Fuzzy Multi-Mode Time–Cost–Quality Trade-Off Optimization in Construction Management of Hydraulic Structure Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, authors propose the two new piecewise functions, a double exponential function, and a quadratic function, and then establish a fuzzy multi mode discrete time-cost-quality tradeoff concept for water conservation projects, to simulate the relationship between a project's construction quality and its limit time. This model finds the best solution to an NP-hard problem using the Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO).

The results are technically sound but I have some minor suggestions and comments which I believe will be helpful to improve the organization of the manuscript.

1. The manuscript needs a good introduction, the introduction section of the manuscript is weak, authors are advised to improvise the introduction section.
2. Please write your contributions and organization of the paper separately in the Introduction as subsections.
3. The English language needs to be improved significantly.
4. Revise the conclusion section by adding your major findings of the study.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. Comment from Reviewer 1: the manuscript needs a good introduction, the introduction section of the manuscript is weak, authors are advised to improvise the introduction section.

Authors’ reply: Respected Reviewer 1 thank you very much for your valuable suggestions which made a huge improvement in our research paper.

We agree with you and have incorporated your suggestions throughout the introduction section. After carefully reading your comment, the related section has been reviewed and reorganized, and new details have been added to emphasize your points.

2. Comment from Reviewer 1: Please write your contributions and organization of the paper separately in the Introduction as subsections.

Authors’ reply: thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected.

3. Comment from Reviewer 1: The English language needs to be improved significantly.

Authors’ reply: thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing language errors, which we have now corrected.

4. Comment from Reviewer 1: Revise the conclusion section by adding your major findings of the study.

Authors’ reply: thank you very much for your valuable suggestions which made a huge improvement in our research paper.

We agree with you and have incorporated your suggestions throughout the conclusion section. After carefully reading your comment, the related section has been reviewed and reorganized, new details, and major findings of the study have been added to emphasize your points.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research topic of this paper is interesting, and it is clear that the authors have put forth significant effort to develop this research work; however, 

·       The paper does not fill any existing research gaps (as far as the reviewer can tell) nor does it contribute to the body of knowledge or body of practice.

·       The introduction lacks sufficient context and does not include all relevant references.

·       The research methodology is neither adequately justified nor well designed.

·       The manuscript requires extensive English language editing.

Other comments:

·       The title of the paper is not accurate; rather, it is broad and unsupported by the content of the paper. The authors should change the title to reflect the exact content of the paper.

·       Line 21:  “In an uncertain environment, it is difficult to consider the tradeoff between competing objectives in a water conservation project.” Why is it difficult to consider all the competing objectives in an uncertain environment?

·       The paper contains some inaccurate statements, such as in line 54: “In general, accelerating the construction schedule can shorten the project duration but increase the project cost by reducing project quality.”

 

·       The citations should be listed in either alphabetical or chronological order. Line 67, for example: “(Golpîra, Sadeghi, & Khan, 2021; Ballesteros-Perez, Elamrousy, & González-Cruz, 2019; Abdel-Basset, Ali, & Atef, 2020; Ammar, 2011; Khang & Myint, 1999).”

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Comment from Reviewer 2 observing that the paper does not fill any existing research gaps (as far as the reviewer can tell) nor does it contribute to the body of knowledge or body of practice.

Authors' response: Esteemed Reviewer 2, while we appreciate your feedback, we respectfully disagree. We think this study makes a valuable contribution and introduces a new (in water conservancy projects) approach and improve some previous results related to the problem. In addition, the proposed model finds the best solution to an NP-hard problem using the Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO).

2. Comment from Reviewer 2 witnessing that the introduction lacks sufficient context and does not include all relevant references.

Authors’ response: Thank you esteemed Reviewer 2!

We found your comment extremely helpful and we have completely rewritten the introduction section as you suggested. This may be verified throughout the track changes and comments carried out in the manuscript.

3. Comment from Reviewer 2 stating that the research methodology is neither adequately justified nor well designed.

Authors' response: Honored Reviewer 2, we are grateful to know that our current approach requires some rethinking. Unfortunately, your point differs, from our aim. We share our idea and know which methodology is suitable to best describe it.

4. Comment from Reviewer 2 affirming the manuscript requires extensive English language editing.

Authors’ response: Admired Reviewer 2, thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing language errors, which we have now corrected.

5. Comment from Reviewer 2: the title of the paper is not accurate; rather, it is broad and unsupported by the content of the paper. The authors should change the title to reflect the exact content of the paper.

Authors’ response: Esteemed Reviewer 3, thank you for pointing this out. We think this is an excellent suggestion, and we have completely rewritten the title of the paper as you suggested. It is now precise and concise.

6. Comment from Reviewer 2: Line 21: “In an uncertain environment, it is difficult to consider the tradeoff between competing objectives in a water conservation project.” Why is it difficult to consider all the competing objectives in an uncertain environment?

Authors’ response: Respected Reviewer 2, thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected. After carefully rereading our paper, we have rewritten this sentence as: “Considering the tradeoff between conflicting objectives in a water conservancy project in uncertain environment is a difficult task”. This may be verified throughout the track changes and comments carried out in the manuscript.

7. Comment from Reviewer 2: The paper contains some inaccurate statements, such as in line 54: “In general, accelerating the construction schedule can shorten the project duration but increase the project cost by reducing project quality.”

Authors’ response: Esteemed Reviewer 2, thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected because the introduction section has been rewritten.

8. Comment from Reviewer 2: The citations should be listed in either alphabetical or chronological order. Line 67, for example: “(Golpîra, Sadeghi, & Khan, 2021; Ballesteros-Perez, Elamrousy, & González-Cruz, 2019; Abdel-Basset, Ali, & Atef, 2020; Ammar, 2011; Khang & Myint, 1999).”

Authors’ response: Honored Reviewer 2, thanks to kindly refer to the references list section where your comment is applicable not within the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors study the water conservation construction project management problem. The paper is well motivated. The authors introduce a new (in this area) approach and improve some previous results related to the problem. The paper is well written. I recommend the paper for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The authors study the water conservation construction project management problem. The paper is well motivated. The authors introduce a new (in this area) approach and improve some previous results related to the problem. The paper is well written. I recommend the paper for publication.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much!

Esteemed Reviewer 3, we appreciate your insightful comments on our manuscript. We found your comment extremely helpful and have revised the introduction section accordingly. This may be verified throughout the track changes and comments carried out in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

(1) The reviewer stated in the previous review that the paper does not fill any existing research gaps (as far as the reviewer can tell) nor does it contribute to the body of knowledge or body of practice; however, the authors did not adequately and sufficiently address and respond to this comment. If the authors believe the paper has some contributions, they should discuss these clearly in the manuscript. The authors should explain the gaps in prior relevant research, and then state the objectives that bridge the research gaps, as well as the contributions of the paper to the body of knowledge and body of practice.

 (2) Also, the reviewer indicated in the prior review that the research methodology is neither adequately justified nor well designed; nevertheless, the authors did not sufficiently answer or address this point. The authors should improve the methodology section and justify their choice of each technique and analytical method in the methodology. The reviewer also suggests creating and including a methodology flow chart figure in the manuscript.

(3) The authors have edited some of the manuscript's English language; however, more English language editing is still required.

Author Response

Authors’ response

Respected reviewer 2 thanks you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to improve this manuscript as per your suggestions in our previous revisions. We believe that the manuscript is in better shape now, and we hope that there are no errors in the English language or methodology. Two of the three reviewers approved our paper in its current form. So, imposing on us the creation of a methodology that you believe is good for you is incompatible with the goal of our work. We've set the basis for the subject. If you find that our work has limitations, simply start your own paper to address those limitations. We are not here to address your personal issues. Please be respectful of our efforts.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx