Assessment of the Usability of Some Bio-Based Insulation Materials in Double-Skin Steel Envelopes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors showed the possibility of using bio-based insulating materials in double-skin steel cladding and 16 roofing systems installed on buildings is studied through measurements carried out on a steel 17 building demonstrator. The use of English is satisfactory and the article can be followed easily. The title accurately reflects the study. The objective is well defined and I have no criticisms regarding the interpretation of results. However, I think that the article is not ready for publication as it stands. The questions are as follows:
1. Before proceeding to describe your experiment, materials and actions, please describe your scientific hypothesis, concepts and the relevant reasoning for choosing the particular modelling approach. This should be accompanied by an overall description of the followed procedure.
2. The novelty of this work is fair. However, a quick search reveals that this study does not differ significantly from other publications that were published by the authors. The authors are asked to show their original contribution in this field in a more convincing way.
3. 6.Fig.4.b, 5.a, 6.a and 6.b: The resolution of these pictures should be significantly improved.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the time spend ith this reviewing. Our respsonses to his/her remarks are in attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer is responsible for raising the following questions, please refer to the author:
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the time spend in this reviewing. Our respsonses to his/her remarks are in attached file. In some points we could not agree some of his/her positions and we explain why .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Please specify the objectives of the paper.
- What is the added value of research?
- What is the novelty of the paper?
- A comparative analysis between the data obtained by you and those reported in the literature is necessary. Insert a scientific discussion, justified by bibliographical references.
- The authors should refine the abstract and the conclusions.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the time spend ith this reviewing. Our responses to his/her remarks are in attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Please, see attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the time spend ith this reviewing. Our respsonses to his/her remarks are in attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
In this work, the possibility of using bio-based insulating materials in double-skin steel cladding and roofing systems installed on buildings is studied through measurements carried out on a steel building demonstrator. This is a good attempt and has potential benefit for the double skin steel building constructive system. Some comments are listed below,
1. Why do you choose the five kinds of bio-based insulating materials in this study, do they have broadly representative in reality?
2. What’s the biggest challenge for the bio-based insulating materials adopted in cold formed steel envelope buildings? Please give the advantaged and disadvantage of this kind of materials.
3. It seems that the last paragraph of section 1 is suddenly disrupted.
4. What is the measurement error of your experimental data? Error bars associated with the experimental point is suggested to be added.
5. The quality of some figures is not acceptable for a scientific paper, e.g., Fig. 4b, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, etc.
6. As only limited conditions are changed, how general do you think the conclusions are?
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the time spend ith this reviewing. Our respsonses to his/her remarks are in attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you for the time spent to this reviewing. The revised version is now ready. You found in the attached file the response of all your remarks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer agreed with the current form of manuscript
Author Response
We thank this reviewer for the time spended in reviewing this work. Some correction of form (space, comma, references, English) are perfoormed in this new revised version under the request of one other reviewer.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have replied my comments properly.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for the time spending in reviewing of this work
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The order of the citation numbers of the manuscript is still wrong, please revise it.
2. Questions 2, 4, 6, 9, 12.13 raised by the second reviewer have not been revised or reasonably answered.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
You found here attached the responses to your questions.
Basically your first pretention about the ordre of references is just a question of a comma (,) that should be replace in the line 69 by "-" (instead of [6, 11, 13] should be [6, 11-12].
We have regarded once more your questions of the second round that you considered as not having received a response. In fact ALL your questions remarks have received a response or an explanations why we consider it/them as baseless arbitrary of out-of-scope of a reviewing process. You could argue the opposed and gives your arguments opposed to ours, but the truth is that we have responded to all of these questions. A more detailed on each of "unresolved" questions following you (remarks 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13) are given in the attached document.
- Basically the remarks 2 about the keywords is clearly baseless (the editor is invited to verify our arguments)
- The remark 4 is with no-object (perhaps a misprint by reviewer ?)
- The remark 6 is a question of opinions and there is no base to say that you or our position is better. We just suggest to the editor to make a choice whatever among let it as in our version 2, or delete the sentence as in our version 3, resubmitted now. No way to place it somewhere in no place as suggested by this reviewer
- The remark 9 : we tried to be as polite as possible in the previous reviewing in indicating that this is a remark unexpectable in a journal of this level !!! We give some more explanation why it is a shame to persist on it !
- The remark 12 & 13 : For the reasons already described before and reiterated again the arbitrarity of these questions remarks explains why they could not be taken into account.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
