Next Article in Journal
Ecosystem Health Assessment of World Natural Heritage Sites Based on Remote Sensing and Field Sampling Verification: Bayanbulak as Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Incentive Decision for Supply Chain with Corporate Social Responsibility and Lag Effect
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/su12072609
Review Report
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Life Cycle Environmental and Cost Performance of Prefabricated Buildings

Sustainability 2020, 12(7), 2609; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072609
by He Wang 1, Yinqi Zhang 1,*, Weijun Gao 1,2,* and Soichiro Kuroki 1
Reviewer 1:
Chunlu Liu
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(7), 2609; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072609
Submission received: 5 March 2020 / Revised: 17 March 2020 / Accepted: 18 March 2020 / Published: 25 March 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well written and presented. Its topic and content are appropriate for this journal though there is no originality or contributions of new knowledge. The paper is recommended for publications at Sustainability with minor revision. Some changes can be done:

  • to clarify what "life cycle" in this paper stand for and use the same scope throughout the paper if there is no specific explanation;
  • to concentrate on "environmental performance" or change the title as the paper contains too much "cost"; and
  • to define the indicators of EI (the abbreviation of environmental impact?) used in this paper; and
  • to attend more published research on "life cycle" such as in demolition, and "environmental performance" such as embodied energy of the construction industry.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Construction industry is the most polluted one, therefore the subject is very actual and challenging.

Some suggestions for the authors:

Row 48: "off-site production" in Europe refers not only for prefabs, but also for elements, like reinforcement (e.g. cages for columns) that are manufactured off side and mounted on site.

Row 126: please explain the items of the formula more accurate (what does department mean, what is E, what represents the difference between A and E). What is L matrix?

Row 148: please explain the data from Table 1 and the relevance of them for the research.

Row 181: please reconsider the unit measures in Table 3. Are they OK? If they are not, what about the quantities?

If PPB is more efficient and effective, please explain why construction companies still use the traditional method. It`s obvious that each method have pros and cons. You have presented only advantages. What about the negative impact?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The second version manuscript is better than the first version. However, there are still several things to be modified for better publication in Sustainability. Abstract The abstract could be improved by reducing the general information and focusing on the specific analyses that were conducted in this study as well as the more details of the results of this work. Line 200 in table 300. I think steel bar is not proper term. Reinforcing bar, rebar or deformed bar would be much better for appropriate use in the construction industry. Reference should be modified to the proper forms of Sustainability. Lastly, please indicate the more detailed implication and contribution of this study in conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop