Historic Climate in Heritage Building and Standard 15757: Proposal for a Common Nomenclature
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
thanks for the revised paper. The work has been extensively improved resulting fluent to read and better organized. The different topics are well explained and better linked to recent and past references.
I do not have additional comments to the revised paper to add
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Author,
thanks for the revised paper. The work has been extensively improved resulting fluent to read and better organized. The different topics are well explained and better linked to recent and past references.
I do not have additional comments to the revised paper to add
Answer: Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are suggested to explain the novelty of the paper as clear as possible and explain the research gap they are trying to fill.
Please update the introduction with the recent studies such as Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction of the Thermal Performance of Evaporative Cooling Systems, Dynamic Evaluation of Desiccant Dehumidification Evaporative Cooling Options for Greenhouse Air-Conditioning Application in Multan (Pakistan),
Also, please try to avoid unnecessary self-citations. only the most relevant need to be kept.
Please improve the manuscript in terms of English grammar.
Applications and future recommendations need to be included.
Author Response
The authors are suggested to explain the novelty of the paper as clear as possible and explain the research gap they are trying to fill.
Answer: The novelty explained in Title and paragraph 2, e.g. at following sentence:
“The nomenclature proposal, following theoretical evaluation, research and experimental observation on-site, include debate with management of museums and heritage buildings, aims to support this research field and to contribute to the review of the standard EN 15757.”
The article proposed a common nomenclature in this research field.
Please update the introduction with the recent studies such as Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction of the Thermal Performance of Evaporative Cooling Systems, Dynamic Evaluation of Desiccant Dehumidification Evaporative Cooling Options for Greenhouse Air-Conditioning Application in Multan (Pakistan),
Answer: Article proposed just a new nomenclature, the article that you propose are out of topic.
Also, please try to avoid unnecessary self-citations. only the most relevant need to be kept.
Please improve the manuscript in terms of English grammar.
Answer: Article was revised by English speaker
Applications and future recommendations need to be included.
Answer: Please, see above first answer.
Kind Regards
Kristian Fabbri
Reviewer 3 Report
The research work is interesting. The author assessed the historic climate in a heritage building and standard 15757: proposal for a common nomenclature. The manuscript lack proper methodology. I will suggest authors follow the general pattern of scientific writing for a good manuscript. After the incorporation of the suggestions. There is the use of person noun at many places while in scientific writing normally it is avoidable to use the person noun. Furthermore, the Abstract of the manuscript looks short, further improvements would make it more attractive.
The following points may be addressed by the Authors to enhance the worth of the paper.
Abstract
The abstract part is very short. The author needs to mention detailed obtained results for a better understanding of the manuscript.
Introduction
The introduction part is well written.
Conclusion
The presented conclusion is also correct based on the objectives of the study.
Reference
The references are also arranged according to the pattern of the journal
Specific Comments
If possible then the author may replace the below references, if it is important to cite then keep them.
Line 274- Reference [12] is too old. Replace it with the latest references.
Line 278- Reference [14] is too old. Replace it with the latest references.
Line 342- Reference [40] is too old. Replace it with the latest references.
Author Response
The research work is interesting. The author assessed the historic climate in a heritage building and standard 15757: proposal for a common nomenclature. The manuscript lack proper methodology. I will suggest authors follow the general pattern of scientific writing for a good manuscript. After the incorporation of the suggestions. There is the use of person noun at many places while in scientific writing normally it is avoidable to use the person noun. Furthermore, the Abstract of the manuscript looks short, further improvements would make it more attractive.
Answer: Article proposed just a new nomenclature, the article that you propose are out of topic.
The following points may be addressed by the Authors to enhance the worth of the paper.
Abstract
The abstract part is very short. The author needs to mention detailed obtained results for a better understanding of the manuscript.
Introduction
The introduction part is well written.
Conclusion
The presented conclusion is also correct based on the objectives of the study.
Reference
The references are also arranged according to the pattern of the journal
Answer: Thank you.
Specific Comments
If possible then the author may replace the below references, if it is important to cite then keep them.
Line 274- Reference [12] is too old. Replace it with the latest references.
Line 278- Reference [14] is too old. Replace it with the latest references.
Line 342- Reference [40] is too old. Replace it with the latest references.
Answer: Thank you, but I prefer to keep them. Reference [12] and [14] by Dario Camuffo are a Milestone about heritage indoor microclimate, so I prefer don’t remove it; then reference [40] published in 1999 it is a case of building envelope monitoring of a heritage house, but I believe it is not so old for my research, but if you believe to remove reference [40] for me it is ok.
Kind Regards
Kristian Fabbri
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
It looks the majority of suggestions and comments have been addressed.
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
I do find the topic important and relevant for Heritage field. However, The paper is really bad written. many concepts are not well discussed and confused. The English is often pure and full of typos.
I am open to reading again your paper but you do need to completely rewrite the article making more clear the concepts you want to highlight. At the end of the paper, the readers are unable to clearly understand your points. There are honestly ant real concepts.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer comments: Paper presents an advancement in the area of indoor climate or indoor micro-climate or environment or micro-environment, and they study several variables, physics: air temperature, air speed, relative humidity, or chemical: dust, CO2, pollution etc. which indeed is a very important topic. Paper addresses an important aspect by proposing a common nomenclature to research field about climate and micro-climate research in heritage building and heritage artifact. Therefore, I would recommend the publication of this work with the following observations to be addressed.
－ Abstract needs to be revised highlighting the major focus of this study. － This would be beneficial if authors could provide more details at the end of introduction specifically stating the objective of the paper, although this is explained but needs a little more clarity.
－ Language of the paper needs extensive revision along with some professional touch ups for the typos and errors in some parts of paper and they need to be reduced.
－ Introduction is too shallow. Authors should review some of the state-of-the-art studies relevant to study.
This study presents an advancement in the area of indoor climate or indoor microclimate or environment or micro-environment, and it reveals several variables, physics: air temperature, air speed, relative humidity, or chemical: dust, CO2, pollution etc. For this topic, I recommended some of the most recent relevant literature. In line with this, following papers on evaporative cooling are suggested to be read and used to highlight the importance of study in this area:
- Microclimate Analysis as a Design Driver of Architecture;
- Artificial Intelligence for the Prediction of the Thermal Performance of Evaporative Cooling Systems;
- Investigation on the Use of Passive Microclimate Frames in View of the Climate Change Scenario;
- A review of recent advances in indirect evaporative cooling technology
－ Results and discussion section needs to be well explained, please try to look at figures in this section they might need more explanation if needed.
－ In the conclusion section, authors need to focus on the outcomes of their study with salient findings only, keep them brief, as more explanation is already added in the results and discussion section. Altogether after these improvements are properly made, paper would be in a decent shape and can be considered for publication if revised well.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author proposes a common nomenclature to research the field about climate and microclimate research in a heritage building and heritage artifacts.
The author offers a semantic definition of terms used in the literature around climate and historic buildings. The semantic framing of the change of scale is interesting. However, it would have been interesting to understand the real link between what the article brings and the content of the NF EN 15757 concerning the "conservation of cultural property". Moreover, the classification method proposed by the author is not rigorous enough. It must be revised and based on articles with a similar objective.
On the form, the quality of figure 2 must be improved. The English language should be reviewed and the document should not contain typing errors (for example: line 23 "resaarch"). Prefer the use of the third person to the first.
