Solar Chimney Performance Driven Air Ventilation Promotion: An Investigation of Various Configuration Parameters

Well-known information should not be overused in the abstract, even as background information.

Thank you for pointing the manuscript out and constructive comments.

Thank you for clarifying this. The author has provided your recommendation.

The abstract should be briefly written to describe the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. Please revise.

·        Indeed, the author has revised the abstract, based on your recommendation. Please see the highlighted parts in abstract in the page 1, in the marked-up manuscript.

 The legend of the full text must be rewritten, and the content seems too little.

·        The author has revised all manuscript and promoted the current version of the manuscript.

 The article has some minor grammatical errors, which should be carefully proofread

·        The author has indeed revised and enhanced the manuscript as you recommended.

Please add the main findings and objective of the current study in the abstract.

·        Thank you for pointing this out. The author has indeed revised this section, as highlighted.

 What are the applications upon which the study is based?

·        Thank you for clarifying this. The author has clarified your recommendations.

 What are the benchmark cases in your study?

 Punctuation is missing after some equations.

·        The author has indeed revised and enhanced the manuscript as you recommended.

What are the special cases of your study?

·        The author has highlighted the specified cases and applications as highlighted in the manuscript.

 The Abstract should be written to be able to stand alone and summarize the important discussions and show the novelty of this work and its need for publication now.

·        Indeed, the author has revised the abstract, based on your recommendation. Please see the highlighted parts in abstract in the page 1, in the marked-up manuscript.

The references should be formatted following the journal requirements, English revision is a must, and figures should be improved and standardized to be suitable for publication.

·        Thank you for pointing this out. The author has revised your recommendations.

 The work is poorly planned and written and the topic should also change after the suggested corrections to include all discussed points in this review.

·        The author has revised all manuscript and promoted the current version of the manuscript.

Main equations and propositions need to be referenced.

·        Thank you for pointing this out. The author has revised your recommendations.

For enhancing the introduction section with the new publications, old references may be replaced with new ones such as:

The literature review section needs to be updated and badly missed the recent articles those are published between 2019 and 2023. Effects of geometric parameters on the performance of solar chimney power plants Investigation the performance of solar chimney power plant for improving the efficiency and increasing the outlet power of turbines using computational fluid dynamics Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis and Geometric Optimization of Solar Chimney Power Plants by Using of Genetic Algorithm.

·        The author has added and cited recent publications and the suggested corresponding references, as highlighted in the list of references.

What is new?

·        The author has highlighted the novelty and contribution of the manuscript, as highlighted in abstract, proposed framework and conclusion sections.

This paper is like a review paper.

·        The manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis to provide hotspot topic regarding various configurations of SC performance in response to linked global environmental concerns. This manuscript highlights the possibilities of various configurations that present a gap via a conceptual framework to be provided in further publications, as highlighted in discussion section.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors. I attach the file. 1. Minor and Major Revisions

·        Thank you for pointing the manuscript out and constructive comments.

Page 1/39, there are too many references (27-41) for one assertion; - Also, the same comment in similar cases;

·        The author has indeed revised your recommendation, as highlighted in the manuscript.

The opinions of the authors are only partially explained in the section 7 Discussion, related to the quoted references;

·        Thank you for elaborating on this. Indeed, the author aims to provide an initial review of related studies with various methods of analysis with a comprehensive review in discussion to promote the influence of the proposed conceptual framework.

A table with all 273-384 publications ought to be inserted into an annexe; the different classifications (and clusters) used in this research ought to be identified in this table, sustained by explanations, according to the four principles of science: of compressibility, of comprehensibility, of whole (systemic approach) and of measurability (metrics) (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971);

·        The author has added your recommendation in (tables A1& A2) appendix 1.

as keyword, Sustainable Development Goals is not explained to the readers of the Journal, within the framework of the paper, also, the same comment for climate change;

·        The author has indeed revised the keywords based on your recommendation.

I have analysed this review article about solar chimneys. The manuscript could be interesting in its scope and aims, but it is not scientific since no technical data are provided.

·        Thank you for elaborating on this. Indeed, the author has revised the manuscript, based on your recommendation. Please see the highlighted parts in the manuscript.

I do not see many problems with English language.

·        Thank you for pointing this out. The author has also enhanced the quality of the manuscript.

The article is sufficiently developed from the point of view of semantics and social science techniques, but we do not learn anything about the technical feasibility of these systems, their adequacy or appropriateness in different types of climates.

·        The author has highlighted the influence of various types of climates according to your recommendation. Please revise the full discussion section in the revised manuscript.

That said there are in my humble opinion many shortcomings in this article. The energy analysis is virtually inexistent. The drawings in the appendix are very limited and completely detached from the reality of buildings, they cannot be implemented.

There is no detailed analysis of energy flow and balance.

·        Thank you for elaborating on this. The manuscript aims to bibliometric analyze the related publications of the corresponding scope with such limited scale to provide further possibilities of various configurations of buildings.

·        The author has revised your recommendation and added the influence regarding energy.

I recognise that the authors have worked thoroughly on the matter but still the outcome is not satisfactory.

·        The author has promoted the outcome of the manuscript and revised the outcomes, as highlighted in the section on discussion and potential of future implications.

The results of the manuscript is, therefore slightly inconsequential to me.

Summary of evaluation: The article is insufficiently developed and presents relevant downsides in objectivity and technical matters.  It should be considered for publication after major reviews.

·        The author has revised and enhanced the manuscript, based on your recommendations, and hopes that you will now find it ready for publication.