Apparent Destruction Architectural Design for the Sustainability of Building Skins
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for the possibility to read your paper and share my comments with you.
Please consider the following remarks and suggestions:
- The Abstract requires revision. Thе Abstract should not be opening words but a summary of the main findings and results of the article. Shorten the introductory part and include brief formulations of new scientific results in the abstract. The Abstract should not refer the reader to the article; the Abstract should be read as an independent micro-article, emphasizing the research results.
- The literary review is not full and includes many links to internet sources. Review should definitely be expanded by new and relevant articles. More relevant references 2020-2022 could be added.
- The review part of the INTRODUCTION section is not like a search for a ready-made solution to the problem facing the author. The absence of such a solution in publications (research gap) has not been formulated. Consequently, the author's research is not properly motivated. The research object, the goal, and the study's objectives are not fully clearly defined at the end of the INTRODUCTION section. Novelty is not clear.
- The CONCLUSIONS section is missing.
The paper does not contain a significant amount of new scientific information or experiments. However, the topic are relevant and paper may to spark discussion discussion.
Summarizing the above comments, I consider it necessary to major revision for this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments. Attached please find our responses to your remarks.
Ad 1. Following your remarks, we have introduced some modifications to better emphasize the aim of the paper and the major postulates related to the ADAD concept which, as the result of analyzes performed, is intended to indicate the main guidelines for contemporary architectural projects related to some sustainability requirements. They could be based on design procedures worked out in a research work following this preceding concept paper, as this sequence conforms with the state of the art scientific publishing path.
Ad 2. The paper indicates 66 references. This amount, to our opinion, seems to be sufficient to explain and support our analyzed idea. It covers the topic which is new, seen from the perspective of theoreticians and practitioners in architecture. Therefore, there is relatively few literature positions relevant to this topic. As it is new, the relevant literature appears so far in the form of open access publications, which are accessible for the readers much sooner than printed research materials. Some articles indicated in References were published in the years 2020, 2021 or 2022.
Ad 3. As the answer to your remark, we have made relevant corrections and have completed the text.
Ad 4. In the Instruction for authors on the main page of ‘”Building”, chapter ” Manuscript Preparation”, we can read: ”Conclusions: This section is not mandatory”. The paper may not contain a significant information about experiments as it is a concept paper, which is governed by other rules than research papers.
Yours sincerely,
Magdalena Celadyn
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors carry out an interesting conceptual study and proposal related to the sustainability of building skin. This reviewer advises the following changes for publication of the paper.
-The structure of the paper must be included in the introduction section; briefly describe the subsections that comprise it.
- Introduce a section of methods, with which they have carried out the investigation. This recommendation is mandatory.
- Authors must analyze the models, tools, methods, frameworks similar to "apparent destruction design". It must be possible to know the state of the line of investigation.
- Authors must propose a procedure to be able to apply the ADAD concept in a simple way. How could other authors make use of this? - What are the future lines of work?
- Please check the references. Some do not follow the style of the magazine (for example, 1, 3, or 14, 43...)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your valuable comments. Attached please find our responses to your remarks.
Ad 1.This remark has been accepted by the authors and suitable corrections made.
Ad 2. It has been clearly stated that the paper is a “concept paper”. One of the definitions for this type of articles says : “A concept paper enables in putting thoughts and ideas into paper for consideration for research. It is from the concept paper that one develops the research proposal which can either be business or academic oriented. The concept paper aim is to capture the thoughts and ideas while the research proposal captures the ideas in a structured manner for approval to research.” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336150591).Taking into account this statement and respecting it, we can conclude, that methods of research should be applied in research type of papers, and not necessarily in concept papers. As the concept paper initializes certain ideas (the first time), it is a basis for research papers, which should propose methods to be applied in further study on the issue. This accepted sequence is illustrated in published materials.
Illustration in Dr B.Lango, How to write a concept paper with practical sample by Dr Lango (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336150591) presents the process of development of the paper from the conceptual paper to the research proposal.
Ad 3. The analyzed issue is novel, as there is no comparable ideas presented in scientific or other publications. This is because the destruction in architecture relating to building materials, and not architectural styles (e.g. deconstruction) , has not much to do with the latter, and is a separate issue. The analyzes of contemporary stylistics in architecture are usually based on various formal and esthetical problems concerning new buildings constructed with original, impeccably new materials, and do not consider destructed, deformed or degraded materials. Therefore, the both problems seem to be in clear opposition one to another, and as a result, it seems unjustified to compare them in the suggested way.
Ad 4. At the stage of concept paper it is not possible, and even not advisable, to carry out the aforementioned procedures. The issue should be further studied in order to come to reliable guidelines for application in architectural designs.
Ad 5. The style of the references have been suitably corrected to fulfill journal requirements.
Yours sincerely,
Magdalena Celadyn
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for their clarifications and their reply. The paper has been modified and could be published in the current situation.
