Reviewing the Role of Key Performance Indicators in Architectural and Urban Design Practices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have written and analyzed an important research.
The following are the comments and suggestions to improve the paper.
1. Abstract: Please mention the literature collected through various sources.
Please clarify the extreme events caused by climate change, did the authors meant drought? floods?
1 Introduction: The authors should introduce the extreme events, is the study area only limited to US, if not, start with a generic statement and not focused on US.
Line 64- Findings would help or will help or could help?
1.2: The authors mentions main fields: did the authors meant factor?
Aims 2 & 3 could be combined.
2. Materials and methods.
Is there any study area? how was the sample of 549 articles reached or calculated?
Why only Scopus database? Any particular reason to select Scopus database only?
Any references of specific reasons for the filters used in 96-102?
515 is the population of the study or sample size?
It would be better to show a year range to represent the calculation of the sampling technique.
3. Results and discussion
Figure 4: Which software was utilized to generate this figure, NVIVO?
please mention it in the methods section.
The tables could switch the rows into columns. For instance easier to read Figure 5 than Table 1.
Any references to support the 8 clusters? Line 237-248. and why full stop is not mentioned at the end of each point?
The discussion section should be more elaborate !
4. Conclusion
Any recommendation or way ahead?
The paper seems to have a sudden ending. The authors may write one or two line to conclude and put together a way forward for future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
the paper is a stimulating review of KPIs in architectural and urban design but sometimes seems verbose/confusing.
Some comments about the paper:
1. Why do you exclude chemical engineering from the search criteria? After all, sustainability issues originally arose from that scientific area (see LCA and related issues).
2. Please, verify the number “315” in figure 1.
3. Line 174. Please verify the reference to figure 5.
4. Figures 4 and 8, from “Vos viewer”, are not so intelligible, particularly in the description in the related section of the paper.
5. Tables 1, 2, and 3 are too large. They could be more condensed.
6. It could be interesting to add a section in which you demonstrate how to use this review: if you approach a new architectural or urban project, what are the most appropriate references you reviewed? Somehow about a rating or a bibliometric index of each selected paper could help a reader.
7. Please, in the supplementary document add the unit of measurement whenever possible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
The title is very interesting and you put a good effort. I believe this paper lacks seriously in scientific contribution.
Here are the detailed comments; 1. The study only focused on factor identification only. It would be great to share the adaptability or acceptability of the factors. 2. The method is quite simple. Add some other methods like cloud clustering etc for recent trends on it. 3. How the validation is carried out. Add the section 4. Overall, the manuscript structure is not acceptable to ISI publication as the novelty is missing. 5. Better do a systematic review of other features like methods etc rather than focusing on the factors.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author
Thanks for the corrections. The contribution of the paper is not novel. The research aims mentioned in the paper are not addressed well nor reflected in the conclusion. The figure quality is also not fit and good tobe published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
