A Study on Modifying Campus Buildings to Improve Habitat Comfort—A Case Study of Tianjin University Campus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This research aims to improve users comfort levels in terms of thermal and acoustic conditions by adding an atrium. The study was based on simulation and field data collection. The following remarks must be taken into account:
(1) The outline of the article needs restructuring. A methodology section should be added. In addition, a result section should be added.
(2) The Introduction should be linked more preciously with the aim of the study. The introduction can be sharpened and linked more preciously with the aim of the study with the support of additional theoretical recent references. What about the impact of atriums?
(3) The validation of the results should be improved. It is hard to judge whether the results presented are accurate enough because they are all simulated data without validation.
(4) A discussion of results should be added. The results of the current study to be linked with literature and existing bodies of knowledge / practices.
(5) The Conclusion section needs improvement. To add recommendations for future work and further research. In addition, to add limitations of the current study.
(6) Review of English language should be performed to ensure the scientific style of writing.
The English language quality of this article is moderate and needs further revision and improvement
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Refer to comments file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English language of the manuscript is very poor, and there is a dire need to check the language and grammar of the manuscript. Therefore, the authors are desired to proofread the manuscript by an expert from a native English language-speaking country.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract is well-versed.
1. Line 29, Li et al, 2020 studied the China University of Mining & Technology (Beijing) campus. Kindly justify the identical similarity between both campuses in order for the author to quote Li's work. Similar goes to Blocken et al 2012.
2. Separate the research method from the Literature. Draft the research methodology in a separate section.
3. Commended to the results and discussion.
Please proofread the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. The abstract must present the main information for the initial understanding of the article. There must be a balance of information to cover all sections adequately. The objective and methodology need to be better presented.
2. In the section Introduction, the authors should better highlight the innovation and contribution of their research.
3. The methodological procedures are distributed throughout the text, making it difficult for the reader to assess their suitability. I recommend that a specific section be created for the methodology. Lines 87 to 102 present several methodological procedures that need to be more detailed. For example, "sets up an atrium" through the software? Is "The noise impact on the living area cluster and the first teaching building was reduced" a methodological procedure or a result provided by the research? I recommend that all materials, equipment, software, and the purpose of use be presented in a single section of the methodology. I also recommend that authors revisit the "Research Manuscript Sections" of the "Instructions for Authors." to understand my recommendations better.
4. The meaning of all variables and constants in the equations must be presented.
5. The authors need to discuss the findings further and highlight the relevance of the results. There is a need to properly situate your findings in the context of the findings of other researchers using relevant references.
6. In the Conclusion section, the authors should better highlight the relevance of the results, recommendations for future works, and limitations of the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised article addressed the issues mentioned in the first assessment, and the overall quality has improved.
The English language quality of this article is improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor english language editings required
Minor english language editings required
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing my comments. The manuscript is significantly improved.
With kind regards,
