Economic Assessment of L-Shaped Minilouvers for Reducing Cooling Energy and Improving Daylight Condition in Offices: A Simulation Study in Jakarta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors analyse a very important topic and original way to solve the problem with a novel type of L-shaped mini-louvers for sun shading, the procedures are well described, however, there are some deficiencies that should be fixed by the authors:

1.- A layout should be included at the end of introduction section.

2.- All the acronyms have to be described the first time that are used (see for example IEA that are no previously defined).

3.- the justification of the study of the introduction section is good but justification that are not previous study related to novel design of the L-shaped mini-louvers for sun shading devices should be included in the introduction section.

4.- The section 2 is titled “Materials and Methods” but “Literature review” should be more convenient.

5.- I think that the references “Evangelisti, et al (2020)” “Queiroz, et al (2020)” “Zomorodian and Tahsildoost (2019)” etc. should have their number of reference associated in the text immediately that the reference with the name of authors is included and not at the end of the paragraph.

6.- A photograph of the L-shaped mini-louvers should be included and a picture of the box building used for simulation.

7.- Considering all the possible parameters that can influence in the research I think that a lot of future research lines could be included in the conclusions sections.

8.- The references are updated but the literature review could be improved, 22 seem a limited number of references. I think that an additional literature review in journals is required.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

The authors analyse a very important topic and original way to solve the problem with a novel type of L-shaped mini-louvers for sun shading, the procedures are well described, however, there are some deficiencies that should be fixed by the authors:

 

1.- A layout should be included at the end of introduction section.

Layout for research workflow was moved from section 2 to section 1, at the end of introduction (line 90)

 

2.- All the acronyms have to be described the first time that are used (see for example IEA that are no previously defined).

The IEA is described in line 28. Other acronyms were checked and described as well.

 

3.- the justification of the study of the introduction section is good but justification that are not previous study related to novel design of the L-shaped mini-louvers for sun shading devices should be included in the introduction section.

Yes. Ralegaonkar… was moved to line 91. Two additional papers from journal were added to this section too (line 98, 102).

 

4.- The section 2 is titled “Materials and Methods” but “Literature review” should be more convenient.

Yes. The title of section 2 is changed (line 108)

 

5.- I think that the references “Evangelisti, et al (2020)” “Queiroz, et al (2020)” “Zomorodian and Tahsildoost (2019)” etc. should have their number of reference associated in the text immediately that the reference with the name of authors is included and not at the end of the paragraph.

Yes. All the references were checked and revised (line 92, 98, 102, 111, 114, 117, 120, 123, 126, 131, 136, 138, 143, 153, 157, 166)

 

6.- A photograph of the L-shaped mini-louvers should be included and a picture of the box building used for simulation.

The images were added in Figure 2 (line 218)

 

7.- Considering all the possible parameters that can influence in the research I think that a lot of future research lines could be included in the conclusions sections.

Future research suggestions were revised according to reviewer’s suggestions (line 512 – 524)

 

8.- The references are updated but the literature review could be improved, 22 seem a limited number of references. I think that an additional literature review in journals is required.

We include several papers from journal that were used in the process of making this paper. Two journals were included in section 1: Halawa… (line 98) and Al-Masrani… (line102), additional journal is in section 2: Touma … (line 143)

 

Thank you for reviewing and providing suggestions to our paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with the impact of window treatments to reduce energy consumption for cooling buildings.  That is not an original thought.  The data are interesting.  The paper is, itself, poorly edited and awkwardly written. I understand and appreciate the fact that English may not be the authors' first language, but I strongly suggest that the authors consult with a reputable scientific paper editor who is fluent in English to suggest corrections and redraft opportunities.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

 

The manuscript deals with the impact of window treatments to reduce energy consumption for cooling buildings.  That is not an original thought.  The data are interesting.  The paper is, itself, poorly edited and awkwardly written. I understand and appreciate the fact that English may not be the authors' first language, but I strongly suggest that the authors consult with a reputable scientific paper editor who is fluent in English to suggest corrections and redraft opportunities.

 

The research was conducted to examine a possible solution for reducing cooling energy consumption and improving daylight using shading, which was inspired by other previous researches noted in the introduction and literature reviews (line 26 – 177). The original idea was the use of L-shaped minilouvers with its advantages over other shading devices (line 178 – 190).

Our native languages are not English, so we agree with the suggestion of using professional English proofreading and editing for this paper. We used English language editing by MDPI.

 

Thank you for reviewing and providing suggestions to our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that my questions have bee fixed by the authors although I think that 25 references is still a low number of references for this paper.  

Reviewer 2 Report

I spot checked grammar issues from the earlier draft of this research paper on the impact of window blinds on energy consumption in Indonesia.  It is fine.  The paper isn't any more or less meritorious that in earlier renditions.