See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282503636

Motivations and Limitations of Prefabricated Building: An Overview

Article  in  Applied Mechanics and Materials · June 2015

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.802.668

CITATIONS READS

4 1,632

2 authors:

Khaled M.Amtered El-Abidi Farid Ghazali

Universiti Sains Malaysia Universiti Sains Malaysia
6 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Results from my Master research View project

DEVELOPMENT OF PREFABRICATED BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS IN LIBYA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaled M.Amtered El-Abidi on 04 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 802 (2015) pp 668-675 Submitted: 2015-04-18
© (2015) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland Revised: 2015-05-30
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.802.668 Accepted: 2015-06-03

Motivations and limitations of prefabricated building: An overview

Khaled M. Amtered El-Abidi1,a* and F.E Mohamed Ghazalia1,b
1
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Nibong Tebal, 14300, Malaysia.
a
idi2891975@yahoo.com, b cefarid@usm.my

Keywords: benefits and drawbacks, prefabricated building, variation of usage

Abstract. Based on previous studies, prefabricated building usage motivations in the construction
sector differ over time and vary from country to country. To adopt this technology, awareness on
current trends and the latest innovations should be increased by reviewing previous studies. The
objective of this study is to conduct a revision of common motivations and limitations of
prefabricated building in the construction industry taking into consideration the experience gained
and reported by several countries. Results show that the adaptation of prefabricated building mainly
depends on factors such as labor shortage, labor cost, housing demand, building process efficiency,
weather, as well as reduction of waste material and energy consumption. Prefabricated building has
a relatively low uptake in construction industries worldwide despite its inherent economic,
environmental, and social benefits.

Introduction
The use of prefabricated building has changed over time as a result of economic shifts,
population surge, wars, as well as other social and political factors [1]. The destruction that has
been caused by the World War II, created a climate for prefabricated building systems to provide
new housing in countries affected by the war. In the United States (US), for example, scarce skilled
labor and the housing demand resulted in a prefabricated building implementation with a level
similar to those in Europe and Japan. Meanwhile, many former colonies of Europe in Africa and
Asia became independent during postwar years; these countries must immediately acquire and
apply technology to expedite their development [2]. Prefabricated building technology was
transferred from developed countries to many independent countries in the early 1960s. However,
prefabricated building demonstrated limited success in many countries because its reputation was
tarnished by previous design and construction mistakes. Consequently, conventional construction
methods still prevailed in housing construction.
Recently, prefabricated building processes have been enhanced by advances in design,
information technologies, and machineries as well as the current emphasis within the industry to
reduce waste materials, energy consumption, labor requirements, project duration, and costs. These
situations have validated that using prefabricated building is now more practical than ever [3,4].
The governments of many countries began to rethink in adopting prefabricated building during the
late 1990s and 2000s. Such as the United Kingdom (UK), Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and
Australia, which introduced policies to enhance mechanization in their industries through long-term
visions or strategies [5,6,7,8,9]. Significant differences in local emphasis were noted despite several
similarities among these initiatives [10]. To maximize its potential benefit, the construction industry
requires substantial step-by-step advances from other countries as well as efficient processes that
will direct the prefabricated building strategy to achieve its optimal extent. Any advanced study on
building systems and technology should begin by determining the present status [11]. The objective
of this study is to review the recent variable motivations and limitations of using prefabricated
building in the construction industry in different countries. In order to increase awareness on current
trends and the latest innovations, previous studies on adopting prefabricated building technology
should be reviewed.

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.ttp.net. (ID: 202.188.89.22-09/09/15,16:33:32)
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 802 669

Research Methodology
This study presents a number of motivations and variation of prefabricated building usage,
originating from a recently carried out overview of published evidence concerning identification of
future trends as an option on adopting such technology. The review had keyword search terms
associated with prefabricated building and its different contexts, via the electronic databases of the
Universiti Sains Malaysia. Excluding duplicates, the search yielded n = 1481 articles including
those related to barriers, challenges and issues in using this technique. Through these articles
researchers selected trends towards using these methods for some countries as well as the obstacles
they face. The researchers independently assessed n = 80 articles for eligibility. Retained articles
included those that have published since 2000. Five countries namely, US, UK, Hong Kong,
Australia, and Malaysia are evidently the biggest contributors of involved articles. Zutshi and Creed
[12] argued that a systematic review accompanied by a meta-analysis is an efficient and highly
controlled approach to summarize the results of numerous studies, and thus, provide reasonable
transparency.

Prefabricated Building Categories, Definitions and Concepts

Goodier and Gibb [13] stated that prefabricated building can be generally classified into five
levels according to the prefabrication degree applied on the product. However, to clarify
classification, the original term “prework method,” which consists of “prefabrication,”
“preassembly,” and “modularization,” should be initially defined.
Prefabrication is any component manufactured off-site, which is not considered as a complete
system to be prefabricated [14]. This is categorized as Zero-level “Basic Material” without pre-
installation assembly features [15].
Preassembly is “a process by which various materials, prefabricated components, and/or
equipment are joined together at a remote location for subsequent installation as a unit” [14]. It is
generally regarded as a combination of prefabrication and modularization. Such combination is
further categorized into first, second, and third levels;
- First-level “Component Manufacturing and Sub-assembly” refers to small sub-assemblies that
are frequently assembled prior to installation [15]. Off-site fabrication and off-site production are
employed when both prefabrication and preassembly are integrated.
- Second-level “Non-volumetric Preassembly” refers to preassembled units that do not enclose
usable space. Examples are timber roof trusses.
- Third-level “Volumetric Pre-assembly” refers to pre-assembled units that enclose usable space
and are generally completely finished internally in a factory. However, these units do not form
building structures such as toilet and bathroom.
Modularization generally refers to preconstructing a complete system in a location away from
that on the job site, and then transporting the completed system to the site [14]. It is categorized as a
Fourth-level “Modular System” [13]. According to Lu [16], modular systems are generally similar
to hybrid systems; however, they typically consist of multiple rooms with 3D units. Modular
systems can be complete factory-built houses or apartment blocks, which are constructed and
preassembled. Trim work, as well as electrical, mechanical, and plumbing fixtures, is also installed.
- Fifth-level “Hybrid System” is a combination of two or more volumetric or non-volumetric
systems. Lu [16] stated that a hybrid system is a building unit or a prefabricated building facility
that is fully finished in a factory. It includes completed internal furnishings and building
services. Factory-finished bathrooms with interior finishing, plumbing, and electrical fixtures
are examples of this category.
Off-site Construction includes preassembly, hybrid building systems, panelized building
systems, and modular building systems [17]. Meanwhile, the term off-site manufacturing covers
different categories of factory manufacturing of buildings; these categories include off-site
fabrication, off-site assembly, off-site construction, and off-site production.
670 Modern Civil Engineering in Trend of the Sustainable Infrastructure
Development

Industrialization describes all prework forms (prefabrication, preassembly and modularization),

which relatively implies the use of fully integrated and automated project processes [14]. Uttam et
al. [18] stated that industrialized building systems refer to the complete integration of all
subsystems and components into a general process that fully applies industrialized production,
transportation, and assembly techniques.
Cost, schedule, quality, and safety issues are the primary motivations in employing
prefabrication and preassembly (Levels 0 and 1) [3]. CII [3] cited that project or site constraints,
such as harsh weather conditions, are key motivations in using modularization (modular systems).
For example, factories in Sweden manufacture detached single houses [19]. In addition, logistics
and site operations that are more prominent in studies in the UK and the US only have few benefits,
that is, simplifying the process results in efficiency.
However, transporting volumetric and modular systems has numerous underlying barriers,
including transport costs, improved road capacities, special vehicles, and heavier cranes that are
required in construction sites [20]. These constraints are more prominent in Australia [21].
Sometimes, using volumetric and modular systems is impossible under the conditions in India [22].
Moreover, the results of a study in Saudi Arabia also show the inapplicability of these two types of
systems in permanent construction; however, they can be used in temporary structures such as site
offices [23]. Temporary structures are commonly used only in oil fields in Libya.
The main focus in developing countries should be Levels 0 and 1 to adopt prefabricated building,
and consequently, provide flexible, affordable, and high-performance concrete houses. A semi-
skilled labor force is also required. In general, Levels 3 and 4, which require skilled expert labor,
cannot be applied because of poor civil infrastructure. Therefore, the term Industrialization is not
recommended to be used in these countries as it includes the five levels.

Motivations in Using Prefabricated Building

Justifying the use of prefabricated building commonly involves citing its significant advantages.
But decisions are still generally based on anecdotal evidence rather than unavailable rigorous data
or measurement strategies [24]. Although, its application in construction industry in most countries
for enhancing productivity, improving quality, and coping with a shortage of skilled labor [25], the
results of previous studies show that its using motivations vary from country to country. For
example, the Japanese managed to tame technology to fit into their realities and circumstances.
Gann [26] and Barlow et al. [27] compared constructing prefabricated building with automobile
manufacturing in Japan; their studies highlight the similarities among the production strategies of
these two industries to solve problems related to supply chain coordination, marketing, sales, and
product development.
Improving industry practices and techniques, developing superior capabilities through
construction expertise as an export industry, and adopting an integrated approach to construction are
the motivations in using prefabricated building in Singapore [6]. Meanwhile, the primary
motivation for using prefabricated building in Scandinavia and Finland is the weather; adopting
factory-based manufacturing allows continuous production throughout the year despite the harsh
winter elements that constrain supply [28]. Recently, European initiatives by Manu building project
(2005-2009) entitled "Open building manufacturing" vision to promote the construction industry
and synergy through an integration of holistic building concepts and business processes,
information and communication technology support, and production techniques. [29].
Labor market is a remarkable reason of the difference in uptake of prefabricated building
methods. Reduced labor demand is among the benefits of prefabricated building, which is
considered a motivation in countries with high wages for construction workers. By contrast,
investments in automation in many developing countries are inhibited by low labor costs with high
costs of imported technology [30]. CIMP [31] reported that among the challenges faced by the
Malaysian construction industry is the availability of cheap foreign labor; this scenario favors labor-
intensive construction methods over innovative methods. Nevertheless, the Malaysian government
strongly advocates adopting prefabricated building to ease labor requirement pressures and
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 802 671

simultaneously boost quality and productivity [32]. Meanwhile, a common denominator among
Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Japan, which were high users of prefabricated building,
was the comparatively large use of skillful labor with high wage, this is contrast to the UK and US
that used untrained laborers greatly [33].
Adopting prefabricated building technology is also based on sustainability principles because
consequent pollution and waste are controlled through effective resource utilization and energy
consumption. The Netherlands focused on energy consumption with regard to housing construction
[34]. Hong Kong emphasizes environmental assessment because the construction industry generates
a considerable amount of waste with limited landfill space; this condition has directed the
government to promote prefabricated building to address this problem [35]. The ''Construct for
Excellence Report'' in Hong Kong [7] recognized the necessity of increasing research and
development effort to enable the local industry to adapt advances in processes and technologies
achieved in other countries.
The magnitude of acute housing shortage has become an urgent issue in the speed factor of many
countries such as South Africa [36]. Erecting more apartment buildings with higher quality at a
faster rate is also an important issue among Chinese real estate companies. Vanke, which is the
largest residential real estate developer in Mainland China, has been researching prefabricated
housing since 1999 to resolve the aforementioned issues [37].
Worldwide, the northern European countries have the highest precast levels up to 40-50% [38],
this indicated that the use of prefabricated systems is limited. Public perception toward the
applicability of prefabricated building systems has become an issue since their introduction by
governments in different countries. The low uptake of prefabricated building by the construction
industry is attributed to the aforementioned issue. Motivations and limitations of using prefabricated
building for some countries are shown in Table 1.

Summary and Conclusions

This paper reconfirmed the findings of earlier studies that the motivations in using prefabricated
building vary from country to country. Adapting prefabricated building in these countries is mainly
influenced by labor shortage, labor cost, housing demand, building process efficiency, weather, as
well as reduction of waste material and energy consumption. Prefabricated building has a relatively
low uptake in construction industries worldwide despite its inherent economic, environmental, and
social benefits. This situation is attributed to prevailing local conditions that vary from country to
country.
Although motivations in using prefabricated building help determine its use as an option, the
decision to implement such technology is influenced by the balance between potential benefits and
impediments. The possible barriers to prefabricated building adoption are industry practices and
techniques, supply chain management and logistics, professionalism of the industry, and
construction market risks. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the measurement
strategies on the application and evolution of prefabricated building. However, addressing prevalent
issues in many countries, benefitting from them in enhancing prefabricated building adoption, and
avoiding perceived barriers require more extensive approach. The similarities and differences
among countries should also be considered.
Meanwhile, many other aspects involved in adopting this technology require attention.
Transforming the use of prefabricated building into economic rewards requires training,
organizational changes, and procurement arrangements in the construction industry. There are
several indications of the potential positive benefits of financial and social incentives, as well as
revised national policies and regulations by the government for prefabricated building uptake. Thus,
implementing prefabricated building technology requires a complete restructuring of the
construction industry. The government should encourage and motivate the private sector to
participate in developing such structures.
672 Modern Civil Engineering in Trend of the Sustainable Infrastructure
Development

Table 1. Motivations and limitations of using prefabricated building

Country Motivations Limitations Notes
To enable future construction to be: -Negative perception associated with past The average share of precast concrete
European flexible, agile, value driven, practices, systems in the construction industry
countries knowledge-based, highly customer- - Shortage of skills [39]. across the European Union is 20-25%
centric, efficient and comparative [38]
[39].
To reduce the construction duration, - Shortage of expert personnel that can The current level of using these
To reduce the overall project design and manage building construction, techniques is limited, predominately
US schedule, and -Inadequate education in the structural and precast concrete products [40], which
To compensate for the effect of architectural aspects of systems, has only 6% share of the overall
incremental weather conditions [40]. -Size/weight restrictions on truck loads building construction market [42].
[41].
To meet increasing demand for - Higher capital cost, The proportion of prefabricated building
housing, and - Complexity of interfacing between from total value of the UK construction
UK To improve industry’s performance systems, sector is 2.1% [44].
[43] - Nature of the planning system,
- Negative perception [43].
- Lack of research information
- Higher initial construction cost Using semi-prefabrication is limited,
- Limited site space predominately Public housing. The most
To increase quality, and frequently used precast components
Hong Kong - Monotone in aesthetics
To reduce waste [45]. were precast facade (51%), precast
- Lack of experience
- No demand for prefabrication staircase (22%), semi-precast slab (9%)
- Inflexible for design changes [46]. and semi-precast balcony (7%) [45].

- Cost and finance,

To ease labor requirement pressures,
Malaysia To improve quality and enhance
productivity [47].
Australia To improve the performance of
construction industry [49].
- Skills and knowledge,
- Project delivery and supply chain,
- Perception of clients and professionals,
and
- Lack of government incentives, directives
and promotion [48].
- Shortage of skills
- Lack of industry knowledge[49]
In 2003, prefabricated building share
only 15% of overall construction
projects, however, 10% used by 2006
[47].
Investment in prefabricated building
development is largely non-existent[50].

References
[1] A. Bruce, H. Sandbank, A history of Prefabrication. John B. Pierce Foundation, New York,
(1943). http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006327772;view=1up;seq=9
[2] A. I. Akubue, Technology Transfer: A Third World Perspective. Journal of Technology Studies.
28 (1) (2002) 14-21.
[3] CII. Preliminary research on prefabrication, preassembly, modularization and offsite fabrication
in construction. Research Report 171-11, A Report to the Construction Industry Institute, The
University of Texas at Austin, (2002).
[4] J. Song, W. R. Fagerlund, C. T. Haas, C. B. Tatum and J. A. Vanegas, Considering prework on
industrial projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (2005) 723-733.
[5] Egan, Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force, Department of
Transport and the Regions (DETR), UK, London, (1998).
[6] Construction 21 Review Committee., Reinventing Construction. Ministry of Manpower and
Ministry of National Development, Singapore, (1999).
[7] CIRC., Construction Industry Review Committee (CIRC), HKSAR Government, Jan. 2001,
Hong Kong.
[8] CIDB. Industrialized Building System (IBS) Roadmap 2003-2010. Construction Industry
Development Board (CIDB), Kuala Lumpur, (2003).
[9] K. Hampson, P. Brandon, Construction 2020: A vision for Australia’s Property and
Construction Industry, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation for Icon. Net Pty
Ltd., Brisbane, (2004).
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 802 673

[10] S. Green, M. Kumaraswamy and G. Ofori, All Change in Construction: A Comparative

Analysis of Construction Industry Reform in the UK, Hong Kong and Singapore., HYPERLINK
(2011).
[11] Y. Badir, M. R. A. Kadir and A. H. Hashim. Industrialized Building Systems Construction in
Malaysia” J. of Arch. Eng. 8 (1) (2002) 119-23.
[12] A. Zutshi, A. Creed, An international review of environmental initiatives in the construction
sector. Journal of Cleaner Production xxx. (2014) 1-15.
[13] C. Goodier, A. Gibb, Future opportunities for offsite in the UK. Construction Management and
Economics. 25 (2007) 585-595.
[14] CII., "Prefabrication and Preassembly Trends and Effects on the Construction Workforce".
Report No. 14. Center for Construction Industry Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, (2000).
[15] W. Pan, A. R. J. Dainty and A. G. F. Gibb, Managing innovation: a focus on off-site
production (osp) in the UK housebuilding industry. In: Khosrowshahi, F (Ed.), 20th Annual
ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Heriot Watt University. Association of Researchers in
Construction Management. 2 (2004) 823-30.
[16] Lu Na, Investigation of the desginers’ and general contrators’ Perceptions of offsite
construction techniques In the united states construction industry. (2007)
[17] A. Gibb, M. Pendlebury. Build offsite – promoting construction offsite: glossary of terms'.
Version 1.2 Build Offsite June 2005, UK
[18] K. R. Uttam, R. Madhumita, and S. Subir, Mass-industrialized housing to combat consistent
housing shortage in developing countries: Towards an appropriate system for india. Proc. World
Congress on Housing, National Housing Programs - New Visions, November 03-07(2008),
Kolkata, India. http://atiwb.gov.in/U4.pdf
[19] Anders Segerstedt, Thomas Olofsson, Supply chains in the construction industry. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal. 15 (5) (2010) pp. 347 – 353.
[20] M. Santiago, A. Jardon, Building industrialization: Robotized assembly of modular products.
Assembly Automation. 28 (2) (2008) 134–142.
[21] N. Blismas, R. Wakefield. Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite manufacture in
Australia. Construction Innovation. 9 (1) (2009) pp. 72-83.
[22] M. Arif, D. Bendi, A. Sawhney and K. C. Iyer, State of offsite construction in India-Drivers
and barriers. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 364 (2012) 012109.
[23] Hani Aburas, Off-Site Construction in Saudi Arabia: The Way Forward. Journal of
Architectural Engineering. 17 (2011) 122-124.
[24] C. L. Pasquire, G. E. Connolly, Leaner construction through off-site manufacturing.
Proceedings IGLC, Gramado, Brazil. (2002) pp. 263–266.
[25] L. Jaillon, C. S. Poon, The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems in Hong
Kong: A review of the public and the private sector. Automation in Construction. 18 (2009) 239–
248.
[26] D. M. Gann, Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences between
industrialized housing and car production in Japan. Construction Management and Economics. 14
(5) (1996)
[27] J. Barlow, P. Childerhouse, D. Gann and S. Hong-Minh, Choice and delivery in housebuilding:
Lessons from Japan for UK housebuilders. Build. Res. Inf. 312 (2003) 134–145.
674 Modern Civil Engineering in Trend of the Sustainable Infrastructure
Development

[28] E. Duc, P. J. Forsythe and K. Orr, Is there really a case for Off-Site Manufacturing?. The 31st
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC 2014).
[29] Wafaa Nadim Jack S. Goulding.,"Offsite production: a model for building down barriers",
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 2011, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 82 – 101.
[30] Emel Laptali Orala., Gulgun M-st-koglu., and Ercan Erdis., JIT in developing countries—a
case study of the Turkish prefabrication sector. Building and Environment. 38 (2003) 853 – 860.
[31] CIMP, The Construction Industry Master Plan 2006-2015: Malaysian Construction Industry,
(2006)
[32] N. A. Bari, N. A. Yusuff, N. Ismail and A. Jaapar A, Environmental Awareness and Benefits
of Industrialized Building Systems (IBS). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 50 (2012)
392 – 404.
[33] L. Clarke, C. Wall, Craft versus industry: the division of labour in European housing
construction. Construction Management & Economics. 18 (6) (2000) 689-698.
[34] B. Wouter, J. N. Klaas, Energy requirements of household consumption: a case study of The
Netherlands. Ecological Economics. 28 (1999) 367–383.
[35] L. Jaillon, C. S. Poon and Y. H. Chiang, Quantifying the waste reduction potential of using
prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong. Waste Management. 29 (2009) 309–320.
[36] A. A. E. Othman, S. M. Conrads, Investigating the Feasibility of Industrialised Low-Cost
Housing in South Africa. Open Building Manufacturing: Key Technologies, Applications, and
Industrial Cases. ManuBuild. (2009) 105-127.
[37] X. Xu, Y. Zhao, Some Economic Facts of the Prefabricated Housing. Industry Report, Rutgers
Business School, Newark, NJ, (2010)
[38] YEMAR Report. Turkish construction sector report, Istanbul, Yemar, (2006)
[39] Wafaa Nadim Jack S. Goulding,."Offsite production: a model for building down barriers",
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 18 (1) (2011) pp. 82 – 101.
[40] N. Lu, The Current Use of Offsite Construction Techniques in the United States Construction
Industry. Construction Research Congress, (2009) pp. 946-955.
[41] Gul Polat, Factors Affecting the Use of Precast Concrete Systems in the United States. J.
Constr. Eng. Manage. 134 (2008) 169-178.
[42] C. Ying, E. O. Gül and R. R. David, Sustainable performance criteria for construction method
selection in concrete buildings .Automation in Construction. 19 (2010) 235–244
[43] W. Pan, A. G. F. Gibb and A. R. J. Dainty, Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of
offsite modern methods of construction. Construction Management and Economics. 25 (2) (2007)
pp. 183-194.
[44] C. Goodier, A. Gibb, The value of the UK market for offsite, Buildoffsite: promoting
construction offsite, (2005). www.buildoffsite.co.uk.
[45] L. Jaillon L, C. S. Poon, The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems in Hong
Kong: A review of the public and the private sector. Automation in Construction. 18 (2009) 239–
248.
[46] V. W. Tam, C. M. Tam, S. X. Zeng and W. C. Ng, Towards adoption of prefabrication in
construction. Building and Environment. 42 (2007) 3642–3654.
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 802 675

[47] IBS Roadmap Review, IBS Centre, Construction Industry Development Board, Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, (2007)
[48] M. N. Nawi, A. Lee and K. M. Nor, Barriers to Implementation of the Industrialised Building
System (IBS) in Malaysia. The Built & Human Environment Review. 4 (2011)
[49] Nick Blismas Ron Wakefield, Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite manufacture in
Australia, Construction Innovation. 9 (1) (2009), pp. 72 – 83.

View publication stats