The Use of Energy Simulations in Residential Design: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a review on the use of energy simulations in residential design. The topic is interesting and worth of investigation. However, the manuscript presents several crucial flaws and it cannot be accepted for publication.
The main issue is that the contribution to the scientific community is unclear. In fact, a review paper should introduce the papers included and provide expert opinion on their main outcomes and findings in a structured format. In this paper, up to line 394 (i.e., page 18 of 30) only a mere statistic analysis of the reviewed papers is provided (e.g., in terms of authors, citation, themes, year of publication, country, etc.) and this is quite uneseful. The discussion is then provided without citing any paper except paper [29] which in turn is a review paper (what is the point of completely quoting a figure 16 produced by another review paper?).
In the present form the discussion and conclusions sections seem to reflect the authors’ opinion, which is not the principal aim of a review paper…. In the conclusion section the use of tables should be avoided.
The abstract section should be completely rewritten, since only the scope of the paper and its major findings and conclusions must be reported in a concise form. Description of the methods used should be avoided. The acronym BIM has not been defined.
The introduction section is in the present form a mere list of highlights without any structured presentation of the topic. The novelty of this paper should be more better highlighted together with the research gap. In fact, authors highlight “the lack of a standardized data flow framework for energy analysis studies in residential buildings using simulation tools”. Is this true in any sector in which building simulation is used (e.g., thermal performance, energy efficiency, comfort, plant design and maintenance, etc.)? And what should be the proposal of the authors in this regard?
In line 136-138 it is affirmed that “The study covers only the Web of Science database, which includes studies of a certain standard”. This risks being a generic statement if it is not stated why this standard is the only one suitable for the purposes of the paper. Furthermore, what does this “certain standard” represent?
Why in lines 161-163 reference [32], [33], [34], [35] are quoted despite “they were excluded from the review after comprehensive analysis”?
The figures listed in Lines 209-214 seem to be not consistent with the total of 97 studies listed for review in Line 158 and Figure 2.
What is the meaning of acronym SDG in table 6?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe english language used is quite inappropriate for a scientific paper.
An accurate review by an English native speaker is warmly suggested
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for your comments. Your detailed explanations on the points that we overlooked were guiding. We present the revisions we have made in a table. Please see the attachment.
We are waiting for your feedback.
Thanks in advance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the role of energy simulation in architectural design and its practical use path were studied through a systematic literature review. However, the paper was not suggested to be published in the present form, and it should be improved in the following aspects:
1) For the section 2, references 32-35 do not seem to meet the four screening criteria set, why do they have to be specifically explained in the paper?
2) Please provide a brief description of the Bibliometrix and Vosviewer applications used in the analysis.
3) To determine the peak, the vertical coordinate of Figure 4 should be adjusted; The total number of literatures after screening is 97, why does it not correspond to the total number of literatures in Figure 4; In the description of Figure 4, 2012 and 2020 are used as splits, and why 2010 and 2021 are used to divide the period?
4) The meaning of figure 11 is not clear enough, please revise it.
5) Why is the trend for "monitoring" and "energy consumption" emerging or declining, a more specific range should be given; What does "motor theme" in Figure 13 refer to?
6) Line 330: CFD as a calculation method should not be juxtaposed with heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting.
7) It should be described in the text what the themes are in table 5.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing is required for the English language:
Please harmonize the format of the headings in sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Line 549: please check the spelling of 'exergy' if it is intended to be correct.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for your comments. Your detailed explanations on the points that we overlooked were guiding. We present the revisions we have made in a table. Please see the attachment.
We are waiting for your feedback.
Thanks in advance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability. While the idea of making a PRISMA literature review is gaining grounds in all research work, the outcome of this literature review is often not sufficient to produce scholarly work that will contribute to existing knowledge. It needs to be substantiated by more focused studies comparing the approaches of the authors and extracting valuable results that are of significant value for publication. For example, the arguments brought about in Table 6 are not sufficiently substantiated and it is hard to be convinced that authors of papers "do not know at "which specific phase of architectural design energy simulations should be used" or that "data transfer and exchange between BIM and simulation software is not adequate". For this last statement, DesignBuilder which has been flagged as the most used software already has extensive tools to import BIM designs into the software. All in all, the paper lacks sufficient publishable material for this Journal, but it could be further developed with additional work to expand the scope and provide tangible results of establishing standard methodologies for building simulation of dwellings.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for your comments. Your detailed explanations on the points that we overlooked were guiding. We present the revisions we have made in a table. Please see the attachment.
We are waiting for your feedback.
Thanks in advance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors//
Comments on the Quality of English Language//
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.
Sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the significant effort made to improve the quality and value of your manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.
Sincerely.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
