Review Comment:
Dear authors,
This article addresses an interesting topic that may be of interest to the semantic web community, as well as to readers of the Semantic Web Journal. The context of the topic is clear. However, the contribution does not seem to be entirely sufficient in terms of substantive results. Although it provides sufficient references and follows a method that could be considered a systematic review, selecting articles and analysing them, the authors do not appear to have been able to delve into the substance of the matter or establish the comparisons and relationships that might be expected in a review.
The article also presents other related problems, most of them concentrated in the introduction. Some explanations seem imprecise and, in some respects, even superficial for a paper whose objective is to report a systematic review. What the authors present is often poorly substantiated or requires further explanation to give it credibility. This aspect is particularly evident in many of the figures provided. Most of them seem to have been described or referenced in the text, and others are referenced but before introduced in the paper. Furthermore, the article contains some inaccuracies in the explanations and terminology used, as well as misleading statements that should be reviewed. Another critical issue concerns the “regulatory” aspect, a term that seems to have been treated superficially.
I am adding some comments, suggestions and possible recommendations to improve the article:
The abstract is too generic and does not include the key points or sections of the research presented in the article. The authors should provide a more precise explanation and indications about the context of the research and the findings obtained. They should consider, for example, a summary of what is reported in the conclusions section.
The research method used is clearly explained. However, the results or conclusions of the study do not appear to be significant enough and/or appear to have little impact on the scientific community. For example, greater use of state-of-the-art comparison tools is expected in this type of article.
The concept of SW and BIM integration should be described or, perhaps, reconsidered as such.
The quality of the writing is very fair by the journal’s standards, especially in the first section, where explanations are poorly connected in some paragraphs. Also, some explanations are imprecise or not correct. For example, in the sentence “BIM has been integrated with cutting-edge technologies like digital twins” BIM, as a methodology, cannot be integrated into technologies; it can be integrated or applied, for example, to processes, industry, sectors, etc. Then, a digital twin is, by default, a concept about digital model, not a technology, unless directly mentioned as such (digital twin technologies). This problem is repeated throughout the sections of the document. Then, the meaning of the sentence “The Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), as the openBIM data schema approach, attest to BIM’s widespread application throughout design and construction workflows, which underscore the imperative for continued BIM advancement to unlock its full potential [19][20].” it seems to make no sense.
About the term “SW technology”, it is usually more appropriate to refer to it as SW technologies (not a single one but a set of them).
About the research questions, I would suggest changing the tone. About the first one, why “why” and not “To what extent”? About the second one, why “How is” and not “How can it be”?
Fig. 1 has low resolution. It is not described. Also, in the bottom left box, "the established" appears next to it.
Fig. 2 It has low resolution. It is not described. It is only referenced in section 4.2, so should it be placed there? Also, it would be advisable to put it vertically and not sideways to make it easier to read.
Fig. 3 It has low resolution. It is not described. Also, its contribution is unclear. It seems that the flow and relations between all concepts are quite similar for the different years.
Fig. 4 It has low resolution. It is not described. Also, the authors state that “BIM emerging workflows are shifting toward semantically intelligent architectures as shown in Fig. 4.” On what basis? More references, evidence, indications, etc., should be provided to fully support that this diagram corresponds to reality.
Table 1. “Summary of the Key Capability of SW”, should be provided in text format and not as an image.
Fig. 5 It has low resolution. It is not described. Also, it requires an explanation of what is being presented and how it is being presented.
Fig. 6 It has low resolution. It may not be very relevant and/or in which it is not clear what the colors, distances, and measurements imply.
Fig. 7 It has low resolution. It is not described.
Fig. 8 and 9. They have low resolution. They are not described.
Fig. 10 It has low resolution. It is not described. It is only referenced in section 5.2, so should it be placed there? It should be rotated and enlarged, at least the text size. This might involve shortening the width.
Do sections 5 and 5.1 have the same title? (or very similar)
Section 5 seems to best describe how the method followed and results have been organized. The explanation in the first paragraph should be provided at the end of the introduction. In this section, the authors indicate "three integration phases", while in Section 4 they refer to them as "approaches".
Typographic errors and issues:
Authors should leave a space between the citation [X] and the previous word. The same thing happens at least in one acronym. Please, check it.
Authors should use the same correct format to reference multiple citations. For example, [85][13] > [85,13]
References: The format needs to be reviewed to consolidate.
In sum, I think this article is interesting and has potential, but the authors need to make an effort to adapt it to the standards expected of a scientific article in a journal such as this one, considering its current state. Therefore, I encourage the authors to take the time to do this properly.
| 
