Lessons Learned from Information Sources on Building Defect Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have analyzed and summarized different types of construction defects in the form of a literature review, but there are still several important issues that need to be addressed in the manuscript:

1、The title of the manuscript is "Lessons Learned from Different Types of Building Defect Information Sources". However, in line 83, lines 103-107 of the manuscript, it is stated that the keywords of the search include water, so is the title of the manuscript appropriate to the content of the study? It is suggested that the authors make a clarification in the text or adjust the title appropriately.

2、After the revision, it is necessary to reorganize what kind of research gaps have been filled and the innovativeness of the study.

3. As a review article, the manuscript contains fewer references to the literature of the last three years, and it is recommended that the analysis of the latest research results be strengthened.

4、 The current manuscript is more perfect in combing the contents of the literature, but less in summarizing and thinking in the conclusion, and it is suggested that the problem be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Authors need to expand the regional coverage of their study to include countries, where extensive work on defects have been done. For example in Australia, UK and New Zealand. Key authors like: Nigel Craig (UK), James Sommerville (UK), Auchterlounie (UK), Anthony Mills (Australia) and Funmilayo Rotimi (NZ) are missing.

2. Authors will need to revise their search string to include alternative words to defects (e.g. snags, rework, quality issues), and expand their search to include conference papers. There seems to be some good papers submitted to conferences, where quality issues received good focus.

3. Authors are to give clarity to a frequent concern associated with the systematic reviews "so what?" Why is the review important and what should we learn from these past studies?

4. Title may need to be revised to reflect what the study actually covered. For example: Lessons Learned from Information Sources on Building Defect Studies.

5. One may argue that only in critical instances, will Insurance companies hold data on defects. Record of defects are usually held by primary stakeholders like owners, contractors, complaince agencies etc. not necessarily inurance companies.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your effort in generating this paper. The paper is seeking to identify the information sources used in previous building defect studies and to identify the motivation for carrying out such studies. Although the paper is well-organized and well-prepared, there are some minor comments that need consideration for revision.

1. Please consider what the paper can provide for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners within the abstract.

2. Please avoid presenting a part of the methodology within the introduction section (i.e., lines 81–85). Instead, present the organization of the manuscript to increase clarity and avoid confusion for the readers.

3. The paper used a scoping study instead of other types of studies, such as systematic and narrative studies. Please justify why the authors preferred to adopt scoping studies instead of others. 

4. Also, the authors gathered data from WoS, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, please provide justification for this selection instead of other databases.

5. Please add the theoretical implications.


I hope the above helps.
All the best

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Author has made some modifications to answer the questions posed. Accept.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

Thank you for your effort.

The author improved the manuscript in accordance to the provided comments.