Subjective Impacts on Knowledge Creation Behavior of Enclosed University Campus in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The purpose of the study was to identify the relationship between university educational environment and behavior. A quantitative and systematic analysis was conducted. The research results are socially beneficial because they enable more productive university campus planning.
The study describes the results of a study with a specific university and subjects. However, I hope that the researcher's interpretation of the research results will be supplemented rather than only talking about objective research results. Furthermore, it would be desirable to present an important direction for university campus planning. If this content is supplemented, the quality of research will be improved. We recommend that you add content to Chapter 4.
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Environmental Impacts of Knowledge Creation in Common Spaces of Enclosed University Campuses in China” (Manuscript ID: buildings-2439773). We greatly appreciate your detailed and constructive comments/suggestions. Modifications have been made accordingly – all comments have been taken, as described below. The revised part is marked in red in the manuscript. The responses to your comments are marked in red and presented following.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript, and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Please see the attachment for a detailed response.
Sincerely
Tianyun Lu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject is interesting, and I am grateful for the chance to review this paper. I have the following comments, which I believe may benefit this article:
o In my opinion the title does not reveal the content correctly. The abstract is accurate and should inspire the authors in a more precise title. Please consider the idea in line 24 and 25 for the title.
o Line 71 has a reference to Fang-Li system, please consider add more information about this. I believe it would help the reader that is not familiar with this system and may attract citations.
o It is not clear if the contributors to the questionnaires (describe in line 153) are from one or from the two campuses referred in line 101.
o It is not disclosed the proportion of teaches and students either in campuses or in the questionnaires, line 153 and 154. Please consider to add this information.
o It is not disclosed when the survey was done. In what year were the questionnaires collected? Please consider to add this information.
Overall, I appreciate this paper.
No comments
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Environmental Impacts of Knowledge Creation in Common Spaces of Enclosed University Campuses in China” (Manuscript ID: buildings-2439773). We greatly appreciate your detailed and constructive comments/suggestions. Modifications have been made accordingly – all comments have been taken, as described below. The revised part is marked in red in the manuscript. The responses to your comments are marked in red and presented following.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript, and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Please see the attachment for a detailed response.
Sincerely
Tianyun Lu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In general
This manuscript is written clearly and logically. Statistical analysis was performed in accordance with generally accepted theory. However, this theory is wrong [for example, Hurlbert SH. The ancient black art and transdisciplinary extent of pseudoreplication. J Comp Psychol, 2009; 123: 434‐443; Hurlbert SH, Lombardi CM. Final collapse of the Neyman‐Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann. Zool. Fennici, 2009; 46: 311‐49; Gigerenzer Mindless statistics Journal of Socio-Economics 2004, 33, 587–606].
In specific
Line 15, 93, 130, and 221. The authors use the term "multiple regression analysis". However, Tables 4-5 show the results of a simple linear regression. It should be noted that “multiple regression is an extension of simple linear regression. It is used when we want to predict the value of a variable based on the value of two or more other variables”. This does not reduce the quality of the study, just an unfortunate choice of term.
Line 100. The authors use Likert scale. It should be noted that Likert scales are always ordinal. Therefore, to assess the degree of correlation between two variables, Spearman's nonparametric rank correlation test should be used. To use Pearson's Product–Moment Correlation test, five Gauss–Markov assumptions should be met: (1) linearity in form, (2) correlation between residuals and independent variables, (3) autocorrelation, (4) homoscedasticity, and (5) normality in residuals [Boldina, I.; Beninger, P.G. Strengthening statistical usage in marine ecology: Linear regression. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2016, 474, 81–91].
Line 153. The authors noted that sample size was 1566. It should be noted: “it lurks quietly in the darkness, waiting for researchers to pass by who are too focused on obtaining adequate sample sizes. If sample sizes are too large, one may be ‘in danger’ of getting very low p‐values and establishing the sign and magnitude of even small effects with too much confidence” [Hurlbert SH, Lombardi CM. Final collapse of the Neyman‐Pearson decision theoretic framework and rise of the neoFisherian. Ann. Zool. Fennici, 2009; 46: 311‐49]. Therefore, if the sample size is n = 1566, then the value of p is not a reliable criterion because the value of p is highly dependent on the sample size. In this context, non-parametric Cliff’s d effect size test can be used [Cliff 1993]. The effect size interpretation showed in the study [Romano, J.; Corragio, J.; Skowronek, J. Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: Should we really be using t-test and Cohen’s d for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Florida Association of Institutional Research, Cocoa Beach, FL, USA, 1–3 February 2006; Florida Association for Institutional Research: Cocoa Beach, FL, USA, 2006; pp. 1–33].
Lines 154-155. It was written “The proportion of teachers and students among respondents is consistent with the actual situation of HIT”. The reviewer assumes that teachers and students belong to different groups. And these groups may react differently to the same stimuli. In addition, the result of comparing women and men may show different reactions to the same stimuli. The reviewer suggests that such a differentiated approach could significantly improve the quality of this study.
Line 157. If the abbreviation is used for the first time, then the abbreviation must be preceded by the full name. For example, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO).
Line 158. "p < 0.05" is the result of using the Bartlett’s test of Sphericity. It should be noted that there are two Bartlett tests: Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and Bartlett’s test of homogeneity of variances. The full name of the test must be specified so that there is no formal ambiguity.
Throughout the text, p = 0.000 should be replaced by p < 0.001.
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Environmental Impacts of Knowledge Creation in Common Spaces of Enclosed University Campuses in China” (Manuscript ID: buildings-2439773). We greatly appreciate your detailed and constructive comments/suggestions. Modifications have been made accordingly – all comments have been taken, as described below. The revised part is marked in red in the manuscript. The responses to your comments are marked in red and presented following.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript, and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Please see the attachment for a detailed response.
Sincerely
Tianyun Lu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept.
