Advancing Building Assessment Tools: Achieving Sustainable Development Goals through the Fusion of Internet of Things Occupant-Centric Principles and Sustainable Practices
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper focuses on systematic literature review on the usage / application of IoT in buildings.
The authors have shown three cluster themes viz. evolution of occupant-centric concepts, building performance assessment tools and rating systems, and integration of digital technologies and IoT solutions.
The authors have also shown mapping with SDGs.
The paper requires significant language / grammar check.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper requires significant language / grammar check.
Author Response
Thank you for your on-point constructive comments. Please see the attachment below of a point-by-point response and the updated manuscript attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease check the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There are also some long and difficult sentences, please simplify them. Please carefully check the entire text.
Author Response
Thank you for your on-point constructive comments. Please see the attachment below of a point-by-point response and the updated manuscript attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study addresses a timely topic, and the authors have made a commendable effort to conduct it. Yet, for better contribution to the current literature I have these suggestions:
More detailed information about the research methodology should be included. For instance, how were the case studies selected? What criteria were used? How was data collected and analyzed in each case?
The article could elaborate on any methodological frameworks used to assess the impact of IoT on building assessments, which would help in replicating or challenging the research.
The article should also compare its findings with other studies in the field to highlight what is unique or different about its approach and findings.
Check for any inconsistencies in formatting, particularly in the references and figures, to adhere to journal standards. For instance, it is written [2] mentions that… this could be ‘ Author [2] mentions that… and so on.
For further soundness of your research including these references are highly recommended:
1. Line no. 54: After “These systems are designed to enhance the health and wellbeing of occupants while ensuring the efficient functioning of the building, including features like failure detection, energy monitoring, occupancy tracking, and access monitoring[11]….” Include this reference : (https://engiscience.com/index.php/etej/article/view/etej2024113)
2. Line 113: After “The core of smart and sustainable buildings is their adaptability and flexibility….” Add this reference: (Appraisal of Day-lighting in Sustainable Housing Development in Developing Countries
https://engiscience.com/index.php/josse/article/view/josse2022225).
3. Line 683: After “It may help researchers by providing a clear and effective roadmap to investigate various interdisciplinary approaches to develop future challenges of climate and smart technologies for sustainable building practice in a regional context, which are also limited through presenting the most recent methods to control the built environment.” Add this reference: (Application of Sustainable Architectural Design Principles to Enhance Ecotourism in Cross River State, Nigeria
https://engiscience.com/index.php/josse/article/view/josse2023321)
4. Line 400: After “information and communications systems, security systems…..” add this reference : Enhancing Efficiency and Security in MTC Environments: A Novel Strategy for Dynamic Grouping and Streamlined Management
https://engiscience.com/index.php/etej/article/view/etej2024114)
Author Response
Thank you for your on-point constructive comments. Please see the attachment below of a point-by-point response and the updated manuscript attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend publishing the research. It is well updated.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Please find the remarks about the quality of the paper below and the eventual improvements.
1. The abstract is clear. No significant changes are required. Novelty is explained.
2. Introduction:
a. Some sentences are incomplete or basic e.g. lines 54-56 “…like failure detection and energy monitoring”- not only rather …like failure detection, energy monitoring, occupancy tracking and access monitoring. This sentence is also not connected to any reference e.g. could be DOI: 10.1109/IDAACS58523.2023.10348868
b. Some other statements are not connected to the specific bibliography, e.g. lines 60-63 are barely connected to any literature. Also, this sentence is simplistic, and the issues here should be connected to the evaluation and comparison of heating sources, e.g. topic: dynamic real-time measurements and a comparison of gas and wood furnaces in a dual-fuel heating system in order to evaluate the occupants’ safety and indoor air quality.
c. Line 70-73 no reference
d. Line 86 “IoT has a significant impact on the daily behavior of potential users.” This is a very definite statement with no reference. Similarly, sentence lines 93-95
e. The last paragraph explained the purpose and novelty well. No additional requests.
3. In the case of materials and methods, the reviewer is surprised that the search has not included the IEEE database, as some important articles can be omitted. On the other hand, it is particular that specific publishers, like MDPI/ IEEE, etc., usually require papers in WoS and/or Scopus. Thus, the additional search should give similar results. Taking into account the topic of sensing technology usage, the IEEE search would probably be more informative than other publishers' databases. In the case of clarity of naming convention, Scopus is a database, but Elsevier is the publisher. The authors use both names, which may not be clear to unfamiliar readers. It is also interesting that only 69 papers have been found. Especially, since the topic is trending.
4. Some graphical outputs are barely visible. Thus, I suggest enlarging and eventually enlarging texts. E.g. Fig. 3, Chart 1 (should probably be Fig.)- blurry texts. Fig.5 suggests enlarging so texts on pictograms are visible. Fig.6 has lots of text that is barely visible, so I suggest enlarging it. Fig 7 similar problem.
5. Please check that the table's formatting is in accordance with the journal template.
6. Observations are adequate, and conclusions are acceptable.
7. Some language problems have been found. Please carefully check the whole article, as well as the editing and punctuation.
In conclusion, the article is quite informative for the review type of paper. However, the reviewer requests to improve the elements mentioned above.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome language problems have been found. Please carefully check the whole article, as well as the editing and punctuation.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe United Nations has published a list of Sustainable Development Goals in 2023. Such goals have only meaning when there are means and ways to achieve them. The authors aim to establish their feasibility by bibliographical analysis of established scientific interest. Clustering virtual communities is a well-established way to find knowledge from data. The proposed paper overviews such a project to document the experiences in the assessment of future building methods.
The authors have managed to assemble the main items found by the bibliometric search in a number of n-dimensional charts in three clusters. The conclusion is to further follow the stream of many collaborators. The manuscript presents a lot of information but the link between information and knowledge is hard to find. It does not follow the creation of knowledge over time and therefore fails to picture the struggle to survive between the competing directions. It is therefore hard to discern what the most relevant factor is and what the selection of that factor is influenced by development over time.
The text seems to be driven by technological developments. Though technology is a major factor, it is not the only one. The political platforms tend to use the lessons from the past rather than the innovation shocks from the present. In other words: long-term trends are just as important as short-notice events. This comes not as a surprise, as reality is non-linear and non-linear function have much effect but start from small, almost innocuous behavior. If such effects are considered in the work, as described in the offered text, then it is advised to make this more apparent.
The proposed contribution has the character of a welcome addition to the United Nations report and later policy papers. The mass of data makes it hard to read, especially because of the lack of further detail. The used language is formal and stiff, which is fitting for a policy paper but not for the general audience. As such, it is well structured and fit for further study. But, as I said: this is hard to read as a short-paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagesmall items on potential double meanings
