A Comparative Study on Smart Windows Focusing on Climate-Based Energy Performance and Users’ Comfort Attributes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In Fig. 1, “Conclution” should be “Conclusion”.
2. Table 1 is too long, so it should be divided into 3-5 tables.
3. The first abbreviation should give the full name.
4. The structure needs to be adjusted and the section 2.0 is too long. This writing made this review more like a report.
5. Some similar section should be extracted from 2.1.1~2.14.
Author Response
- In Fig. 1, “Conclution” should be “Conclusion”.
Figure 1 has been deleted.
- Table 1 is too long, so it should be divided into 3-5 tables.
We initially wanted to separate table 1 based on the window’s coating types. However, since some papers focused on various coating types, for instance, Thermochromic and Electrochromic or Gasochromic and hydrochromic, we could not divide the studies.
- The first abbreviation should give the full name.
All abbreviations are defined now, and a list of abbreviations has been provided at the end of the conclusion part.
- The structure needs to be adjusted and the section 2.0 is too long. This writing made this review more like a report.
The structure has been adjusted to the journal’s format, and the smart windows section has been divided into two sections.
- Some similar sections should be extracted from 2.1.1~2.14.
Subsections are now adjusted in all sections.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has reviewed the classification, attributes, and energy performance of smart windows. The majority of smart windows have been well summarized. The pros and cons of different types of smart windows have been critical reviewed as well. although this review is interesting, there are some minor issues that have to be addressed before being accepted.
1. All abbreviations are needed to be explained.
e.g. SGHC, LSG, VLT, SC, Tvis, Tsol, VT, etc.
2. The type of citation should not be Harward type for MDPI journals.
3. All parts need a brief conclusion. e.g. which are missed in 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7.
4. The resolution of Figure 12 is better to be improved. If it is copied from a website, at least the legends are needed to be redrawn.
Author Response
- All abbreviations are needed to be explained.
e.g. SGHC, LSG, VLT, SC, Tvis, Tsol, VT, etc.
All abbreviations are defined now, and a list of abbreviations has been provided at the end of the conclusion part.
- The type of citation should not be Harward type for MDPI journals.
The citation is now based on MDPI journals’ citation requirements.
- All parts need a brief conclusion. e.g. which are missed in 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7.
All parts now have a brief conclusion sentence at the end.
- The resolution of Figure 12 is better to be improved. If it is copied from a website, at least the legends are needed to be redrawn.
The resolution of previous figure 12 (currently figure 9) has been improved, and other continents’ pictures have been added to the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented article is a comprehensive review. I only have a few partial comments.
1) Using a list of lumped references is not helpful to the readers. At least a short justification should be provided - individually.
2) Unify the reference writing style. See "MARCHWIŃSKI, 2021" vs "Brzezicki, 2021".
3) Make sure all abbreviations are defined in the text.
4) Figure 12: It is necessary to improve the quality of the picture - the legend is not easy to read.
Author Response
The presented article is a comprehensive review. I only have a few partial comments.
1) Using a list of lumped references is not helpful to the readers. At least a short justification should be provided - individually.
Since some sentences and conclusions are derived from comparing several resources with each other, that was somehow confusing for readers to see a citation for each word in a sentence. Thus, the authors decided to include all the resources they used to drive a conclusion at the end of the sentences.
2) Unify the reference writing style. See "MARCHWIŃSKI, 2021" vs "Brzezicki, 2021".
All references and in-text citations are in the same style now.
3) Make sure all abbreviations are defined in the text.
All abbreviations are defined now, and a list of abbreviations has been provided at the end of the conclusion part.
4) Figure 12: It is necessary to improve the quality of the picture - the legend is not easy to read.
The resolution of previous figure 12 (currently figure 9) has been improved, and other continents’ pictures have been added to the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper reviews different types of smart windows for improving energy performance and comfortability in buildings based on climate. The following issues should be addressed to improve the quality of this paper:
a. Many acronyms are used without being defined before (for example, in the abstract section - SGHC, LSG, VLT, SC, Tvis, Tsol, VT).
b. The authors could include a histogram graph with the distribution of the published articles’ number per year.
c. The Smart Windows section is too long. It is recommended to summarize the text by keeping just the essentials.
d. Citations in the text should follow the journal template. In the text, reference numbers should be used.
e. The authors should point out the limitations of the study.
f. Future research direction may be indicated.
g. The conclusions section needs to better explain the contribution of this study.
h. Impersonal writing needs to be used consistently throughout the manuscript.
i. The manuscript should have line numbers.
Author Response
Many acronyms are used without being defined before (for example, in the abstract section - SGHC, LSG, VLT, SC, Tvis, Tsol, VT).
All abbreviations are defined now, and a list of abbreviations has been provided at the end of the conclusion part.
The authors could include a histogram graph with the distribution of the published articles’ number per year.
There were multiple studies on smart windows; however, the focus of this study was to analyze and compare the results of the previous studies regarding energy efficiency. Also, according to the high amount of content in this paper, the authors had to eliminate some parts and pictures, including the histogram that has been pointed out. However, the previous studies in Table 2 are now sorted based on the window type and published year.
The Smart Windows section is too long. It is recommended to summarize the text by keeping just the essentials.
The smart windows section has been divided into two sections, and its content is now summarized.
Citations in the text should follow the journal template. In the text, reference numbers should be used.
All in-text citations are now based on the journal’s template.
The authors should point out the limitations of the study.
The study's limitations are now described in the third paragraph of the conclusion.
Future research direction may be indicated.
The future research potential of the study is now described in the second paragraph of the conclusion.
The conclusions section needs to better explain the contribution of this study.
It has been developed now in the conclusion and introduction.
Impersonal writing needs to be used consistently throughout the manuscript.
All personal writing has been eliminated, and impersonal writing is the consistent writing style now.
The manuscript should have line numbers.
The line numbers have been provided for the whole document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
I consider figure 12 as a unique useful depiction, which can help engineers choose the smart window.
However, I require major modifications to the paper. The literature search method should be clear. Tables have to be reformatted. Figures have to be cropped. The amount of acronyms reduced the readability, yet those are necessary…
See my detailed, notices:
Authors should not use acronyms in the abstract, even if they are well known. I recommend the term thermal properties or something else.
Please define all of them in the text: U-value, SGHC, LSG, VLT, SC, Tvis, Tsol, VT.
Figure 1 is not necessary, if the Authors like it, they can keep it in the paper.
Figure 2 and 3 have no reason to be there, since it is not discussed, remove them.
Please add the method of how did you choose the papers, and how many of them were screened and sorted out.
In table 1 there is no order, please somehow add some to it. The contents seem a bit random. Also, the citation part is large.
On a few pages the font style is changing, please unify it.
Figures are large, they can be reduced.
The content of section 2 is adequate.
Authors should rethink how to depict table 4, it is useful, but in its current form is unreadable.
Is it possible to show a picture for Europe and create a higher resolution for this?
Could you add the limitations of your study?
The citing style should be different.
Author Response
Please define all of them in the text: U-value, SGHC, LSG, VLT, SC, Tvis, Tsol, VT.
All abbreviations are defined now, and a list of abbreviations has been provided at the end of the conclusion part.
Figure 1 is not necessary, if the Authors like it, they can keep it in the paper.
Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 are removed now.
Figure 2 and 3 have no reason to be there, since it is not discussed, remove them.
Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 are removed now.
Please add the method of how did you choose the papers, and how many of them were screened and sorted out.
A methodology section (Section 2) is now added to the manuscript, describing the strategy of choosing and sorting papers.
In table 1 there is no order, please somehow add some to it. The contents seem a bit random. Also, the citation part is large.
The mentioned table is now modified as table 2, and the papers’ order is now arranged based on the type of smart windows (coating type) they studied over the years. Also, the citation part’s font size has been adjusted.
On a few pages the font style is changing, please unify it.
All fonts are unified now.
Figures are large, they can be reduced.
The figures’ size has been reduced.
The content of section 2 is adequate.
The structure has been adjusted to the journal’s format, and the smart windows section has been divided into two sections.
Authors should rethink how to depict table 4, it is useful, but in its current form is unreadable.
Table 4 has been modified and rearranged.
Is it possible to show a picture for Europe and create a higher resolution for this?
. The resolution of previous figure 12 (currently figure 9) has been improved, and other continents’ pictures have been added to the paper.
Could you add the limitations of your study?
The study's limitations are now described in the third paragraph of the conclusion.
The citing style should be different.
The citation is now based on MDPI journals’ citation requirements.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the revised manuscript. The revised paper may be considered for publication.
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
The improvement is substantial. The requested change was carried out.
Due to the large size of the tables, I believe the authors should consider including them in the appendix.
