Next Article in Journal
Are You Happy to Be a Farmer? Understanding Indicators Related to Agricultural Production and Influencing Factors: GAP-Şanlıurfa, Turkey
Previous Article in Journal
An Oceania Urban Design Agenda Linking Ecosystem Services, Nature-Based Solutions, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Wellbeing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 22
10.3390/su132212662
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

Exploring the Critical Barriers to the Implementation of Renewable Technologies in Existing University Buildings

Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12662; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212662
by Joaquín Fuentes-del-Burgo 1,*, Elena Navarro-Astor 2, Nuno M. M. Ramos 3,* and João Poças Martins 4,*
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12662; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212662
Submission received: 20 October 2021 / Revised: 7 November 2021 / Accepted: 12 November 2021 / Published: 16 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Sustainability in Buildings: New Trends in the Management of Construction and Demolition Waste)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The need to improve public procurement processes for the supply or operation of RETs in university buildings needs to be further explored, as the process is complex and requires testing to meet all the necessary requirements.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comment. In this sense, they have been included in lines 904 to 908 proposing a line of research that takes into account the difficulties of the contracting processes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for your submission.  After reviewing the paper, I kindly offer the following comments to improve its content:

  1. The content of the introduction and literature sections is reasonable, concise, and comprehensive. It is coherently presented. Yet, I found that despite the number of citations, it could be improved by arguing how your research fits the 2030 agenda. I mean, what particular sustainable development goal will be to benefit from it.
  2. Double-check citations and references
  3. Reduce the length of the methodology section by including just the necessary information to replicate your study. In addition, increase the focus on what criteria the subjects (technicians) should have to participate in this study.
  4. If you consider it appropriate, include a limitation study section.
  5. If possible, send your manuscript to proofread by a high-quality editing and proofreading service company.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewer's suggestion, the following modifications have been made:

Point 1.

Lines 54-62 and 885-887 have been added considering the relationship of the investigation with UNSDG.

New reference has been added: 19. Assembly, General. United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015.

Point 2.

References in line 43 and line 61 have been corrected.

Point 3.

The length of the methodology section has been reduced.

The paragraph on lines 352-354 has been modified.

Clarification of the professionals interviewed on lines 139-144 is added.

The paragraph on lines 128-138 has been modified.

Point 4.

A section for Limitations and future direction has been included on line 889.

Point 5.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 have been edited (lines 312, 421 and 510, respectively).

The text has been reviewed by a professional translator making changes to lines 29, 30, 33,47-48, 63, 79, 112, 115, 230, 258, 306, 344, 355, 358-359, 364, 372, 382.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop