Embodied CO₂ Reduction Effects of Free-Form Concrete Panel Production Using Rod-Type Molds with 3D Plastering Technique

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very well written and can be a good reference point for future works, however minor revisions are needed in the following area:

Please use higher resolution vector for Figure 1, and check the borders for the first box on top.

Table 1 needs to be enhanced, the facility and their description must be in line please adjust the table and line setting.

In Table 1, please revise the description on sustainability, what you have described is more suited for productivity. Also please explain more clearly on cost, there are many items that cost related not just manpower. A revision of Table 1 is necessary.

In line 161, please explain more on your conclusion that more on the manpower and material requirement, the sentence “a lot of man power “is vague.

Line 256-257; please explain how did you come up with this number? What is the formula used?

The conclusion needs to be more concise, please summarize findings in bullet points.

In your conclusion please give a short comment on general acceptance of such methods for construction of small to medium sized housing solutions too.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Embodied CO2 Reduction Effects of Free-form Concrete Panel Production Using Rod Type Molds with 3D Plastering Technique" is nicely written and well organized and fitting well with the journal scope.

I would suggest:

1. The audience may be misguided about the characteristics of the article, like a case study or a original research or review in the abstract.
2. The conclusion needs to be concise and trimmed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf