An Expert View on Data and Modelling for Planning Domestic Retrofit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presents a interview approach to increase the knowledge of data am models to be used in the buildings' retrofit process.  

There are no visible flaws in this research paper and, if the results were to be used by the proper stakeholders, it could offer important insights over the entire retrofit process and how to better handle it. But the large quantity of information makes the paper not easy to follow if the reader is not very familiar with the topic.

 

On row 228, the authors present the wrong table containing the indicated definitions.  

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and their help in making a better paper.

A specific read-through to improve clarity was conducted.

We have corrected the table number mistake.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a comprehensive examination of the current state of data and modelling in domestic retrofit planning. It brings forth the voices of professionals, adding a valuable layer of understanding to ongoing discussions. The findings underscore the need for a careful balance between precision and practicality while also emphasising the importance of inclusivity in sharing data and modelling insights. 

The paper is well written; however, the citation style of the journal is not correctly followed, so please follow the correct format. Further, provide detailed information about Figures 1 and 2.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is required as the paper contains grammatical errors. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and their help in making a better paper.

The citation style was updated. Details of the concepts demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2 have been expanded, including incorporating suggestions from other reviewers. 

A specific read-through to improve grammar and clarity was conducted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper about an important topic.  I have no major recommendations - but I do have some suggestions / queries that I hope will help you improve your paper.  Please see my comments in the attached Word version of your document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Whilst the paper is understandable, I found some sections unclear (please see my comments).  There were also some very long sentences that I had to read several times to understand.  And there were several times I felt unnecessary words were being included.  Having said that, everyone has their own style of writing... Please consider the above as constructive criticism

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and their help in making a better paper.

Unnecessarily long sentences were shortened and a specific read-through to improve clarity was conducted. We appreciate the in-depth read and detailed comments / suggestions to improve clarity. All comments prompted edits and suggested edits were included in the revised version of the paper.

Response to specific comments:

Comment WS14: this reads like an example of what participants DID trust… If so, not sure why this is included here.

We added some language to specify: the theme is “Data and modelling are [not] trustworthy if…” to include both “data and modelling are trustworthy if…” and “data and modelling are not trustworthy if…”

Commented [WS21]: notwithstanding the acceptably small sample size, I’ve not picked up on any discussion about differences / similarities of opinion of different stakeholders based on their position / profession. Having said that. I’m not sure how much this would add. Please consider

We did compare participant responses based on job roles in an earlier version of the manuscript but reviewers deemed that we did not have enough evidence and rigour in categorising participants (due to different job role titles not corresponding to the same job activities depending on context, and because not in scope in our research design) and therefore decided to remove from this manuscript version.

Commented [WS22]: OK - but were participants given a chance to review your findings? Did they validate / verify your interpretation of what they said?

We did not do a check with participants for this study, unfortunately. If the reviewer thinks it would add significantly to the paper and given appropriate time by the journal editors (anticipating needed at least two weeks to allow participants to respond), the authors could conduct a check with the participants.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article: An expert view on data and modelling for planning domestic retrofit

 In this paper, the authors aimed to investigate the experiences and perceptions of data and modeling from professionals working in the planning stages of domestic retrofit, serving as a needs-finding exercise for driving retrofit planning.

1)      Abstract – The abstract presents the structure required in the Instructions for Authors.

2)      Introduction – The research topic is relevant. The authors have done significant work in the Introduction section to contextualize the research and justify their relevance. The research itself is original and adds new insights into the subject area.

3)      Materials and Methods - The section is presented, and the methodology used was detailed.

4)      Results – The results are highlighted in detail.

5)      Discussion, limitations, and conclusions - The main results, discussions, and limitations were mentioned. I suggest that the authors improve the conclusion section showing the research contributions, and suggesting the research limitations as improvements that can be considered in future studies.

6)      References

 The references cited in the paper are appropriate. However, the authors need to format the citations in the text, according to the Instructions for Authors.

Furthermore, I suggest one article (https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030691) that can be cited to support the relevance of the research, since this theme can be an uptrend theme in the field of knowledge.

I suggest that the authors improve the quality of the Tables. The letters need to be formatted according to the Instructions for Authors.

In the text, the references need to be cited according to the Instructions for Authors (see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings/instructions)

 “In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105).”

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comments and their help in making a better paper.

We have added to the conclusions following the reviewer suggestions. 

We appreciate you highlighting the article; we have incorporated the article into the literature review.

The citation style was updated. The table formatting was updated.