Enabling Knowledge Discovery in Multi-Objective Optimizations of Worker Well-Being and Productivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please follow the suggestions to improve the manuscript:

1. Consider modifying the article title to better capture wht the article is about
2. The abstract is poorly constructed. Follow standard abstract structure, and focus on what your article does and finds. Current abstract appears to be an introductory paragraph.
3. Overall language needs improvement. For instance "These improvement in productivity"
4. The major weakeness of the article is the lack of literature review, and lack of putting the current research in the context of past studies
5. As second section you should introduce the literature review where you critically evaluate existing studies
6. The methodology section of the article should be moved to a third section. As you used a case study methodology, it should be better explained. Additionally you should mention it in the introduction and abstract
7. The introduction section does not sufficiently show the value of this study , especially in the context of current gaps. What is the contribution of the study?
8. In the discussion section you need to put the current research in the context of past studies
9. Overall not enough references in the article

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and suggestions for authors in attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study’s abstract does not clearly state what the study was about and what was specifically achieved on the study. This may make it difficult for readers to use the manuscript for additional purposes.

The author does snot clearly explain the existing a gaps inline with the topic under study, on which the study should wholly be based. Nevertheless, the review of literature presented is enough to prove a picture of energy efficiency.

 The author however does not clearly explain the study implications in regard to how the findings can be utilized for economic, policy making and in different academic practices. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The improvements are sufficient. In case authors want to enrich the article with more current literature they can. The article can be accepted.