Take the Right Seat: The Influence of Occupancy Schemes on Performance Indicators of Lighting in Open Plan Offices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article contains information technical and innovative. The problem addressed is current and has technical relevance, which makes it significant. The paper is well organized and convincing. The experimental methodology is described comprehensively. Interpretations and conclusions are justified by the results.
My recommendations are:
The abstract can be rewritten to be more meaningful and should clarify what is exactly proposed (the technical contribution) and how the proposed approach is validated.
In the references in the Introduction section, the authors cite some works. However, they have not indicated the advantage or disadvantage and their relations to this paper. It's a little confusing
Please use a simple diagram or figure to illustrate the whole idea of this paper, and the modification it has been made from previous work or traditional framework.
Quality of Figures is so important too. Please provide some high-resolution figures. The comparison of different methods using clear graphs should be explained.
An error and statistical analysis of data should be performed.
More extensive simulations and more figures are needed
Discuss the future plans with respect to the research state of progress and its limitations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The papers deals with the occupancy schemes on performance indicators of lighting in open plan offices . The paper is well-written, clear and robust. It is interesting and conclusions sound.
I do not have any other comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Unfortunately, I don't think this article is ready for publication. Specific comments are as follows:
(1) It is hard to see any innovation in this study;
(2) The workload of this study is not large, and the research content is not difficult, but the article is too long, occupying 24 pages. It is suggested that the author try to focus on the main research points in a limited space.
(3) It is suggested that the author improve his English expression. The expression in the current version is obscure and difficult to understand.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made all the changes requested by the reviewer. I am in favour of the publication
