data is, how a comparison is made and according to what local parameters it is conducted.
5. Discussion. The discussion does not refer to institutions in Spain as a starting point for comparison. The discussion should be in the context of the relevant data and allow important general conclusions to be drawn.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please the document attached where we have explained and clarify all the changes done following your suggestions. Thank you so much for your time and comments that help us to improve our work.

Best. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors performed a substantive revision and thorough proofreading. The rewording of the paragraph in lines 536-539, in the conclusions chapter, should be examined for further understanding. Beyond correcting this wording there are no further comments