Circle in Space—Space in Circle: A Study of Ratio between Open Space and Built-Up Area in Historical Circular Objects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper titled “Circle in Space – Space in Circle” presents inspiring ideas about the use of circle as primary shape in architecture, analysing 35 circular objects from different periods and places and focusing on morphological relationships.
The structure of the paper is clear, and the investigation’s main aims are potentially quite interesting. However, the research development and discussion are extremely vague and confusing.
First of all, it is totally unclear the rationale in selecting the 35 objects. Why it has not been selected Bramante’s tempietto? Or the Radcliff Camera? Or Sanaa’s 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art?
Furthermore, it might be interesting to compare circular objects from different periods and places, but it seems less appropriate to compare different typologies of buildings and constructions. It is no surprise that the authors could not find any regularity.
The same authors, indeed, analyse the data dividing them in categories of buildings, but then the comparisons are based in some cases on only two or three objects, eventually from the same period and/or place. It is difficult to find some rigour in this analysis.
The authors should focus on just one category of buildings, and analyse this using a sensible number of objects (min 20, if they are from different periods and places). In this way, it might be possible to obtain more interesting and more in-depth insights on the results obtained.
Second, chapter five is not at all a discussion of the analysis previously described. It is a short, and random, resume of the use of circular objects across the history of architecture. It is difficult to understand the role of this chapter in the development of the research and/or discussion.
Furthermore, the ambitions of this chapter could provide enough material to write an entire, separate paper. This history is evidently not comprehensive at all: it is a very partial and subjective summary, including some aspects/objects, and then keeping out others – without a clear reason. Why there is no reference to the Italian Baroque? Or to Modernism?
Again, if the authors would concentrate on only one category, this chapter could be more accurate and could provide more stimulating insights, focusing better on the typology selected and offering a more appropriate historical resume.
Finally, the literature review is extremely week. Especially in relation to the history of shapes in architecture, as to the meaning of circles across different cultures and times. Authors should include more references to past researches conducted on history of architecture and geometry as compositive method. Authors should also add more references to support some of their statements (i.e. introduction), and more carefully quoting when using other authors words (i.e. Kent ‘motto’).
To conclude, the article could potentially offer a quite stimulating discussion on circular objects using the still quite original morphospace method. However, the research needs in my opinion to be entirely reviewed. The authors need to focus on one specific category of buildings, and then rewrite the text, analysing further the results, and focusing on a more accurate history of the category selected.
I hope my comments could be useful to the authors.
Author Response
Point 1: This paper titled “Circle in Space – Space in Circle” presents inspiring ideas about the use of circle as primary shape in architecture, analysing 35 circular objects from different periods and places and focusing on morphological relationships.
Response 1: Title is changed to give more clear introduction about paper focus.
Point 2:The structure of the paper is clear, and the investigation’s main aims are potentially quite interesting. However, the research development and discussion are extremely vague and confusing.
Response 2: We tryed to make research development easier to be percived by adding tree more Tables so hopefully it not confusing now.
Point 3: First of all, it is totally unclear the rationale in selecting the 35 objects. Why it has not been selected Bramante’s tempietto? Or the Radcliff Camera? Or Sanaa’s 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art?
Response 3: Tree circular objects suggested by your side are added in Discussion. We sellected 36 objects because data for this circular objects were available to us.
Point 4:Furthermore, it might be interesting to compare circular objects from different periods and places, but it seems less appropriate to compare different typologies of buildings and constructions. It is no surprise that the authors could not find any regularity.
Response 4: We compared circular objects from different periods and places but now when we put them in Tables and separated them by typologies.
Point 5: The same authors, indeed, analyse the data dividing them in categories of buildings, but then the comparisons are based in some cases on only two or three objects, eventually from the same period and/or place. It is difficult to find some rigour in this analysis.
Response 5: It is hard to find rigour in analyzed objects divided in categories since we do not have enough number (min 20) to compere same type so we give here an overview with more detailed explanation at the end of the Conclusion about aim of this research.
Point 6: The authors should focus on just one category of buildings, and analyse this using a sensible number of objects (min 20, if they are from different periods and places). In this way, it might be possible to obtain more interesting and more in-depth insights on the results obtained.
Response 6: One possible category could be park gardens but still lack of semsible circular object number is restriction for more detailed resultes.
Point 7: Second, chapter five is not at all a discussion of the analysis previously described. It is a short, and random, resume of the use of circular objects across the history of architecture. It is difficult to understand the role of this chapter in the development of the research and/or discussion.
Response 7: Hopefully now when we have 4 chapter and additional explanations it could be understanded development of our research.
Point 8:Furthermore, the ambitions of this chapter could provide enough material to write an entire, separate paper. This history is evidently not comprehensive at all: it is a very partial and subjective summary, including some aspects/objects, and then keeping out others – without a clear reason. Why there is no reference to the Italian Baroque? Or to Modernism?
Response 8: We make historical overview more shorter and hope that with enriched list of references corrections we made could be acceptable.
Point 9:Again, if the authors would concentrate on only one category, this chapter could be more accurate and could provide more stimulating insights, focusing better on the typology selected and offering a more appropriate historical resume.
Response 9: Historical resume is graphicaly shown on histogram and we have no enough data for concetracion on only one category.
Point 10: Finally, the literature review is extremely week. Especially in relation to the history of shapes in architecture, as to the meaning of circles across different cultures and times. Authors should include more references to past researches conducted on history of architecture and geometry as compositive method. Authors should also add more references to support some of their statements (i.e. introduction), and more carefully quoting when using other authors words (i.e. Kent ‘motto’).
Response 10: Hopefully now when we add 16 more references literary review is more acceptable.
Point 11: To conclude, the article could potentially offer a quite stimulating discussion on circular objects using the still quite original morphospace method. However, the research needs in my opinion to be entirely reviewed. The authors need to focus on one specific category of buildings, and then rewrite the text, analysing further the results, and focusing on a more accurate history of the category selected. I hope my comments could be useful to the authors.
Response 11: Here we done serious review of our research. We focused on research resultes and hopefully formulated all in convincing manner. Thanks for comments, they are very useful and we are ready for further corections.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript lacks a compelling research question, and therefore also a convincing answer to this question. Instead, it consists simply of a list of designs that are described, but not analyzed. The authors must add an analysis of the results of the characteristics and differences of these designs.
To just state that there should be more open space is not an acceptable outcome. What were you attempting to discover, and how does your list of designs answer this initial question? You need to make a scholarly point: Why were these works designed in this particular manner, and what does that reveal about the designers' intentions and what these designs mean for the people who constructed them?
This outcome must be formulated in a convincing manner.
Author Response
Point 1: This manuscript lacks a compelling research question, and therefore also a convincing answer to this question. Instead, it consists simply of a list of designs that are described, but not analyzed. The authors must add an analysis of the results of the characteristics and differences of these designs. To just state that there should be more open space is not an acceptable outcome. What were you attempting to discover, and how does your list of designs answer this initial question? You need to make a scholarly point: Why were these works designed in this particular manner, and what does that reveal about the designers' intentions and what these designs mean for the people who constructed them?
This outcome must be formulated in a convincing manner.
Response 1: Hopefully we did our best to revise the paper according to advice, and to give clear answer to questions, in uploaded corected version of our paper. Although we left some parts so as not to break the basic idea of the paper but we highlighted in the last sentence of the abstract as well as at the end of the conclusion more details of basic ideas. We modified the title, added some parts in the paper itself as well as the more references. We tried to explain the research to the maximum and to explain each part of the research process through several tables added. We also tried to present a brief summary of the work. We have supplemented the Results and Discussion section. The conclusion of the paper is also corrected. And finally, we supplemented the list of references with 16 new.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors changed the manuscript following the majority of comments. The structure, clarity and logical coherence of the article have been improved substantially - although the overall merit and contribution to scholarship of this research remain low. I would suggest authors to aim for more significative goals in the future.
Author Response
We added more references, as well as graphical representations (Fig.9 and Fig 10) The one of the reviewer suggested the proposal of Table 4 on the list with grades bad to good, but we think the aim of this research is not in the mutual evaluation of selected objects but only in the representation of the main circular objects reviews with a focus on% Jam because it is the leading value by which this research is conducted. So, we think it can be emphasized that the reviewer would know that the advice was followed only in a slightly different way. We added a little more text to complete the whole research together with 12 new references. In order to fulfill the advice of the other reviewer we explain in the chapter Results and Discussion more about not include details about the sustainable performances of the monuments chosen for our study. Additionally we try to explain the sustainable outcome of the various designs and how do the different ratios between open space and built-up-area contribute to this.
We are hoping that the in the text me added in the chapter Results and Discussion overall merit and contribution to scholarship of this research is not so low after our additional explanations. We will aim for more significative goals in the future since we have plan to continue our research and we appreciate reviewer’s suggestions.
Besides, we accepted all editor suggestions and our changes in detail are:
In the chapter Results and Discussion
On the Page 15 we added new text – two paragraphs, or four sentences, in score with additional explanations and new reference [46] is added.
The same chapter on the page 19, before new Figure 9 we added whole new paragraph approximately 12 sentences with new references [47-49], [50-53], [54-53] to make our research results and findings more clear. Hope you will easily find it since we work in Word Track Changes mode.
According to additional references added above we changed numbers of references that follows [46] to [58]; [47] to [59] and [49] to[60].
Reviewer 2 Report
Your manuscript begins with the idea that circular spaces with or without built-up-areas are excellent sustainable designs. You return to this topic in your conclusions. However, your discussion of the individual designs does not include details about the sustainable performances of the monuments chosen for your study. What is the sustainable outcome of the various designs and how do the different ratios between open space and built-up-area contribute to this? Would it be possible to present Table 4 as a ranked list from bad to good?
Author Response
We added more references, as well as graphical representations (Fig.9 and Fig 10) The one of the reviewer suggested the proposal of Table 4 on the list with grades bad to good, but we think the aim of this research is not in the mutual evaluation of selected objects but only in the representation of the main circular objects reviews with a focus on% Jam because it is the leading value by which this research is conducted. So, we think it can be emphasized that the reviewer would know that the advice was followed only in a slightly different way. We added a little more text to complete the whole research together with 12 new references. In order to fulfill the advice of the other reviewer we explain in the chapter Results and Discussion more about not include details about the sustainable performances of the monuments chosen for our study. Additionally we try to explain the sustainable outcome of the various designs and how do the different ratios between open space and built-up-area contribute to this.
We are hoping that the in the text me added in the chapter Results and Discussion overall merit and contribution to scholarship of this research is not so low after our additional explanations. We will aim for more significative goals in the future since we have plan to continue our research and we appreciate reviewer’s suggestions.
Besides, we accepted all editor suggestions and our changes in detail are:
In the chapter Results and Discussion
On the Page 15 we added new text – two paragraphs, or four sentences, in score with additional explanations and new reference [46] is added.
The same chapter on the page 19, before new Figure 9 we added whole new paragraph approximately 12 sentences with new references [47-49], [50-53], [54-53] to make our research results and findings more clear. Hope you will easily find it since we work in Word Track Changes mode.
According to additional references added above we changed numbers of references that follows [46] to [58]; [47] to [59] and [49] to[60].
