Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix

Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214" }, "headline": "Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix", "datePublished": "2026-02-09T07:22:09", "dateModified": "2026-02-09T07:22:09", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Aya A. Hasan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abbas M. Burhan" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Residential investment projects play a vital economic and social role in Iraq; however, delays are a persistent problem that negatively affects project performance. Identifying and prioritizing the main causes of delay is challenging due to uncertainty and differences in expert judgment. Therefore, a systematic quantitative approach is required to evaluate these causes and their associated risks. Methods This study aimed to identify, classify, and prioritize the causes of delay in residential investment projects in Iraq. A questionnaire survey was conducted with experts specializing in residential projects. Fifteen main delay causes were identified and grouped into three categories: general causes, project parties–related causes, and resource-related causes. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process was applied to determine the relative importance weights of the delay causes under uncertainty. The degree of delay risk for each cause was calculated by combining its relative weight with the probability of occurrence and impact. Results The results indicated that, within the general causes category, management-related and political causes were the most significant, each accounting for 14.6%. In the project parties–related category, owner-related causes had the highest importance, with a relative weight of 50.6%. For the resource-related category, labor-related causes were found to be the most influential, with a relative importance of 61.2%. The risk assessment highlighted variations in delay severity depending on both uncertainty and impact levels. Conclusions The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in prioritizing delay causes under uncertainty in residential investment projects. The proposed framework supports decision-makers in identifying critical delay factors, improving risk management, and reducing delays in future residential projects in Iraq. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1", "name": "Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using..." } } ] } Home Browse Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Hasan AA and Burhan AM. Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176072.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Aya A. Hasan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6192-9719 1 , Abbas M. Burhan 2 Aya A. Hasan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6192-9719 1 , Abbas M. Burhan 2 PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2026 Author details Author details 1 College of Engineering - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad College of Engineering, Baghdad, Baghdad Governorate, 0000, Iraq 2 College of Engineering - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad College of Engineering, Baghdad, Baghdad Governorate, 0000, Iraq Aya A. Hasan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration Abbas M. Burhan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Fallujah Multidisciplinary Science and Innovation gateway. Abstract Background Residential investment projects play a vital economic and social role in Iraq; however, delays are a persistent problem that negatively affects project performance. Identifying and prioritizing the main causes of delay is challenging due to uncertainty and differences in expert judgment. Therefore, a systematic quantitative approach is required to evaluate these causes and their associated risks. Methods This study aimed to identify, classify, and prioritize the causes of delay in residential investment projects in Iraq. A questionnaire survey was conducted with experts specializing in residential projects. Fifteen main delay causes were identified and grouped into three categories: general causes, project parties–related causes, and resource-related causes. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process was applied to determine the relative importance weights of the delay causes under uncertainty. The degree of delay risk for each cause was calculated by combining its relative weight with the probability of occurrence and impact. Results The results indicated that, within the general causes category, management-related and political causes were the most significant, each accounting for 14.6%. In the project parties–related category, owner-related causes had the highest importance, with a relative weight of 50.6%. For the resource-related category, labor-related causes were found to be the most influential, with a relative importance of 61.2%. The risk assessment highlighted variations in delay severity depending on both uncertainty and impact levels. Conclusions The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in prioritizing delay causes under uncertainty in residential investment projects. The proposed framework supports decision-makers in identifying critical delay factors, improving risk management, and reducing delays in future residential projects in Iraq. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords residential projects, investment, Fuzzy AHP technique, risk, risk matrix, delay causes. Corresponding Author(s) Aya A. Hasan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Aya A. Hasan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Hasan AA and Burhan AM. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Hasan AA and Burhan AM. Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176072.1 ) First published: 09 Feb 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176072.1 ) Latest published: 09 Feb 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176072.1 ) 1. Introduction Project delays occur throughout the building phase. Completing a construction project on schedule and within the allocated budget is crucial. In the construction sector, it is considered a common difficulty when a project takes longer than anticipated. There are numerous variables that affect delays, and they vary depending on the kinds of projects, their locations, sizes, and scopes. 1 Delays in construction projects occur all around the world. The construction industry’s capacity and volume have changed significantly, necessitating a thorough investigation and evaluation of the causes of project delays in India as well as corrective action. Even with the use of cutting-edge technology and project management strategies, construction projects still experience delays. 2 Additionally, the author in 3 concentrated on the risks that could have a detrimental impact on the execution of residential projects and result in delays or higher costs. This is because most state institutions and private sector businesses lack an efficient risk management policy, and the government provides little assistance to construction enterprises. 4 There are numerous reasons, including inadequate management, corruption, and a lack of funding for the implementing businesses. 5 That poor performance by construction phase stakeholders results in delayed construction. 6 Inadequate evaluation and poor feasibility Studies indicate that client interference leads to delays in construction projects. 7 Therefore, I found that carrying out a construction project often leads to numerous issues, with time and cost overruns emerging as the primary concerns. Overruns in time and expenses can lead to various negative outcomes, such as project failure. 8 Iraq requires around 2.5 million housing units, according to the development plan from the Ministry of Housing and the former Ministry of Planning, and this number continues to grow due to the country’s rapid population increase. 9 Delay management guarantees the prompt identification and recording of the delay’s cause. Numerous scholars have examined construction project delays from various angles due to their significant nature. 10 Therefore, to address the problem as soon as possible, this study focuses on identifying the actual causes of the delays in residential investment projects in Iraq, as well as the risk analysis of their relative importance, probability, and impact, which will be used in the forecasting model. 2. Risk analysis Several possible outcomes define a scenario, action, or event as risky. Risk refers to the existence of actual or potential limitations that could impede project performance and lead to partial or total failure during construction or usage. Ultimately, the inability to adhere to the cost estimate, projection, and budget connects every risk that arises throughout a project. Financial loss will be the result of unfavorable circumstances. The goal of the professional advisers, contractors, and suppliers is to identify the distinct risk factors that lead to failure and create a risk management plan that allows the best firms to assume that risk. Establishing the context and identifying, evaluating, assessing, treating, monitoring, and communicating risk are all duties that fall under the scope of risk management, which is the schematic or well-organized application of management rules, processes, and procedures. The fundamental idea behind comprehending and controlling risks in a project is the risk management process. Identification, evaluation and analysis, and response are its three primary stages. Incorporating all risk management steps into the project is crucial for effective integration. Some models include an additional step, which most sources refer to as risk monitoring or review. 11 The construction industry is a very dangerous field with dynamic and complicated project environments that foster a high level of risk and uncertainty. 12 More risks and uncertainties are present in the construction industry than in any other sector. Risk management refers to the process of identifying project risks, evaluating them, and deciding on countermeasures for any dangers. The process includes the ideas of risk management and various risk analysis approaches to provide a comprehensive answer for all the different kinds of hazards that are most likely to arise during the life cycle of a construction project. The benefits of risk management include reduced uncertainty, goal achievement, dependability, capital cost reduction, and value creation. There are limitations of risk management. If we fail to effectively prioritize and assess risks, we may waste time dealing with unlikely losses. Resources that could be used more profitably can be diverted if too much time is spent managing and accessing unlikely hazards. If the risk is low, it may be better to accept it and deal with the consequences if it happens. According to authors in, 13 risks are uncertain occurrences that can have detrimental effects. These uncertainties, which encompass complex and diverse dangers, are prevalent in the construction sector. An essential component of project management, risk management is a proactive and constructive process designed to reduce or eliminate risk. The organizational culture of construction companies and projects should incorporate risk management. This would enable eventually become a standard for project planning and execution. It has been noted that certain companies have been unwilling to participate because of their lack of understanding of risk management in the domestic construction sector. According to authors in, 14 risk management is the methodical process of recognizing, addressing, and evaluating project risk. Risk is an inherent uncertainty in plans and possibilities that might impact the likelihood of accomplishing project and commercial objectives. Every cause for delay may be a risk that leads to partial or total failure of the project. Therefore, we must know the probability and impact of each cause for delay. Usually, these causes depend on uncertainty. Therefore, we must use the Fuzzy AHP technique to equate the uncertainty of each cause and indicate its importance. Therefore, the fuzzy AHP technique and the risk matrix complement each other. 2.1 Probability and impact matrix This method is used to rank the risks, including risk response and qualitative risk analysis. This method efficiently ranks the impact and probability of risks. For this strategy to be more effective, organizations should appropriately rank the risks. Numbers, such as 1 to 5, are typically used to indicate ranking, with 1 denoting “very low” and 5 denoting “very high,” as shown in Table 1 . We should consider the company’s management, project stakeholders, and expert recommendations when ranking. We have applied this approach in this study. 15 Table 1. Probability and impact scale. 15 Scale Probability Impact 1 Rare Very low 2 Occasional Low 3 Somewhat frequent Moderate 4 Frequent High 5 Very frequent Very high The risk score is determined by multiplying the probability and impact ratings. The classification of risks is based on these scores. Three color codes are used to classify risks, as shown in Table 2 : • Red (risk score 15–25) indicates threats that require an immediate response. • Yellow (risk score 5-14) indicates risks that require further research and analysis. • Green represents minor dangers (Risk score: 1–4). 15 Table 2. Risk matrix. Very frequent 5 5 10 15 20 25 Frequent 4 4 8 12 16 20 Somewhat frequent 3 3 6 9 12 15 Occasional 2 2 4 6 8 10 Rare 1 1 2 3 4 5 Probability/Impact 1 2 3 4 5 Very low Low Moderate High Very high 2.2 The analytic hierarchy process technique (Fuzzy AHP) in pairwise comparison Pairwise comparison using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach. Thomas Saaty first proposed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method in 1980. 16 Thomas Saaty developed the enhanced AHP from the conventional AHP. When faced with multi-criteria decision-making problems, decision makers’ judgments are vital, and fuzziness in these situations may result in imprecise assessments. Multi-criteria decision-making, management, and planning employ the FAHP approach. 17 Linguistic factors need to assess technological, social, and economic factors that could be involved in the decision-making process. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods based on linguistic evaluations, like FUZZY AHP, help select the best choice through a pairwise comparison in determining the criteria’s relative weight for every option. The main steps of the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) process include determining the fuzzy weights of each criterion, constructing the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for weights, and constructing the pairwise contribution matrix from experts evaluating the relationships between criteria. The following are the steps 18 : (1) a ~ ij = [ ( 1.1.1 ) ( l 12 . m 12 . u 12 ) … ( l 1 n . m 1 n . u 1 n ) ( l 21 . m 21 . u 21 ) ( 1.1.1 ) … ( l 2 n . m 2 n . u 2 n ) ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ( l n 1 . m n 1 . u n 1 ) ( l n 2 . m n 2 . u n 2 ) … ( 1.1.1 ) ] For every goal, gi., an extent analysis is conducted and each object is taken. Consequently, it is possible to acquire M extent analysis values for every item can be obtained M gi 1 , M gi 2 , . … … , M gi m . Where gi is the goal set (i = 1,2,3,4, … …, n) and M gi j (j = 1,2,3,4, … …, m), all are TFNs. 1. The value of fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to the ith object is defined as: (2) S i = ∑ j = 1 m M g i j × [ ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m M g i j ] − 1 To obtain ∑ j = 1 m M g i j , for a particular matrix such that: (3) ∑ j = 1 m M g i j = ( ∑ j = 1 m l j , ∑ j = 1 m m j , ∑ j = 1 m u j ) And to obtain [ ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m M g i j ] − 1 , where M gi j (j = 1,2,3,4, …..,m) such that: (4) ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m M g i j = ( ∑ i = 1 n l i , ∑ i = 1 n m i , ∑ i = 1 n u i ) And then compute the inverse of the vector in Equation (5) such that: (5) [ ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m M g i j ] − 1 = ( 1 ∑ i = 1 n u i , 1 ∑ i = 1 n m i , 1 ∑ i = 1 n l i ) 2. M 1 = (l 1 , m 1 , u 1 ) and M 2 = (l 2 , m 2 , u 2 ) are two TFNs, the degree of possibility of M 2 = (l 2 , m 2 , u 2 ) ≥ M 1 = (l 1 , m 1 , u 1 ) and can be equivalently expressed as follows: (6) V ( M 2 ≥ M 1 ) = { 1 , 0 , l 1 − u 2 ( m 2 − u 2 ) − ( m 1 − l 1 ) if m 2 ≥ m 1 . if l 1 ≥ u 1 , otherwise Where d is the ordinate of the highest intersection point D between μM 1 and μM 2 . To compare M 1 and M 2 , we need both the values of V (M 1 ≥ M 2 ) and V (M 2 ≥ M 1 ). 3. The degree possibility for a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers Mi (i = 1,2,3, 4 … …, K) can be defined by: (7) V ( M ≥ M 1 , M 2 , M 3 , M 4 … . , MK ) = V [ ( M ≥ M 1 ) , ( M ≥ M 2 ) , ( M ≥ M 3 ) , ( M ≥ M 4 ) . . and ( M ≥ M K ) ] = min V ( M ≥ M i ) , for i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 … … … , k . Assume that d′ (C i ) = min V (S i ≥ S k ) for k = 1,2,3, 4 … …, n. k ≠ 1, then the weight vector is given by: (8) W ′ = [ d ′ ( C 1 ) , d ′ ( C 2 ) , d ′ ( C 3 ) , d ′ ( C 4 ) … … , d ′ ( C 5 ) ] T 4. Via normalization, the normalized weight vectors are given: (9) W = [ d ( C 1 ) , d ( C 2 ) , d ( C 3 ) , d ( C 4 ) , … … . . , d ( C n ) ] Where W is non-Fuzz numbers. 3. Methodology A questionnaire is a tool used by the researcher to collect data from the chosen sample for a field study. The questionnaire’s function is to distribute the questionnaire forms to each of the 80 selected samples. Thereafter, only 76 of the respondents’ questionnaire forms were received and examined to verify that the answers were complete; the remaining 4 questionnaire forms were ignored due to some issues with incomplete responses. Thus the final number of forms is 76, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 . Figure 1. Academic degree of the research sample. This figure shows the educational backgrounds of the people who took part in the evaluation of residential investment housing projects. The participants are categorized into Bachelor’s degree (B.Sc.), Master’s degree (M.Sc.), and Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) holders, representing 34.21%, 23.68%, and 42.11% of the total sample, respectively. The high proportion of postgraduate qualifications reflects the technical and professional expertise of the respondents, supporting the reliability of the engineering, economic, and managerial assessments adopted in this study. Figure 2. Years of experience of the research sample. This Figure illustrates the distribution of respondents based on their years of experience in engineering and residential investment projects. The results indicate that the largest proportion of respondents have more than 21 years of experience (39.47%), followed by those with 16–20 years of experience (35.53%). Respondents with 11–15 years of experience represent 19.74%, while a smaller proportion (5.26%) have 5–10 years of experience. This distribution indicates that the survey sample is dominated by highly experienced individuals, enhancing the reliability and credibility of the study findings related to residential investment project management. As shown in Figure 3 . A check mark (√) is placed below the appropriate level of importance. If the cause on the left is more important than the corresponding cause on the right, place your check mark to the left under your preferred level of importance. If the cause on the right is more important than the corresponding cause on the left, place your check mark to the right under your preferred level of importance. The example below illustrates how to answer: Figure 3. The questionnaire form for assessing the main causes. This figure presents the pairwise comparison matrix used to evaluate the relative importance of Management factors against other influencing categories, including economic, environmental, social, political, technical, legal and legislative, project location, and organizational causes. The assessment is based on a nine-point importance scale ranging from equal importance (1) to very high importance (9). Check marks indicate expert judgments used to quantify the relative influence between cause pairs, forming the basis for subsequent weighting and priority analysis in residential investment projects. Question 1: What is the importance of the “Management cause” when compared to the “Environmental cause”? Question 2: What is the importance of the “Management cause” when compared to the “Social cause”? In the example in Figure 3 , the Management cause is compared with other causes. When comparing the Management cause with the environmental cause, the mark is placed on the left side of the low importance column, meaning that the Management cause is of higher importance than the environmental cause, but to a low degree. When continuing to compare the Management cause with the social cause, we notice that the mark is placed on the right side under the medium importance column, meaning that the Management cause is of lower importance than the social cause, but to a medium degree. And Table 3 shows Linguistic variables. The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix A (Extended Data). Table 3. Linguistic variables and the corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers. Explanation Fuzzy number Linguistic variable Cause i is equally important when compared to cause j. (1, 1, 1) Equally important Cause i is of low importance when compared to cause j. (2, 3, 4) Low important Cause i is moderately important when compared to cause j. (4, 5, 6) Medium important Cause i is highly important when compared to cause j. (6, 7, 8) High important Cause i is very highly important when compared to cause j. (8, 9, 10) Very high important When compromise is needed. (1, 2, 3) (3, 4, 5) (5, 6, 7) (7, 8, 9) Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments If cause (j) to him the importance of higher from cause (i) it takes this reciprocal number allocated to the cause (i). The reciprocals, such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/5, 1/7, 1/9, etc., indicate the opposite respectively of the values 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, et. Reciprocals number 3.1 Calculations of Fuzzy AHP technique and risk matrix Then, apply Equations (2), (3), (4), and (5) to the decision-making matrix for the causes shown in Figure 4 to extract the values of Si, as demonstrated below: ∑ l = 193.762 ; ∑ m = 231.073 ; ∑ u = 270.003 [ ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m M g i j ] − 1 = ( 1 / 270.003 , 1 / 231.073 , 1 / 193.762 ) S 1 = ( 23.875 , 28.176 , 32.917 ) ∗ ( 1 / 270.003 , 1 / 231.073 , 1 / 193.762 ) = ( 0.088 , 0.122 , 0.170 ) Figure 4. Aggregate fuzzy decision making matrix for causes. This figure presents the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix used to evaluate the relative importance of delay causes (C1–C9) in residential investment projects. Each element of the matrix is expressed as a triangular fuzzy number ( l , m , u ), representing the lower, middle, and upper values of expert judgments. The matrix was developed based on expert opinions to capture uncertainty and subjectivity in assessing the impact of different delay causes. Diagonal elements are equal to (1,1,1), indicating equal importance, while reciprocal values are used to maintain consistency in pairwise comparisons. This matrix serves as the basis for determining the priority weights of delay causes using the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). S 2 = (0.065, 0.094, 0.133), S 3 = (0.088,0.120,0.167), S 4 = (0.095, 0.129, 0.176), S 5 = (0.065, 0.094, 0.133), S 6 = (0.058, 0.085, 0.124), S 7 = (0.095, 0.129, 0.176), S 8 = (0.080, 0.111, 0.155), S 9 = (0.083, 0.115, 0.160). Also applying the Equation (6) to extract the values of V (M 1 ≥ M 2 ) and V (M 2 ≥ M 1 ) as it shown in the following accounts: V (S1 ≥ S2) = 1; V (S1 ≥ S3) = 1; V(S1 ≥ S4) = 0.170 − 0.095 ( 0.170 − 0.122 ) + ( 0.129 − 0.095 ) 0.915; V(S1 ≥ S5) = 1; V(S1 ≥ S6) = 1; V(S1 ≥ S7) = 0.915; V(S1 ≥ S8) = 1; V (S1 ≥ S9) = 1. Then applying Equation (7) to get the values min V (M ≥ M i ) as follows: d ′ ( C1 ) = min ( 1 , 1 , 0.915 , 1 , 1 , 0.915 , 1 , 1 ) = 0.915 d′(C2) = 0.521; d′(C3) = 0.888; d′(C4) = 1; d′(C5) = 0.521; d′(C6) = 0.397; d′(C7) = 1; d′(C8) = 0.769; d′(C9) = 0. 823. To calculate the weights of the criteria (W), the Equations (8) and (9) are applied as follows: priority weight ( W ′ ) = ( 0.915 , 0.521 , 0.888 , 1 , 0.521 0.397 , 1 , 0.769 , 0.823 ) W1 = 0.915 0.915 + 0.521 + 0.888 + 1 + 0.521 + 0.397 + 1 + 0.769 + 0.823 = 0.134 The relative importance of the 15 causes for delay, after all calculations have been performed, is shown in Table 4 , Table 5 , and Table 6 , illustrating the final relative importance of each cause. Table 4. The relative importance of each cause of the general causes of delay. Main causes Relative importance Legal and legislative regulations causes 0.134 Project location causes 0.076 Economic causes 0.131 Management causes 0.146 Technical causes 0.076 Organizational causes 0.058 Political causes 0.146 Social causes 0.113 Environmental causes 0.120 Table 5. The relative importance of each causes related to project stakeholders. Main causes Relative importance Owner causes 0.506 Contractor causes 0.156 Consultant causes 0.338 Table 6. The relative importance of each causes related resources. Main causes Relative importance Labor causes 0.612 Equipment causes 0.015 Materials causes 0.373 Experts’ opinions were considered regarding the probability and impact of each cause, based on the risk matrix in Table 1 and Table 2 , to assess how each cause contributes to delays in residential investment projects, as illustrated in Table 7 . Table 7. Risk score and delay degree. Causes Probability Impact Risk score classification Relative importance Delay degree legal and legislative regulations 5 5 25 High (Red) 0.134 3.4 Project location 2 2 4 Weak (Green) 0.076 0.30 Economic 5 5 25 High (Red) 0.131 3.3 Management 5 4 20 High (Red) 0.146 3 Technical 2 2 4 Weak (Green) 0.076 0.30 Organizational 2 1 2 Weak (Green) 0.058 0.12 Political 4 5 20 High (Red) 0.146 3 Social 4 4 16 High (Red) 0.113 1.8 Environmental 4 3 12 Medium (Yellow) 0.120 1.4 Owner 2 5 10 Medium (Yellow) 0.506 5.1 Contractor 2 2 4 Weak (Green) 0.156 0.6 Consultant 5 4 20 High (Red) 0.338 6.8 Labor 4 4 16 High (Red) 0.612 9.8 Equipment 4 3 12 Medium (Yellow) 0.015 0.2 Materials 1 2 2 Weak (Green) 0.373 0.7 4. Results and discussion After making the required calculations to extract the relative importance of each cause of the main general causes, as shown in Figure 5 , as follows: 1. It indicates that the relative importance of management causes is considered greater, with a ratio of 14.6% compared with the other causes, including poor initial planning, unclear timetables and cost estimates, bureaucracy, lengthy Management approval procedures, and a shortage of qualified management personnel due to a lack of experience in managing large and complex projects. 2. It indicates that the relative importance of political causes is considered the larger relative importance with a ratio of 14.6% compared with the other causes, due to political instability through changes in governments or sudden decisions and local conflicts and disputes that affect the continuity of work at project sites, as well as Management and political corruption through increased bribery. 3. While legal and legislative regulations accounted for 13.4%, they were found to be the second most important factors after political and management causes, primarily due to changes in laws and regulations related to investment or construction. 4. Economic causes accounted for 13.1%, primarily due to inflation, commodity price volatility, currency exchange rate fluctuations, and cash flow or financing crises experienced by the owner or investor. 5. Environmental causes received (12.0%) in terms of strict environmental legislation can delay projects due to environmental impact assessment requirements, as can the scarcity of natural resources (water, building materials) or the difficulty of providing them in a timely manner, as well as harsh climatic conditions and geological problems. 6. Social causes received were (11.3%) in terms of the availability of spatial characteristics and social benefits. The project faces opposition from local residents due to concerns about expropriation and compensation, community pressures like requests for enhanced services or a shift in project priorities, and a lack of community acceptance when the project doesn’t meet their needs or cultural values. 7. As for project location causes and technical causes received (7.6%), it is because the location is far from city centers or material sources and is difficult to access. 8. As for technical causes received (7.6%), there are errors in studies or designs, the application of technologies unsuitable for the local environment, and issues with technology systems (software, tracking systems, BIM). 9. While the organizational causes received 5.8%, it was found that a lack of effective follow-up or project management systems, led to poor coordination between government agencies and multiple approvals. Figure 5. Histogram of the relative importance of each cause of the general causes of delay. The figure illustrates the weighted relative importance of major delay categories, including legal and legislative causes, project location causes, economic causes, management causes, technical causes, organizational causes, political causes, social causes, and environmental causes. The results indicate that management and political causes have the highest relative impact on project delays, while organizational causes exhibit the lowest influence. These findings highlight the critical role of managerial efficiency and external political factors in determining delays in residential investment projects. After making the required calculations to extract the relative importance of each cause related to project stakeholders, the results are shown in Figure 6 , as follows: 10. The analysis indicates that the causes related to the owner have the highest relative importance, with a ratio of 50.6% compared to the other causes. Weak funding, frequent changes to designs, or the addition of new work, in addition to his lack of experience in project management and direct intervention in implementation without consulting the consultant. 11. While causes related to consultants accounted for 33.8%, it was found that the second most important issue, following owner-related causes, is the presence of delays in issuing implementation plans or approvals, inconsistencies or weaknesses in technical specifications, and inadequate field follow-up or supervision. 12. As for causes related to contractors, they received 15.6% because of poor technical competence or experience, poor management of resources (labor, equipment), and poor adherence to schedules. Figure 6. Histogram the relative importance of each causes related to project stakeholders. Figure shows The figure illustrates the relative importance of delay causes related to project stakeholders in residential investment projects. The results indicate that owner-related causes represent the highest contribution to project delays (0.506), followed by consultant-related causes (0.338), while contractor-related causes have the lowest relative importance (0.156). These findings highlight the dominant role of owner and consultant decisions and management practices in influencing project schedule. After making the required calculations to extract the relative importance of each causes related to resources, as shown in Figure 7 as follows: 13. It shows that the relative importance of causes related to labor are considers as the larger relative importance with ratio (61.2%) compared with the other causes, there is a shortage of skilled labor as a result of immigration, inadequate training, and worker or union strikes or sit-ins. 14. While causes related to materials received (37.3%), it was found that the second most important goal after Political causes and management causes, the delivery of materials may be delayed or of poor quality, and there are problems with transportation and storage, as well as monopolization of certain materials in the market. 15. As for causes related to equipment received (1.5%) because the lack of modern equipment or contractor reliance on outdated equipment. Figure 7. Histogram the relative importance of each causes related to resources. This figure illustrates the relative importance of major resource-related causes contributing to delays in residential investment projects. Labor-related causes exhibit the highest impact with a relative importance value of 0.612, indicating that workforce availability, productivity, and management issues are the dominant sources of delay. Materials-related causes rank second with a value of 0.373, reflecting the influence of material supply, availability, and procurement challenges. Equipment-related causes show a minimal effect on project delays, with a relative importance value of 0.015. The results highlight the critical role of labor and material management in mitigating schedule delays in residential construction. The majority of delay studies fail to offer solutions, and those that do align with the results often yield unfeasible suggestions. It is easier to recognize and comprehend the associated risk when one is aware of the many kinds of construction delays. The primary causes for delays in underdeveloped nations differ greatly from those in developed nations, according to the studies. In poor nations, internal contractor or client issues are the primary source of delays. This might be the case because contractors operating in poor nations face unique restrictions that are less severe in developed nations. The study also found that the majority of risks are entirely the responsibility of the contractor. However, other research identified legal, technological, and security issues as the primary causes of delays. 5. Conclusions The research results categorize residential investment projects into 15 main causes, each contributing to a delay. We discovered that some projects experience the effects of all 15 causes, while others only experience some. The Fuzzy AHP method was used to determine the weight of each cause for the project, combined with a risk matrix to determine the probability of the cause’s occurrence and its impact on the project. The above procedure resulted in a value for the cause of delay, which includes its relative importance, probability, and impact on the project delay. This value is entered into the regression equation to predict the number of days of delay in advance and take proactive measures to avoid it. This method has worked well in the past and has given accurate results. A clear understanding of the degree of delay contributes to identifying the cause, monitoring performance, and continuous improvement. It also reduces the probability of delays and failure in residential investment projects. Ethics considerations and informed consent This study involved human participants through questionnaires/interviews conducted with engineers, planners, and stakeholders involved in residential investment projects. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. The purpose of the research was explained, and participation was entirely voluntary. Verbal informed consent was obtained due to the non-invasive nature of the study and to ensure ease of participation, with no personal identifying information collected. Ethics approval and consent to participate This research is an engineering study focusing on residential investment projects and is based on a questionnaire survey conducted with experts in the field. The research did not include patients, medical records, or confidential personal information. Participation in the questionnaire was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and their responses were collected anonymously and used solely for academic research purposes. In accordance with institutional guidelines, formal ethical approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) was not required for this type of non-clinical, expert-based survey research. The study was conducted in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. DATA license Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) . Data availability statement Underlying data Repository name: Zenodo Title of project: Data for identifying delay causes in residential investment projects using Fuzzy AHP https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18436220 20 This project contains the following underlying data: Pairwise_comparison_matrices: Aggregated pairwise comparison matrices used in the Fuzzy AHP model. Extended data Repository name: Zenodo Title of project: Questionnaire for residential investment project delay assessment https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18283561 19 This project contains the following extended data: Questionnaire: Expert questionnaire used to evaluate the main causes of delay in residential investment projects. Acknowledgment I thank the Ministry of Higher Education and the University of Baghdad for their help. I am thankful for the support received from the Dean’s Office of the College of Engineering and the head of the Civil Engineering Department throughout this endeavor. References 1. Doraisamy SV, Akasah ZA, Yunus R: An Overview on the Issue of Delay in the Construction Industry. Hassan R, Yusoff M, Alisibramulisi A, et al. , editors. Proceedings of the International Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Conference 2014 InCIEC 2014. Singapore: Springer; Jan. 2015; pp. 313–319. Publisher Full Text 2. Prasad KV, Vasugi V, Venkatesan R, et al. : Analysis of causes of delay in Indian construction projects and mitigation measures. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. Jan. 2019; 24 (1): 58–78. Publisher Full Text 3. Alsaadi AA, Ghasemlounia: Reasons for delaying the constriction projects in Iraq. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research. 2021; 11 (1): 129–133. Publisher Full Text 4. Zhang B, Li Y: A User Profile of Tendering and Bidding Corruption in the Construction Industry Based on SOM Clustering: A Case Study of China. Buildings. Dec. 2022; 12 (12): 2103. Publisher Full Text 5. Gad NA, Abdel-Monem M, El-Dash K, et al. : Modeling financial risk contributes to construction projects; case study of expansion food industries. HBRC Journal. Jun 2022; 18 (1): 85–106. Publisher Full Text 6. Nguyen VT, Do ST, Vo NM, et al. : An analysis of construction failure factors to stakeholder coordinating performance in the finishing phase of high-rise building projects. Advances in Civil Engineering. Dec. 2020. Publisher Full Text 7. Mohammed SR, Naji HI, Ali RH: Impact of the Feasibility Study on the Construction Projects. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Baghdad, Iraq: Jun 2019; vol. 518 (2): p. 1. Publisher Full Text 8. Long LH, Young DL, Jun YL: Delay and Cost Overruns in Vietnam Large Construction Projects: A Comparison with Other Selected Countries. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2008; 12 (6): 367–377. Publisher Full Text 9. Altaie MR, Onyelowe K: Identifying Failure Factors in the Implementation of Residential Complex Projects in Iraq. J. Eng. Feb. 2024; 30 (2): 1–15. Publisher Full Text 10. Rachid Z, Toufik B, Mohammed B: Causes of schedule delays in construction projects in Algeria. Int. J. Constr. Manag. Mar. 2018; 19 (5): 371–381. Publisher Full Text 11. Namitha Sheen ST, Shanmuga Priyan R, Sugumar S: A Review on Risk Management in Residential Projects. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT). Nov. 2017; 6 (11): 295–298. 12. Mhetre K, Konnur BA, Landage AB: Risk Management in Construction Industry. International Journal of Engineering Research (IJER). Jan. 2016; 5 (1): 153–155. Publisher Full Text 13. Serpell A, Ferrada X, Rubio L, et al. : Evaluating Risk Management practices in Construction organizations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Proceedings of the 2014 IPMA World Congress. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Jul. 2015; vol. 194 : pp. 201–210. Publisher Full Text 14. Abhinaya K, Nidhu S: Risk Management in Highway construction using Risk priority matrix and SPSS software. SSRG International J. Civ. Eng. 2017. 15. Bhadane N, Kunte B, Manure J, et al. : A Study on Qualitative Risk Analysis in Residential Building Construction Project. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). Jun. 2021; 8 (6): 3413–3418. 16. Aydin S, Kahraman C: Evaluation of e-commerce website quality using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. IAENG Int. J. Comput. Sci. 2012; 39 (1): 64–70. 17. Saaty TL, Peniwati K, Shang JS: The analytic hierarchy process and human resource allocation: Half the story. Math. Comput. Model. Oct. 2007; 46 (7–8): 1041–1053. Publisher Full Text 18. Shukla RK, Garg D, Agarwal A: An integrated approach of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in modeling supply chain coordination. Production & Manufacturing Research. Jun 2014; 2 (1): 415–437. Publisher Full Text 19. Hasan AA, Burha AM: Questionnaire for Assessing for Causes of Delay in Residential Investment Projects (Using Fuzzy AHP Technique). Zenodo. January 17, 2026. Publisher Full Text 20. Hasan AA, Burhan AM: Expert’s opinions.January 30, 2026. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 College of Engineering - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad College of Engineering, Baghdad, Baghdad Governorate, 0000, Iraq 2 College of Engineering - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad College of Engineering, Baghdad, Baghdad Governorate, 0000, Iraq Aya A. Hasan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration Abbas M. Burhan Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 09 Feb 2026, 15:214 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176072.1 Copyright © 2026 Hasan AA and Burhan AM. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Hasan AA and Burhan AM. Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176072.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Canseco-Tuñacao HA. Reviewer Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461023 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Mar 2026 Hana Astrid Canseco-Tuñacao , Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, Philippines Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461023 (1) The authors may need to go over the document. Some aspects of the paper are poorly written. (2) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and Risk Matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available ... Continue reading READ ALL (1) The authors may need to go over the document. Some aspects of the paper are poorly written. (2) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and Risk Matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available methods. (3) There are many available articles assessing construction delays. Some are focused on residential construction. These published works have identified around 40 causes of delays. This study, however, only identified 15 causes. (4) There is redundant information presented. Table 7's data is aggregated in Table 4, 5, 6, Figure 5, 6 and 7. (5) There are some differences in the data. For one, Table 7 shows that materials is classified as weak with a relative importance of 0.373. However, Social and Political (to name a few) are classified as high with lower relative importance of 0.146 and 0.113, respectively. Another example is, consultant causes is of high relative importance in Table 5. However, technical causes in Table 4 is the least. A part of the document states that this technical causes refer to both consultants and technical equipment. (6) Another question pertains to the low relative importance of contractor causes in Table 5. All the while pointing that the majority of risks are entirely the responsibility of the contractor (last statement in results in discussion) (7) Results and discussions have discussed reasons for the high importance percentages without verified data. The identified causes are very general, while the stipulated reasons are very specific. Moreover, no supporting references supporting the same are cited. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Structural Engineering, Civil Engineering I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Canseco-Tuñacao HA. Reviewer Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461023 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Aya A. Hasan , College of Engineering - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad College of Engineering, Baghdad, 0000, Iraq 23 Mar 2026 Author Response First, we would like to respectfully note that the reviewer’s expertise is in structural engineering, whereas this study falls within the domain of project management or construction management and risk ... Continue reading First, we would like to respectfully note that the reviewer’s expertise is in structural engineering, whereas this study falls within the domain of project management or construction management and risk analysis. Therefore, some comments may not fully reflect the methodological and managerial scope of the research. (1) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and risk matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available methods. Ans. This clarifies that the integration of Fuzzy AHP with the Risk Matrix is specifically chosen to handle uncertainty and subjective expert judgments in construction delay analysis. Unlike traditional AHP, fuzzy AHP incorporates linguistic variables and triangular fuzzy numbers to improve decision accuracy under uncertainty. Additionally, the risk matrix complements FAHP by evaluating probability and impact, enabling a comprehensive risk-based prioritization of delay causes. This combined approach provides a more robust framework compared to single-method techniques, as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the delay causes by integrating both qualitative and quantitative assessments. (2) The study identified only 15 causes, while other studies identified around 40 causes. Ans. The study deliberately concentrates on the most significant and contextually pertinent causes associated with residential investment projects in Iraq. These 15 causes were identified through expert evaluation and structured classification into three main categories (general, stakeholders, and resources), ensuring depth of analysis rather than breadth. Moreover, the methodology emphasizes prioritization and risk quantification rather than exhaustive listing, which aligns with the study’s objective of supporting decision-making. (3) There is redundant information presented. Ans. The tables and figures serve complementary purposes rather than redundancy. Tables (4, 5, and 6) present precise numerical results of relative importance, while Figures (5, 6, and 7) provide visual interpretation for more profound understanding of trends and comparisons. Table 7 integrates risk assessment (probability × impact) with relative importance to derive delay degree, which cannot be fully represented in earlier tables. (4) There are inconsistencies in classification and relative importance. Ans. The classification is based on risk score (probability × impact), not solely on relative importance. For example, materials have a relatively high weight (0.373) but a low risk score due to low probability and impact, resulting in a “weak” classification. Conversely, social and political causes have higher risk scores despite lower weights because of higher probability and impact values. This distinction is methodologically correct and consistent with risk matrix principles. (5) Low importance of contractor causes vs. statement that contractor bears most risks. Ans. The results indicate that contractor-related causes have lower relative importance (0.156) compared to owner and consultant causes. However, the discussion highlights that contractors often bear the implementation risks in practice, which can lead to significant financial and operational challenges for them despite their lower relative importance in the root causes of delay. This conclusion does not contradict the findings; rather, it reflects the distinction between responsibility and root causes of delay. The study emphasizes that delays are primarily driven by owner and consultant decisions, even though contractors face the consequences during execution. (6) Results lack supporting references and verified data. Ans. The results are based on a structured questionnaire survey involving 76 experts with significant academic qualifications and professional experience, ensuring reliability of the data. Expert interpretations and practical observations in the Iraqi construction context inform the explanations provided in the discussion. The introduction and background sections also cite relevant literature to support the identified causes and risk analysis approach. General Evaluation Responses Is the statistical analysis appropriate? No → It has been clarified that the methodology used is MCDM, not traditional statistical analysis; therefore, the evaluation is based on decision-making methods, not classical statistics. Are all source data available? Partly, data is restricted due to government policies, as explained in the Data Availability section, which limits access to certain datasets that could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, such as specific demographic information or detailed results from previous studies. First, we would like to respectfully note that the reviewer’s expertise is in structural engineering, whereas this study falls within the domain of project management or construction management and risk analysis. Therefore, some comments may not fully reflect the methodological and managerial scope of the research. (1) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and risk matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available methods. Ans. This clarifies that the integration of Fuzzy AHP with the Risk Matrix is specifically chosen to handle uncertainty and subjective expert judgments in construction delay analysis. Unlike traditional AHP, fuzzy AHP incorporates linguistic variables and triangular fuzzy numbers to improve decision accuracy under uncertainty. Additionally, the risk matrix complements FAHP by evaluating probability and impact, enabling a comprehensive risk-based prioritization of delay causes. This combined approach provides a more robust framework compared to single-method techniques, as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the delay causes by integrating both qualitative and quantitative assessments. (2) The study identified only 15 causes, while other studies identified around 40 causes. Ans. The study deliberately concentrates on the most significant and contextually pertinent causes associated with residential investment projects in Iraq. These 15 causes were identified through expert evaluation and structured classification into three main categories (general, stakeholders, and resources), ensuring depth of analysis rather than breadth. Moreover, the methodology emphasizes prioritization and risk quantification rather than exhaustive listing, which aligns with the study’s objective of supporting decision-making. (3) There is redundant information presented. Ans. The tables and figures serve complementary purposes rather than redundancy. Tables (4, 5, and 6) present precise numerical results of relative importance, while Figures (5, 6, and 7) provide visual interpretation for more profound understanding of trends and comparisons. Table 7 integrates risk assessment (probability × impact) with relative importance to derive delay degree, which cannot be fully represented in earlier tables. (4) There are inconsistencies in classification and relative importance. Ans. The classification is based on risk score (probability × impact), not solely on relative importance. For example, materials have a relatively high weight (0.373) but a low risk score due to low probability and impact, resulting in a “weak” classification. Conversely, social and political causes have higher risk scores despite lower weights because of higher probability and impact values. This distinction is methodologically correct and consistent with risk matrix principles. (5) Low importance of contractor causes vs. statement that contractor bears most risks. Ans. The results indicate that contractor-related causes have lower relative importance (0.156) compared to owner and consultant causes. However, the discussion highlights that contractors often bear the implementation risks in practice, which can lead to significant financial and operational challenges for them despite their lower relative importance in the root causes of delay. This conclusion does not contradict the findings; rather, it reflects the distinction between responsibility and root causes of delay. The study emphasizes that delays are primarily driven by owner and consultant decisions, even though contractors face the consequences during execution. (6) Results lack supporting references and verified data. Ans. The results are based on a structured questionnaire survey involving 76 experts with significant academic qualifications and professional experience, ensuring reliability of the data. Expert interpretations and practical observations in the Iraqi construction context inform the explanations provided in the discussion. The introduction and background sections also cite relevant literature to support the identified causes and risk analysis approach. General Evaluation Responses Is the statistical analysis appropriate? No → It has been clarified that the methodology used is MCDM, not traditional statistical analysis; therefore, the evaluation is based on decision-making methods, not classical statistics. Are all source data available? Partly, data is restricted due to government policies, as explained in the Data Availability section, which limits access to certain datasets that could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, such as specific demographic information or detailed results from previous studies. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Aya A. Hasan , College of Engineering - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad College of Engineering, Baghdad, 0000, Iraq 23 Mar 2026 Author Response First, we would like to respectfully note that the reviewer’s expertise is in structural engineering, whereas this study falls within the domain of project management or construction management and risk ... Continue reading First, we would like to respectfully note that the reviewer’s expertise is in structural engineering, whereas this study falls within the domain of project management or construction management and risk analysis. Therefore, some comments may not fully reflect the methodological and managerial scope of the research. (1) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and risk matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available methods. Ans. This clarifies that the integration of Fuzzy AHP with the Risk Matrix is specifically chosen to handle uncertainty and subjective expert judgments in construction delay analysis. Unlike traditional AHP, fuzzy AHP incorporates linguistic variables and triangular fuzzy numbers to improve decision accuracy under uncertainty. Additionally, the risk matrix complements FAHP by evaluating probability and impact, enabling a comprehensive risk-based prioritization of delay causes. This combined approach provides a more robust framework compared to single-method techniques, as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the delay causes by integrating both qualitative and quantitative assessments. (2) The study identified only 15 causes, while other studies identified around 40 causes. Ans. The study deliberately concentrates on the most significant and contextually pertinent causes associated with residential investment projects in Iraq. These 15 causes were identified through expert evaluation and structured classification into three main categories (general, stakeholders, and resources), ensuring depth of analysis rather than breadth. Moreover, the methodology emphasizes prioritization and risk quantification rather than exhaustive listing, which aligns with the study’s objective of supporting decision-making. (3) There is redundant information presented. Ans. The tables and figures serve complementary purposes rather than redundancy. Tables (4, 5, and 6) present precise numerical results of relative importance, while Figures (5, 6, and 7) provide visual interpretation for more profound understanding of trends and comparisons. Table 7 integrates risk assessment (probability × impact) with relative importance to derive delay degree, which cannot be fully represented in earlier tables. (4) There are inconsistencies in classification and relative importance. Ans. The classification is based on risk score (probability × impact), not solely on relative importance. For example, materials have a relatively high weight (0.373) but a low risk score due to low probability and impact, resulting in a “weak” classification. Conversely, social and political causes have higher risk scores despite lower weights because of higher probability and impact values. This distinction is methodologically correct and consistent with risk matrix principles. (5) Low importance of contractor causes vs. statement that contractor bears most risks. Ans. The results indicate that contractor-related causes have lower relative importance (0.156) compared to owner and consultant causes. However, the discussion highlights that contractors often bear the implementation risks in practice, which can lead to significant financial and operational challenges for them despite their lower relative importance in the root causes of delay. This conclusion does not contradict the findings; rather, it reflects the distinction between responsibility and root causes of delay. The study emphasizes that delays are primarily driven by owner and consultant decisions, even though contractors face the consequences during execution. (6) Results lack supporting references and verified data. Ans. The results are based on a structured questionnaire survey involving 76 experts with significant academic qualifications and professional experience, ensuring reliability of the data. Expert interpretations and practical observations in the Iraqi construction context inform the explanations provided in the discussion. The introduction and background sections also cite relevant literature to support the identified causes and risk analysis approach. General Evaluation Responses Is the statistical analysis appropriate? No → It has been clarified that the methodology used is MCDM, not traditional statistical analysis; therefore, the evaluation is based on decision-making methods, not classical statistics. Are all source data available? Partly, data is restricted due to government policies, as explained in the Data Availability section, which limits access to certain datasets that could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, such as specific demographic information or detailed results from previous studies. First, we would like to respectfully note that the reviewer’s expertise is in structural engineering, whereas this study falls within the domain of project management or construction management and risk analysis. Therefore, some comments may not fully reflect the methodological and managerial scope of the research. (1) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and risk matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available methods. Ans. This clarifies that the integration of Fuzzy AHP with the Risk Matrix is specifically chosen to handle uncertainty and subjective expert judgments in construction delay analysis. Unlike traditional AHP, fuzzy AHP incorporates linguistic variables and triangular fuzzy numbers to improve decision accuracy under uncertainty. Additionally, the risk matrix complements FAHP by evaluating probability and impact, enabling a comprehensive risk-based prioritization of delay causes. This combined approach provides a more robust framework compared to single-method techniques, as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the delay causes by integrating both qualitative and quantitative assessments. (2) The study identified only 15 causes, while other studies identified around 40 causes. Ans. The study deliberately concentrates on the most significant and contextually pertinent causes associated with residential investment projects in Iraq. These 15 causes were identified through expert evaluation and structured classification into three main categories (general, stakeholders, and resources), ensuring depth of analysis rather than breadth. Moreover, the methodology emphasizes prioritization and risk quantification rather than exhaustive listing, which aligns with the study’s objective of supporting decision-making. (3) There is redundant information presented. Ans. The tables and figures serve complementary purposes rather than redundancy. Tables (4, 5, and 6) present precise numerical results of relative importance, while Figures (5, 6, and 7) provide visual interpretation for more profound understanding of trends and comparisons. Table 7 integrates risk assessment (probability × impact) with relative importance to derive delay degree, which cannot be fully represented in earlier tables. (4) There are inconsistencies in classification and relative importance. Ans. The classification is based on risk score (probability × impact), not solely on relative importance. For example, materials have a relatively high weight (0.373) but a low risk score due to low probability and impact, resulting in a “weak” classification. Conversely, social and political causes have higher risk scores despite lower weights because of higher probability and impact values. This distinction is methodologically correct and consistent with risk matrix principles. (5) Low importance of contractor causes vs. statement that contractor bears most risks. Ans. The results indicate that contractor-related causes have lower relative importance (0.156) compared to owner and consultant causes. However, the discussion highlights that contractors often bear the implementation risks in practice, which can lead to significant financial and operational challenges for them despite their lower relative importance in the root causes of delay. This conclusion does not contradict the findings; rather, it reflects the distinction between responsibility and root causes of delay. The study emphasizes that delays are primarily driven by owner and consultant decisions, even though contractors face the consequences during execution. (6) Results lack supporting references and verified data. Ans. The results are based on a structured questionnaire survey involving 76 experts with significant academic qualifications and professional experience, ensuring reliability of the data. Expert interpretations and practical observations in the Iraqi construction context inform the explanations provided in the discussion. The introduction and background sections also cite relevant literature to support the identified causes and risk analysis approach. General Evaluation Responses Is the statistical analysis appropriate? No → It has been clarified that the methodology used is MCDM, not traditional statistical analysis; therefore, the evaluation is based on decision-making methods, not classical statistics. Are all source data available? Partly, data is restricted due to government policies, as explained in the Data Availability section, which limits access to certain datasets that could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, such as specific demographic information or detailed results from previous studies. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Aligamhe VI. Reviewer Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461030 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461030 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Mar 2026 Victor Imohnikhe Aligamhe , Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461030 1) There is need to justify the choice of grouping the fifteen (15) delay risk factors into three (3) categories. 2) The source of the fifteen (risk factors) should be cited. 3) Citation style need to be improved ... Continue reading READ ALL 1) There is need to justify the choice of grouping the fifteen (15) delay risk factors into three (3) categories. 2) The source of the fifteen (risk factors) should be cited. 3) Citation style need to be improved on, instead of “author in 3 Stated that…” simply write “ 3 stated that…” 4) See 1.0 paragraph 3 line 2 as quoted “I found out that...” should be better expressed grammatically. Author(s) should do proper proofreading to improve on the works grammatic constructs of the manuscript 5) The author is advised to discuss briefly the current state of construction project delay with emphasis on the study area 6) Merge short paragraph with preceding or succeeding once 7) In the methodology session, the respondents were not properly classified with respect to their professions. 8) The author should ensure that only the set out objectives are discussed under the results and discussion, and conclusion sessions. Furthermore, such should be briefly report in the abstract. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: immunogenetics, endocrine disorders, single-cell technologies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Aligamhe VI. Reviewer Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461030 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461030 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Khanh HD. Reviewer Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461026 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461026 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Mar 2026 Ha Duy Khanh , Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461026 I would like to highlight several key concerns: The research gap in relation to previous studies has not been clearly identified. The paper lacks a comprehensive review of factors causing delays, as well as ... Continue reading READ ALL I would like to highlight several key concerns: The research gap in relation to previous studies has not been clearly identified. The paper lacks a comprehensive review of factors causing delays, as well as a clear basis for the classification of these factors. The sampling structure has not been adequately evaluated or justified. The rationale for selecting the measurement scale and risk assessment levels presented in Tables 1 and 2 is not clearly explained. The discussion of the main findings is limited, and there is insufficient comparison with previous studies to demonstrate the study’s novel contributions. The paper does not sufficiently address the practical implications of the findings for stakeholders regarding the causes of project delays. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Construction management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Khanh HD. Reviewer Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461026 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461026 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 09 Feb 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 1 09 Feb 26 read read read Ha Duy Khanh , Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Victor Imohnikhe Aligamhe , Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, Nigeria Hana Astrid Canseco-Tuñacao , Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, Philippines Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Canseco-Tuñacao H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 Hana Astrid Canseco-Tuñacao , Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, Philippines 0 Views copyright © 2026 Canseco-Tuñacao H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions (1) The authors may need to go over the document. Some aspects of the paper are poorly written. (2) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and Risk Matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available methods. (3) There are many available articles assessing construction delays. Some are focused on residential construction. These published works have identified around 40 causes of delays. This study, however, only identified 15 causes. (4) There is redundant information presented. Table 7's data is aggregated in Table 4, 5, 6, Figure 5, 6 and 7. (5) There are some differences in the data. For one, Table 7 shows that materials is classified as weak with a relative importance of 0.373. However, Social and Political (to name a few) are classified as high with lower relative importance of 0.146 and 0.113, respectively. Another example is, consultant causes is of high relative importance in Table 5. However, technical causes in Table 4 is the least. A part of the document states that this technical causes refer to both consultants and technical equipment. (6) Another question pertains to the low relative importance of contractor causes in Table 5. All the while pointing that the majority of risks are entirely the responsibility of the contractor (last statement in results in discussion) (7) Results and discussions have discussed reasons for the high importance percentages without verified data. The identified causes are very general, while the stipulated reasons are very specific. Moreover, no supporting references supporting the same are cited. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Structural Engineering, Civil Engineering I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Mar 2026 Aya A. Hasan, College of Engineering - Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad College of Engineering, Baghdad, 0000, Iraq First, we would like to respectfully note that the reviewer’s expertise is in structural engineering, whereas this study falls within the domain of project management or construction management and risk analysis. Therefore, some comments may not fully reflect the methodological and managerial scope of the research. (1) The authors may expound on the use of AHP and risk matrix in assessing delays in comparison to other available methods. Ans. This clarifies that the integration of Fuzzy AHP with the Risk Matrix is specifically chosen to handle uncertainty and subjective expert judgments in construction delay analysis. Unlike traditional AHP, fuzzy AHP incorporates linguistic variables and triangular fuzzy numbers to improve decision accuracy under uncertainty. Additionally, the risk matrix complements FAHP by evaluating probability and impact, enabling a comprehensive risk-based prioritization of delay causes. This combined approach provides a more robust framework compared to single-method techniques, as it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the delay causes by integrating both qualitative and quantitative assessments. (2) The study identified only 15 causes, while other studies identified around 40 causes. Ans. The study deliberately concentrates on the most significant and contextually pertinent causes associated with residential investment projects in Iraq. These 15 causes were identified through expert evaluation and structured classification into three main categories (general, stakeholders, and resources), ensuring depth of analysis rather than breadth. Moreover, the methodology emphasizes prioritization and risk quantification rather than exhaustive listing, which aligns with the study’s objective of supporting decision-making. (3) There is redundant information presented. Ans. The tables and figures serve complementary purposes rather than redundancy. Tables (4, 5, and 6) present precise numerical results of relative importance, while Figures (5, 6, and 7) provide visual interpretation for more profound understanding of trends and comparisons. Table 7 integrates risk assessment (probability × impact) with relative importance to derive delay degree, which cannot be fully represented in earlier tables. (4) There are inconsistencies in classification and relative importance. Ans. The classification is based on risk score (probability × impact), not solely on relative importance. For example, materials have a relatively high weight (0.373) but a low risk score due to low probability and impact, resulting in a “weak” classification. Conversely, social and political causes have higher risk scores despite lower weights because of higher probability and impact values. This distinction is methodologically correct and consistent with risk matrix principles. (5) Low importance of contractor causes vs. statement that contractor bears most risks. Ans. The results indicate that contractor-related causes have lower relative importance (0.156) compared to owner and consultant causes. However, the discussion highlights that contractors often bear the implementation risks in practice, which can lead to significant financial and operational challenges for them despite their lower relative importance in the root causes of delay. This conclusion does not contradict the findings; rather, it reflects the distinction between responsibility and root causes of delay. The study emphasizes that delays are primarily driven by owner and consultant decisions, even though contractors face the consequences during execution. (6) Results lack supporting references and verified data. Ans. The results are based on a structured questionnaire survey involving 76 experts with significant academic qualifications and professional experience, ensuring reliability of the data. Expert interpretations and practical observations in the Iraqi construction context inform the explanations provided in the discussion. The introduction and background sections also cite relevant literature to support the identified causes and risk analysis approach. General Evaluation Responses Is the statistical analysis appropriate? No → It has been clarified that the methodology used is MCDM, not traditional statistical analysis; therefore, the evaluation is based on decision-making methods, not classical statistics. Are all source data available? Partly, data is restricted due to government policies, as explained in the Data Availability section, which limits access to certain datasets that could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, such as specific demographic information or detailed results from previous studies. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Canseco-Tuñacao HA. Peer Review Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461023) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461023 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Aligamhe V. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 Victor Imohnikhe Aligamhe , Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2026 Aligamhe V. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions 1) There is need to justify the choice of grouping the fifteen (15) delay risk factors into three (3) categories. 2) The source of the fifteen (risk factors) should be cited. 3) Citation style need to be improved on, instead of “author in 3 Stated that…” simply write “ 3 stated that…” 4) See 1.0 paragraph 3 line 2 as quoted “I found out that...” should be better expressed grammatically. Author(s) should do proper proofreading to improve on the works grammatic constructs of the manuscript 5) The author is advised to discuss briefly the current state of construction project delay with emphasis on the study area 6) Merge short paragraph with preceding or succeeding once 7) In the methodology session, the respondents were not properly classified with respect to their professions. 8) The author should ensure that only the set out objectives are discussed under the results and discussion, and conclusion sessions. Furthermore, such should be briefly report in the abstract. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise immunogenetics, endocrine disorders, single-cell technologies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Aligamhe VI. Peer Review Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461030) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461030 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Khanh H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 Ha Duy Khanh , Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 0 Views copyright © 2026 Khanh H. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I would like to highlight several key concerns: The research gap in relation to previous studies has not been clearly identified. The paper lacks a comprehensive review of factors causing delays, as well as a clear basis for the classification of these factors. The sampling structure has not been adequately evaluated or justified. The rationale for selecting the measurement scale and risk assessment levels presented in Tables 1 and 2 is not clearly explained. The discussion of the main findings is limited, and there is insufficient comparison with previous studies to demonstrate the study’s novel contributions. The paper does not sufficiently address the practical implications of the findings for stakeholders regarding the causes of project delays. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Construction management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Khanh HD. Peer Review Report For: Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects Using Fuzzy AHP and Risk Matrix [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194102.r461026) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1#referee-response-461026 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Hasan AA and Burhan AM'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214", templates : { twitter : "Assessing Key Delay Causes in Residential Investment Projects.... Hasan AA and Burhan AM, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-214/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/176072/194102") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "194102"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "458374": 0, "458375": 0, "461030": 15, "458372": 0, "461029": 0, "458373": 0, "461028": 0, "458370": 0, "461027": 0, "461026": 13, "458371": 0, "461025": 0, "458369": 0, "461024": 0, "458378": 0, "458376": 0, "458377": 0, "461023": 10, "461022": 0, "461021": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "3fa65a28-c070-443c-bf05-0f28e4c39969"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });