Clean Technology Transfer and Innovation in Social Housing Production in Brazil and Colombia. A Framework from a Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of manuscript number Sustainability_656161
Title: Clean technology transfer and innovation in social housing production in Brazil and Colombia. A framework from a systematic review.
The manuscript present review of the sustainable development programs oriented to social housing programs in Brazil and Colombia. Authors based on the literature date show that clean technology transfer processes have a minimal impact on social housing in these countries. The problem described is important and worth to study, but the interpretations should be improved. In my opinion the manuscript is worth to publish in Sustainability after major revision. However, the issues presented below should be taken into account.
The authors should emphasize which solutions are used/proposed in Brazil and Colombia in relation to social hosing production and compared with the clean technology proposition. Especially that as was concluded “clean technology transfer processes have a minimal impact on social housing in Brazil and Colombia”. Because the authors refer to European solutions, it would be worth presenting the most important differences between economic, social and environmental conditions in these countries in comparison to Brazil and Colombia. This approach should allow assessing the possibilities, or not, to transfer clean technology over the years. The names of countries in Figures 1-3 should be corrected. You should capitalize the names of countries, as well as nationalities, and languages, because they are proper nouns.Author Response
Dear reviewer, first all, thanks for your comments about our article. For us, it is so valuing this review, and it can increase our work in a better way. Now there are our answers:
Point 1: The authors should emphasize which solutions are used/proposed in Brazil and Colombia about social housing production and compared with the clean technology proposition. Especially as was concluded, “clean technology transfer processes have a minimal impact on social housing in Brazil and Colombia.” Because the authors refer to European solutions, it would be worth presenting the most critical differences between economic, social, and environmental conditions in these countries in comparison to Brazil and Colombia. This approach should allow assessing the possibilities, or not, to transfer clean technology over the years.
Response 1: We add some additional phrases to complete the result besought to your comments. Also, we attached from Table 6 to Table 8. These tables compare the different topics reviewed in Brazil, Colombia, the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom agree to your comment.
Point 2: The names of countries in Figures 1-3 should be corrected. You should capitalize the names of countries, as well as nationalities, and languages, because they are proper nouns.
Response 2: We checked figures 1, 2, and 3. Then we corrected the capital letter in those images.
Finally, thanks for your help.
Our best wishes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The review paper discussed an important topic about clean technology transfer and innovation in social housing production. The study case was developed in Brazil and Colombia and has an impact on the different countries in Latin America. Although the subject of the manuscript is very interesting, the paper still requires English proofreading. I am not an English native speaker, but I feel difficulties in reading the first quite long sentence in the abstract. This repeats in different parts of the manuscript and needs to be polished. In general, the paper is still superficial and outcomes reported in figures could be better explored. There are several nice figures and tables, but the discussion could be improved significantly. A review paper should present each figure and table and make a deep discussion. When possible, look for the literature and check patterns. Additionally, explore a combination of older literature to provide a historical perspective and also recent paper to illustrate advances on the topic. This link is weak and we know how rich is history (politically) in both Brazil and Colombia countries. Novelty must be clearly stated in abstract, end of the introduction and again in conclusion as well as the contribution of the review to the existing literature.
Below some other comments:
L10-14: too long sentence, please break it;
L14-15: unclear, please rewrite;
L23: please describe some findings;
L66: shortly describe that this is a review paper and also, methodology approach;
L68: please shortly describe PRISMA;
L70-71: describe basic functions of VOSviewer and Scopus and also how it can be accessed;
Figs1-3: these figures must be presented. I take as example Fig.3 that shows Curitiba. This city is the capital of the Parana State. There is not a single comment on it and initiatives from the government to urban planning, why?
L127: check typo ...time, other authors... (check the entire manuscript carefully, there are some more typos like this);
Sections 3,4 and 5 have several unknown subjects. It would be better to explore references for the different sentences. Although comments and suggestions are valid, it would be worth to link with literature;
L244: highlight all minor contributions in a broader context, additionally, explore different open research questions;
Author Response
Dear reviewer, first all, thanks for your comments about our article. For us, it is so valuing this review, and it can increase our work in a better way. Now there are our answers:
Point 1: When possible, look for the literature and check patterns. Additionally, explore a combination of older literature to provide a historical perspective and also recent paper to illustrate advances on the topic. This link is weak and we know how rich is history (politically) in both Brazil and Colombia countries. Novelty must be clearly stated in abstract, end of the introduction and again in conclusion as well as the contribution of the review to the existing literature.
Response 1: This article is a systematic review of the last six years. For that reason, it is not a history review and only studies the production in that period in the study area. L70 and L71 it was explained the time study line from 2013 to 2019. However, to attend your comment, we added the study timeline at the abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
Point 2: L10-14: too long sentence, please break it.
Response 2: The sentences L10-L14 were had broken it.
Point 3: L14-15: unclear, please rewrite.
Response 3: The sentences L14-L15 were rewriting.
Point 4: L23: please describe some findings.
Response 4: The main finding included in the abstract.
Point 5: L66: shortly describe that this is a review paper and also, methodology approach.
Response 5: We wrote a synthesis paragraph that includes all requirements.
Point 6: L68: please shortly describe PRISMA.
Response 6: We wrote a synthesis paragraph that includes all requirements.
Point 7: L70-71: describe basic functions of VOSviewer and Scopus and also how it can be accessed.
Response 7: We wrote a synthesis paragraph that explained the Scopus database and VOSviewer software.
Point 8: Figs1-3: these figures must be presented. I take as example Fig.3 that shows Curitiba. This city is the capital of the Parana State. There is not a single comment on it and initiatives from the government to urban planning, why?
Response 8: the Curitiba word it shows in figure 3, and it linked to the urban planning concept. However, if we check the guideline of the PRISMA method that we used in this article, this word does not include the keywords to analyze. That is the reason because the article did not develop comments about this word.
Point 9: L127: check typo ...time, other authors... (check the entire manuscript carefully, there are some more typos like this).
Response 9: We attended your comment and did a style review. Please see the next table.
|
Activity |
Corrections |
|
Context Spelling |
13 |
|
Grammar |
7 |
|
Punctuation |
5 |
|
Sentence Structure |
1 |
|
Style |
21 |
|
Vocabulary Enhancement |
13 |
Point 10: Sections 3,4 and 5 have several unknown subjects. It would be better to explore references for the different sentences. Although comments and suggestions are valid, it would be worth to link with literature.
Response 10: At this point, we are sorry. We do not understand your comment. We checked the section 3, 4, and 5, and they have linked the sentences to the literature references. Also, we check the grammar and sentence structure to see if it presented any confusion sentences. The style reviewers considered that the document is evident in that way.
Point 11: L244: highlight all minor contributions in a broader context, additionally, explore different open research questions.
Response 11: Sorry we do not understand this point.
Finally, thanks for your help.
Our best wishes.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1- While the topic and methodology are sounds, this paper suffers from language-related issues; e.g. unusually long sentences such as firs sentence of abstract, irrelevant sentences/logic such as second sentence in abstract AND sentence in form of a question (line 51).
2- Please check for journal requirement on special characters/words such as CO2.
3- Lines 213 and 214 in Results sections are redundant. Results is a standalone section itself. There is no need for words such as "next".
4- Please avoid general words such as the concept of "Green Building". While this is an important part of the paper, such concepts can be very misleading as it has different meanings through the world and also itself is a broad concept. It is very important to point this out and consider it while doing any discussion/analysis.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, first all, thanks for your comments about our article. For us, it is so valuing this review, and it can increase our work in a better way. Now there are our answers:
Point 1: While the topic and methodology are sounds, this paper suffers from language-related issues; e.g. unusually long sentences such as firs sentence of abstract, irrelevant sentences/logic such as second sentence in abstract AND sentence in form of a question (line 51).
Response 1: The mistakes corrected by a style reviewer from a certificate language institution. Their fixes were the following:
|
Activity |
Corrections |
|
Context Spelling |
13 |
|
Grammar |
7 |
|
Punctuation |
5 |
|
Sentence Structure |
1 |
|
Style |
21 |
|
Vocabulary Enhancement |
13 |
About Line 51, the question was eliminating.
Point 2: Please check for journal requirement on special characters/words such as CO2.
Response 2: special characters were fixing.
Point 3: Lines 213 and 214 in Results sections are redundant. Results is a standalone section itself. There is no need for words such as "next".
Response 3: style viewer recommends the word “next” by the expression “Below is shown.” It was fixing in section six.
Point 4: Please avoid general words such as the concept of "Green Building". While this is an important part of the paper, such concepts can be very misleading as it has different meanings through the world and also itself is a broad concept. It is very important to point this out and consider it while doing any discussion/analysis.
Response 4: Thanks to entering this topic at the article review. We consider avoiding a subjective discussion about this topic. So, we analyze this topic in two different contexts: 1) English language context and 2) the concept value that this topic has at the different research areas to English speaking.
Our goal is to write in English. For that reason, we must use the correct research concept that validated in the scientific language in the English world. The English language does not have a regulated institution like the "Real Academia de Española" in the Latin world. So, we had not an English referent institution that could help us to understand your comment. For that reason, we consulted some institutions like the British Council (BC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or Royal Institute of British Architecture (RIBA) to analyze if the concept "Green Building" is the right word to use in English science language.In the case of the "Green Building" concept, it is a strong concept in the field of research in English, and this concept has no doubt or different meaning in this context. It is the right word to use in the research field that links to sustainable topics. That is not the case in Latin America. In that case, different circumstances show a bias in the point of view of research on this concept.
Therefore, concepts such as "construcción verde," "construcción sostenible" or "construcción ecologica" have similar meanings and could be general concepts. Also, politics bias makes the concept subjective. For that reason, in Spanish language concepts like "sostenibilidad," sustentabilidad" or "construcción verde" has a strong politic bias in their meaning. That is not the case in the English language. In conclusion, the Green Building concept is the right term to use in the English language. For example, this concept validated in all official documents of the European Commission, United Nations, and other International Organization.
2) The concept value validated at different research areas in the English world. We did a New systematic review to confirm the above reflections. We did not see that it is necessary to include this result in the article. Because it was not one of the article's aims. Now, this is a table about the systematic review results:
|
Research field |
Green Building Concept Usage Percentage |
|
Engineering |
35.1 % |
|
Environmental Science |
13.7 % |
|
Energy |
10 % |
|
Social Science |
9.7 % |
|
Business / Management and Science accounting |
5.5 % |
|
Timeline Review: from 1965 to 2020. "Green Building" Researches appeared officially in 1995. Document reviewed: 10.584 |
|
Finally, thanks for your help.
Our best wishes.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of manuscript Sustainability-656161, after corrections
The manuscript “Clean Technology Transfer and Innovation in Social Housing Production in Brazil and Colombia. A Framework from a Systematic Review.” has been corrected by authors: Rolando-Arturo Cubillos-González and Grace Tibério Cardoso. All my suggestions have been taken into account. I have no further comments. In my opinion this version of manuscript is worth to be published in Sustainability.
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments and concerns were correctly implemented. There were some concerns because clarity, but the abstract, introduction and conclusion sections were rewritten so that they look more a review paper now. In view of the changes made by the authors, and the addition of complementary sentences allowing a better understanding, I do recommend the publication of this paper now. Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate this research.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version looks much better and is recommended for publication. Some minor English language edit might be needed.
