The Analysis of Small Investors’ Demands on a Thermal Insulation System for a Family House: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Materials and methods: please revise the description of the materials to include the composition along with the material trade name (Porfix, Baumit, Miako, Bramac). More details are needed.
• Remove the list of companies’ evaluators, or place in the acknowledgement with more justifications.
• The explanation of the questionnaire evaluation with the Fuller’s methods goes in the methodology.
• Figure 5, same number of digits on the y-axis.
• More discussion is needed in the presentation of the results. The results must be compared and discussed with the literature.
• Figure 6 is not clear, it must be clearer in the final version.
• The opening sentence of the discussion must be rewritten.
• The conclusion must be clearer. 

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editors,

I send you the corrected manuscript, with the marks of the new changes, with the red color (for Reviewer 1) and the blue colour (for Reviewer 2).

-the marks of the new changes, with thered color (for Reviewer 1):

• Material and methods: - the composition and description of the materials (trade name: Porfix, Baumit, Miako, Bramac) are added. (lines 174-187)
• the list of companies´ evaluators is removed (lines 354-355)
• the explanation of the questionnaire evaluation with the Fuller´s methods is moved to the methodology (lines 349-353)
• Figure 5 - the legend in the graph is added; the number of digits on the y-axis is revised (line 386)
• in the presentation of the results, more discussion is added (references 30-39). The results of the research are discussed with the literature (references 30-39) -(lines 437-472)
• Figure 6 – the values of the columns from table 8 are added to the graph; colours are also changed for clarity (line 412)
• the opening sentence of the discussion is totally rewritten/changed (lines 433-436)
• to make it clearer, the conclusion is supplemented by several sentences (lines 502-517)

Thank you for your kind cooperation, for improving our article.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and the scope of research is very important.

Only minor revisions are needed:

Please consider proofreading by a native speaker. There are minor language issues, typos etc., but also - a few phrases in the abstract are difficult to understand. The paper could be improved by proofreading by the authors themselves as well as a native speaker.

Part 1. Introduction needs rewriting. Maybe restructuring and dividing sub-paragraphs could improve the paper? Please consider moving lines 154-163 to line 60 - maybe that could help the flow of that chapter.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editors,

I send you the corrected manuscript, with the marks of the new changes, with the red color (for Reviewer 1) and the blue colour (for Reviewer 2).

-the marks of the new changes, with the blue color (for Reviewer 2):

• minor/moderate language issues and typos are revised (checked by the authors themselves and by a native speaker)
• the abstract is (a bit) modified (lines 9-29)
• Introduction – the chapter is divided into two sub-paragraphs (line 71 and line 118)
• the original lines with no.154-163 are moved to the new line no.61

Thank you for your kind cooperation, for improving our article.