Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projects

Jarosław Górecki; Ewa Bojarowicz; Jadwiga Bizon-Górecka; Umer Zaman; Abdullah Emre Keleş

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278847

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 10, 2021
28 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor PONE-D-21-35766Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projectsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Górecki, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 12 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Xingwei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: We thank the UTP University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz (Poland) and its Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Architecture for proving funds for publication of the manuscript. We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Additional Editor Comments: I agree with the reviewers and recommend a major revision of this manuscript. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The paper has a great new idea of predicting the path for future Leadership shape. The predictions are not supported in the study. Also if the predictions are supported what is the guidelines by which we can help construction leaders to understand these trends of preditions. Reviewer #2: The research addresses an interesting and worthy topic. The angle of the research is also timely as leaders do play a key role in furthering IT in construction industry. I also think the survey and data are good enough to support the research purpose. A major concern, however, is about the writing and organization of Section 1 and 2. Although the references are relevant, the way it is organized and written is so casual and fragmented. I couldn't see how the arguments are built to substantiate the research. Abstract: Out of focus. Keywords: leadership should be one of the keywords. 1. Introduction It is loosely written - all the terms, LCCA, HVAC, AI, 3D, VR, AR, and et al were used but not connected. 2. Technology challenges in the construction project: Is this the appropriate heading for this research? The context is also very disconected. 3 Materials and Methods: (1) I am not sure whether the paragraph between the line 171-184 is an interpretation of the cited paper from [36] and the same for the following paragraph between the lines 185 and 191 [37]. (2) I would expect the paragraphs between the lines 158 and 200 to describe how the questions are designed. However the way it is written is simply an extension of relevant literature by only using two references [36] and [37] (3) How were the people identified? How are the questions designed? 6. Conclusions The conclusions are disconnected from the research findings. Reviewer #3: The authors brought up an important question that how different kinds of leadership shape the digital transformation in construction industry. The beginning and ending part of this paper is well written. However, the methodology, questionnaire development and data analysis seemed to be separated parts from the rest of the paper. For example, how simple analysis of distributions and averages will illustrate the influence of leadership types? Is there a significance analysis to argue for statistically significant results? Will the size of companies has an impact on leadership types and technology developments? Hope the authors could explain further in the future. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278847.r001
Revision 1
21 Sep 2022 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1 Dear Reviewer, As the authors of the original paper entitled “Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projects”, submitted to PlosOne, we would like to thank you for the feedback on our research. COMMENTS: The paper has a great new idea of predicting the path for future Leadership shape. The predictions are not supported in the study. Also if the predictions are supported what is the guidelines by which we can help construction leaders to understand these trends of preditions. REPLY: Your comments motivated us to fully rebuild our manuscript. We hope you are satisfied with the updated version. - Authors RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2 Dear Reviewer, As the authors of the original paper entitled “Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projects”, submitted to PlosOne, we would like to thank you for the feedback on our research. COMMENTS: The research addresses an interesting and worthy topic. The angle of the research is also timely as leaders do play a key role in furthering IT in construction industry. I also think the survey and data are good enough to support the research purpose. A major concern, however, is about the writing and organization of Section 1 and 2. Although the references are relevant, the way it is organized and written is so casual and fragmented. I couldn't see how the arguments are built to substantiate the research. Abstract: Out of focus. Keywords: leadership should be one of the keywords. 1. Introduction It is loosely written - all the terms, LCCA, HVAC, AI, 3D, VR, AR, and et al were used but not connected. 2. Technology challenges in the construction project: Is this the appropriate heading for this research? The context is also very disconected. 3 Materials and Methods: (1) I am not sure whether the paragraph between the line 171-184 is an interpretation of the cited paper from [36] and the same for the following paragraph between the lines 185 and 191 [37]. (2) I would expect the paragraphs between the lines 158 and 200 to describe how the questions are designed. However the way it is written is simply an extension of relevant literature by only using two references [36] and [37] (3) How were the people identified? How are the questions designed? 6. Conclusions The conclusions are disconnected from the research findings. REPLY: Your comments motivated us to fully rebuild our manuscript. We added several crucial references. We hope you are satisfied with the updated version. - The abstract and keywords were changed. - The introduction was modified to underline what we concentrate on. - The second chapter was changed. - The third chapter was modified according to your suggestions. - We hope the modified Conclusions are within the research findings. - Authors RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #3 Dear Reviewer, As the authors of the original paper entitled “Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projects”, submitted to PlosOne, we would like to thank you for the feedback on our research. COMMENTS: The authors brought up an important question that how different kinds of leadership shape the digital transformation in construction industry. The beginning and ending part of this paper is well written. However, the methodology, questionnaire development and data analysis seemed to be separated parts from the rest of the paper. For example, how simple analysis of distributions and averages will illustrate the influence of leadership types? Is there a significance analysis to argue for statistically significant results? Will the size of companies has an impact on leadership types and technology developments? Hope the authors could explain further in the future. REPLY: Your comments motivated us to fully rebuild our manuscript. We added several crucial references to eliminate the gaps. We hope you are satisfied with the updated version. - The abstract and keywords were changed. - The introduction was modified to underline what we concentrate on. - The second chapter was changed. - The third chapter was modified according to your suggestions. - We hope the modified Conclusions are within the research findings. We hope our explanations make the manuscript more consistent. - Authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer 3.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278847.r002
1 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor PONE-D-21-35766R1Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projectsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Górecki, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Xingwei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Ask the author to explain the scale and survey results in more detail. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I would like to comment at the paper as there are many versions of the paper in the submittal. I would be better to have the latest version in the submittal. Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed most of the reviewers' concerns. However, they should take the following questions into consideration: 1. They need to explain how the 9 questions reflect the three kinds of leadership models. Is there existing research that validated the scale? Are the three questions enough to describe the leadership models? 2. There is lack of explanation of how the questionnaire results are related to the leadership model proposed in Section 5.1. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278847.r003
Revision 2
24 Nov 2022 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1 COMMENTS: I would like to comment at the paper as there are many versions of the paper in the submittal. I would be better to have the latest version in the submittal. REPLY: We did our best that the initial submission as well as the resubmission had followed the journal's requirements. We believe that this time the revised version of the paper will be properly presented. It seems that authors don't have much impact on how files are presented in the submission system. We hope the final version of the paper will satisfy the reviewers. RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2 COMMENTS: The authors have addressed most of the reviewers' concerns. However, they should take the following questions into consideration: 1. They need to explain how the 9 questions reflect the three kinds of leadership models. Is there existing research that validated the scale? Are the three questions enough to describe the leadership models? 2. There is lack of explanation of how the questionnaire results are related to the leadership model proposed in Section 5.1. REPLY: The multiple leadership questionnaire (MLQ) scale developed by Bass and Avolio and used by one of the authors in his paper [Keleş et al, 2021] was used as the basis for determining the questionnaire questions of this study [Bass and Avolio, 1995]. The questionnaire defines the 3 leadership types discussed in this study and consists of 45 statements on a 5-point Likert scale. In the research, 9 of 45 questions, which were the most decisive, were selected and asked the participants during a session of the questionnaire. In this respect, it is clear that the answers to these questions can be used in determining the leadership types aimed at the study. This information has been added to the "Materials and Methods" section (lines 295-301). As a result of the survey, it is seen that "transactional" and "transformational" leadership types dominate over “passive/avoidant” patterns, however, what was revealed, there is no single best ‘one-fits-all’ leadership approach that could be used within a random construction project organization. On the other hand, this is in line with the evolutionary leadership model [Hersey and Blanchard, 1969], being an effective knowledge diffusion tool and an enabler for improving the maturity [Serna, 2015] of technological issues in a construction company, what was proposed in this study. In this respect, it is thought that the dissemination of the study results in the construction sector will contribute to the knowledge at a global scale. Such an explanation was added in lines 536-543. Thank you for your valuable contribution. We believe our manuscript has been enriched even more. - Authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278847.r004
28 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projects PONE-D-21-35766R2 Dear Dr. Górecki, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Xingwei Li, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278847.r005
Formally Accepted
6 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Xingwei Li, Editor PONE-D-21-35766R2 Leadership models in era of new technological challenges in construction projects Dear Dr. Górecki: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Dr. Xingwei Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278847.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .