A Rational Plan of Energy Performance Contracting in an Educational Building: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) In the abstract, the recommendations should be provided based on the analysis results. How can the current status be improved?

2) The details of the abbreviations (kWh, kg, CO2) should be explained in the abstract.

3) More studies should be explained in the literature review part. These studies should be selected for 2021 and 2022 in SSCI/SCI journals

4) There is no discussion in the study. The results should be compared with the results of the similar studies previously done in the literature

5) What is the novelty of this study? Why do we need this study? It should be explained in a detailed manner

Author Response

Please see the attachment.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the submitted paper is contemporary and worth of research.

Despite of topicality of the research and other merits, there are remarks which have to be taken into account:

1) the paper contains too many abbreviations, which make it difficult to read, since you need to return numerous time and to check what and how is abbreviated;

2) the text contains places, which are not clear, e.g. lines 64-67. Please explain how owner and energy service provider shares profit;

3) introduction is followed by methodology; there is no literature review section. It has to be introduced; a context of the research provided; a gap indicated;

4) please provide an international context, since now authors focus mainly on their own country;

5) it is recommended to provide a scheme of the research; since technical issues are followed by managerial; this combination is acceptable, alas, it should stem from review of literature.

More minor remarks could be provided, alas, if the authors addresses already provided ones, the paper would obtain much better look.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

he captions under the drawings should be corrected, because the caption, e.g. Methodology, is not correct. Similarly, the names of chapters or subchapters are given in the form of abbreviations.

There are no axes in the drawings, only numbers without clear divisions/units. All drawings must be verified.

 

The text of the article has large sections that look like a literature review, even in the methodology part. Is there a need to discuss the individual elements of the logical sequence, or is it enough to provide information intended for the correct understanding of the planned research calculations? Similarly, in the results, large fragments of the text describe the studies of other authors, to which individual results from the presented studies are only compared.

 

The authors undertook to discuss the case study, but did not provide basic information about the object of research. In the Results and Discussion chapter, we get some information about the building, but it is not enough to get a full picture of the energy management problem. We know the area of ​​the building, but we do not know how many floors it has, what is its location in the field, how the air conditioning system is built. Are administration rooms, lecture halls, or laboratories dominant in this building? Chiller optimization has been proposed, however, we do not know exactly how many and how individual chillers are located. It has also been proposed to replace the lighting, but we do not know the scale of this replacement. If the building has a suitable exhibition, artificial lighting may not be used during the day, etc. Additionally, depending on the function of the rooms, the need for the amount of lighting or the management of air conditioning changes.

We do not have precise information about the climate characteristics in the region where the building in question is located. This prevents us from referring to the air conditioning and lighting of the building.

 

On this basis, I must conclude that the article contains many inaccuracies, which make me suggest that it be rejected. After completing and specifying the indicated issues, you can re-submit the article for processing in MDPI.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I propose to accept the article in its present form.