The Impact of Architects’ Reasoning on Early Design Decision-Making for Energy-Efficient Buildings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral concept comments
Overall, this work deals with relevant and interesting topic. The manuscript is written clearly and the research is presented in a well-structured, logical, and easy-to-follow manner. However, there are a few areas that should be improved or at least further discussed.
First of all, there should be more cited references. Only two of the cited references have been published in the last 5 years. Please think about adding a sufficient number of relevant citations to support your research and to enhance the discovered gap in existing knowledge.
Considering the methodology of this research, there are a few points that I would like to discuss more:
- • Throughout the article, authors have mentioned that greater emphasis is put on the energy efficiency objective rather than on the cost objective. Moreover, it has been mentioned (from line 292) that costs are somewhat approximatively calculated. I wonder then why the Pareto front has been identified using equal weights for both objectives.
- • One out of two objectives in the research is to minimize the construction cost. Can authors elaborate in more detail why then an approximation of construction cost has been used instead of a more complex cost model? Would a more complex model influence the optimisation results?
When it comes to the appropriateness of figures and tables, here are my suggestions:
- • In the last column of Figure 2, I wonder if you indeed ran a simulation to search design space. I believe that here it is just a matter of expression, because in my perception simulation and optimisation are separate processes: in this case, simulation is needed to give objective values in terms of cost and energy efficiency, while the optimisation is used to find optimal solutions by running the genetic algorithm. Could authors change the expression „run dynamic simulation“ if they're writing about finding the optimal solutions?
- • Is the data provided in Table 4. necessary to be presented in the final version of the manuscript? There are almost 3 pages with solely objective values listed. The authors have presented the same data in the following graphs, so I'm wondering if Table 4. is redundant? Can this information be provided in the supplementary data?
- • When comparing Figure 5. And the variables listed in lines 180-182, why is there a difference between these two sets of variables? E.g. I don't see „Ground Floor Construction“ stated in Figure 5.
Moreover, I've noticed there is a version of this paper already online at a preprint webpage: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4761175 Have you checked that this is not a violation of publishers rules? Please be careful about this.
Specific comments
Considering more specific points in this manuscript, suggestions are as follows:
• Consider adding more than just three keywords to your manuscript.
• Please be careful when submitting the manuscript. I noticed typos in line 31 (bigger font in the middle of the sentence), line 101 (algin), Figure 1 (Computer Sunukation), line 178 (data from ??), line 295 (red font), line 334 (none of? the architects), line 387 (huma n), line 400 (seems t tip).
• In lines 126 and 127 authors mention “attributes of computational design that human designers do not possess but could learn”. In the context of this manuscript, I don’t agree with the previous statement, since multi-objective optimization on the presented level must be calculated by use of a computer. Such complex problems cannot be learned by humans in any case. Complex optimizations take a lot of computational time, so they have to be done by use of computers. Moreover, in the previous text (lines 51-53) authors write: “The amount of information humans may consider at a time is limited to a few pieces of information, which can obstruct human design problem-solving.” For this reason I think that text in lines 126-127 should be either omitted or completely rephrased.
• Line 220. Please provide the definition of the abbreviation DZD when you’re mentioning it for the first time.
• Line 234. If “1200 to 2300” accounts for the hours in a day, please write it in a more comprehensible manner.
• Table 5. Pareto 05 and 08 both have the same cost value. According to the data in the table, Pareto 05 is not slightly cheaper as you state in line 322. Pareto 08 therefore dominates Pareto 05 and should not be included in the Pareto front if the numbers in the table are correct.
• Could you extend the discussion about the results, considering the intriguing observance that the youngest architects are performing well in the energy-efficiency objective, compared to other groups of respondents? Maybe this is not only due to their training but also to the fact of the ecology awareness in the younger population?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAs stated before, written text needs careful check up to remove all the typos.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper provides a digital approach for building design and tradeoff. The topic is interesting, but the authors should have some promotion for the final acceptance.
First, reasoning in the domain of digital twin has specific meaning, such as in cognitive digital twin, reasoning means semantic reasoning. I suggest the authors have a clear definition in this domain.
Second, if my understanding is correct, the 3D model will provide some data for decision making? So what is the procoss in design builder for paramterization. I mean why and how the parameters are set.
In your overview figure, you mention there is a comparson between human design and optimization. So is this finally demonstrated?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No details are suggested.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is relatively interesting and relatively good written.
There are some suggestions for improvement of text of the paper:
- The paper title is too long. It is needed to shorten the paper title. Suggested title is: “Impact of Architects Tacit Reasoning on Early Design Decision-Making for Energy Efficient Buildings”.
- It should be given more keywords.
- Is the term “tacit” adequate for the title and use in the paper? Is there any more understandable and more appropriate term for it, or this term can be omitted and used term “architects reasoning” or term “architects experience”? Also, it is not used much in the references.
- It is needed to give countries of authors institutions in the authors affiliations.
- It seems that the paper is too long with lot of text and many of tables and figures. It will be needed to consider possibility to shorten the paper text.
- Figures 7 should be mentioned before it appeared in the text.
- For better understanding and comparisons Construction cost should be given in US dollars or in EU euros, but not in DZD.
- Table 4 is unnecessarily large. Consider possibility to shorten it.
- Some of used sentences are too long and hard to understand. It is recommended to shorten the sentences or divide them into more sentences.
- Try to improve used English language and grammar.
- The paper does not show or prove something new. It confirms what is already expected and known. The practically obtained results presented in the paper are interesting.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageTry to improve used English language and grammar.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are addressed.
Author Response
These comments are said to be addressed by Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is relatively improved, but not enough. It needs more corrections.
Some suggestions for improvement of text of the paper:
- It is needed to give countries of authors institutions in the authors affiliations.
- What about the term “tacit”? Is it adequate for the title and use in the paper in this context? Is there any more understandable and more appropriate term for it, or this term can be omitted and used term “architects reasoning” or term “architects experience”, without “tacit”? Also, that term “tacit” is not used much in the references. Would the term “implicit” be adequate?
- It will be needed to consider possibility to shorten the paper text.
- For better understanding and comparisons, Construction cost obviously should be given in US dollars or in EU euros, but not in DZD.
- What does it mean that “Table 4 (attached in the supplementary data)”? Will the Table 4 be published in the paper or not? Table 4 is unnecessarily large. Consider possibility to shorten it or to omit it from the paper text.
- It could be necessary to more emphasize what is contribution of the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is improved.
It seems that the paper could be accepted now.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
