Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study on Static and Dynamic Characteristics of Sand–Clay Mixtures with Different Mass Ratios
Previous Article in Journal
Activated Carbons Derived from Different Parts of Corn Plant and Their Ability to Remove Phenoxyacetic Herbicides from Polluted Water
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177342
Review Report
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Optimising Window-to-Wall Ratio for Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Building Intelligence in Hot Summer Mediterranean Climates

Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7342; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177342
by Hawar Tawfeeq * and Amjad Muhammed Ali Qaradaghi
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7342; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177342
Submission received: 10 July 2024 / Revised: 10 August 2024 / Accepted: 21 August 2024 / Published: 26 August 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Optimising Window-to-Wall Ratio (WWR) for Enhanced Energy Efficiency and Building Intelligence in Hot-Summer Mediterranean Climates.  

This study explores optimizing the window-to-wall ratio to reduce energy consumption and enhance building intelligence in low-rise residential apartments in Sulaimaniyah City. Using tools like Autodesk Revit and Insight Cloud, the study quantitatively analyses energy consumption, and the study highlights the importance of optimizing WWR in intelligent building design to enhance energy efficiency. 

The paper is not well structured, and the presentation is poor. The following are some concerns that the authors need to address to improve the presentation of the manuscript: 

  1. The manuscript contains numerous typos, spacing issues, and grammatical errors.  

  1. It is not recommended to define acronyms in the title. 

  1. The authors have defined acronyms multiple times throughout the manuscript. They need to review the MDPI guidelines related to formatting to ensure consistency and proper usage. For example, WWR is defined three times in the abstract alone. 

  1. Some of the figures are poorly presented, with some appearing blurry and not informative. The authors need to improve the figures to provide more relevant information and ensure they are clear and high-quality. 

  1. The literature review is insufficient. The authors need to comprehensively survey current studies and standards. 

  1. The manuscript lacks depth in comparing previous works.  

  1. The manuscript contains many small paragraphs of 3-7 lines, which makes it appear disjointed and sloppy, especially with frequent indentations. It's recommended to combine related ideas into more cohesive paragraphs to improve the overall flow and readability of the text. 

  1. Ensure that the font type used in the figures and tables matches the text in the manuscript for a consistent and professional appearance. Additionally, the font size in the figures and tables should be consistent with the surrounding text to maintain uniformity. 

  1. The manuscript needs to ensure consistency in several locations.  

  1. In Table 4, the caption is located under the table. Please ensure that the captions for all tables are positioned correctly and consistently. 

  1. In Figure 2, clarify whether the number "202" beneath it is part of the results or included by mistake. 

  1. The contributions are not clearly presented in the introduction section; it is suggested to highlight the contributions in bullet points.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the comments above

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

1. Summary

 

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your precise comments and valuable feedback, which significantly contribute to the development and enrichment of our study. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

[The background section has been enhanced by incorporating several pertinent references]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

[the existing references have been revised]

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

[the design has been improved]

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

[some descriptions have been added]

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved               

[it has been modified]

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

[it has been modified]

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The manuscript contains numerous typos, spacing issues, and grammatical errors. 

It is not recommended to define acronyms in the title.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript and sent it to the Author service for checking for English and grammatical errors. We also canceled (WWR)in the title.

Comments 2: [The authors have defined acronyms multiple times throughout the manuscript. They need to review the MDPI guidelines related to formatting to ensure consistency and proper usage. For example, WWR is defined three times in the abstract alone. ]

Response 2: We fully agree with this point. We have defined the acronyms at the beginning of the document and have removed their definitions from subsequent sections such as (WWR)and (EUI).

Comments 3: [Some of the figures are poorly presented, with some appearing blurry and not informative. The authors need to improve the figures to provide more relevant information and ensure they are clear and high-quality.

Response 3: The quality of the figures has been improved.

 

Comments 4: [The literature review is insufficient. The authors need to comprehensively survey current studies and standards]

Response 4: We agree with this point and have addressed it by enhancing the literature review with additional relevant references.

 

 

Comments 5: [The manuscript lacks depth in comparing previous works.]

 

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have addressed this issue by expanding our comparisons with previous works especially in the discussion section. We have incorporated additional relevant references into the manuscript to provide a more comprehensive comparison with existing studies.

 

 

Comments 6: [The manuscript contains many small paragraphs of 3-7 lines, which makes it appear disjointed and sloppy, especially with frequent indentations. It's recommended to combine related ideas into more cohesive paragraphs to improve the overall flow and readability of the text. ]

 

Response 6: We agree with this point and have integrated all related paragraphs, as the manuscript indicates.

 

 

Comments 7: [ Ensure that the font type used in the figures and tables matches the text in the manuscript for a consistent and professional appearance. Additionally, the font size in the figures and tables should be consistent with the surrounding text to maintain uniformity. ]

 

Response 7: We agree with this point and have made the necessary corrections, except for the figures generated by Insight software, which cannot be altered and use a standard font.

 

Comments 8: [The manuscript needs to ensure consistency in several locations. ]

Response 8: We have considered that point and revised the manuscript accordingly, paying particular attention to the tables and figures and making efforts to ensure a unified style throughout.

 

Comments 9: [In Table 4, the caption is located under the table. Please ensure that the captions for all tables are positioned correctly and consistently. ]

Response 9: We have considered that point and revised the manuscript accordingly.

 

Comments 10: [In Figure 2, clarify whether the number "202" beneath it is part of the results or included by mistake]

Response 10: 202 refers to the line number in the template and was mistakenly mixed with our table. We apologize for this error and have corrected the arrangement.

 

Comments 11: [The contributions are not clearly presented in the introduction section; it is suggested to highlight the contributions in bullet points.]

 

Response 11: Thank you for highlighting this important point. The contributions are now clearly outlined in bullet points in the newly attached manuscript.

 
         

 

 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1: (The quality of the English language has been improved)

5. Additional clarifications

 

Thank you once again for your precise review and valuable comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The object of the research is clear. Literature review is not sufficient and must be improved

Materials and methods for a better understanding can be equipped with a graphical flowchart to explain research workflow 

a list of acronym (WWr, EUI..etc) is helpful at the beginning

Conclusions must be improved with future developement and research impact

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

1. Summary

 

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your precise comments and valuable feedback, which significantly contribute to the development and enrichment of our study. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

[The background section has been enhanced by incorporating several pertinent references]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

[the existing references have been revised]

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

[the design has been modified]

Are the methods adequately described?

yes

[some descriptions have been added]

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

[it has been modified]

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

[it has been modified]

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [The object of the research is clear. Literature review is not sufficient and must be improved]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment and have addressed this issue by enhancing the literature review with additional relevant references, which are highlighted in the attached manuscript.

 

Comments 2: [Materials and methods for a better understanding can be equipped with a graphical flowchart to explain research workflow]

Response 2: We agree with this comment and have added the flowchart to the Materials and Methods section.

 

Comments 3: [a list of acronym (WWr, EUI..etc) is helpful at the beginning]

Response 3: Regarding this point, we have revised the entire manuscript and introduced all terms at the beginning of the paper (abstract).

 

Comments 4: [Conclusions must be improved with future development and research impact]

Response 4: We agree with this point and have revised the conclusion accordingly.

 

 

Thank you once again for your precise review and valuable comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments: 

1. Review the terms used, matching the scientific information. Example: smart building or intelligent building.

2. Review the English writing comments. There are some problems with commas, periods, connectors and punctuation. 

3. There are aspects of similarity evidenced by ithenticate that require observation at the begging of the paper. You should check many similar words to papers and meanings in paper introduction. 

4. The table label is not placed correctly. 

5. Although not of concern, there are 49 documents in which similarities are identified that should be reduced to a percentage of preferably less than 5% to ensure the quality and suitability of the document. 

5. The document evidences significant advances in building energy savings considering the window-to-wall ratio (WRR).

6. The figure should be improved according with colors, labels, contour, edge. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. English grammar, punctuation and style should be improved to reach 100%. In this moment it on a 85%. Please use terms that correspond to the topics as Academic English. 

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

1. Summary

 

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your precise comments and valuable feedback, which significantly contribute to the development and enrichment of our study. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

[The background section has been enhanced by incorporating several pertinent references]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

[the existing references have been revised]

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

 

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

 

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes               

 

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

 

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Review the terms used, matching the scientific information. Example: smart building or intelligent building.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Regarding these terms, our study focuses on intelligent buildings, which create productive and cost-effective environments by optimizing four essential elements: structures, systems, services, and management, as well as their interconnections. Intelligent buildings combine active intelligence with passive intelligence. In contrast, smart buildings (automated buildings) offer interfaces to control facility operations and use technology to collect data and optimize performance. Thus, intelligent buildings are more comprehensive and suitable for the content of this study.

Comments 2: [Review the English writing comments. There are some problems with commas, periods, connectors and punctuation]

Response 2: We fully agree with this point; the English language has been improved.

Comments 3: [There are aspects of similarity evidenced by authenticate that require observation at the begging of the paper. You should check many similar words to papers and meanings in paper introduction]

Response 3: Regarding this point, the introduction has been revised and modified

 

 

Comments 4: [The table label is not placed correctly]

Response 4: We agree with this point. The tables have been adjusted in the updated manuscript.

 

Comments 5: [Although not of concern, there are 49 documents in which similarities are identified that should be reduced to a percentage of preferably less than 5% to ensure the quality and suitability of the document]

 

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. We have addressed this issue by reducing the similarity range and thoroughly restructuring the paragraphs to ensure greater originality.

 

 

Comments 6: [The document evidences significant advances in building energy savings considering the window-to-wall ratio (WRR)]

 

Response 6: Exactly. This study aims to illustrate the role of window-to-wall ratio (WWR) in energy efficiency, a key criterion for intelligent buildings.

Comments 7: [The figure should be improved according with colors, labels, contour, edge]

Response 7: We agree with this point; the figures have been modified in the new manuscript.

 
     

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English grammar, punctuation and style should be improved to reach 100%. In this moment it on a 85%. Please use terms that correspond to the topics as Academic English. 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We agree with your observation and have improved the quality of the English language throughout the manuscript.

 

5. Additional clarifications

 

Thank you once again for your precise review and valuable comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No more comments

Back to TopTop