Multilayer External Enclosing Wall Structures with Air Gaps or Channels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is suggested to further compare and classify literature data or research methods by tabular or graph method.
In line 192, 333%, right？
Please check the full text carefully.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1!
Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions and comments that improve our paper.
Comment 1 : It is suggested to further compare and classify literature data or research methods by tabular or graph method.
Response 1: In the literature review section, the authors described the relevant works in detail. If the reviewer does not mind and allows it, this article may remain in this form, and the reviewer's comment on the classification of literature will be taken into account by the team of authors when preparing subsequent works. Since this study is serial and the authors plan to publish several more papers.
Comment 2 : Comments on the Quality of English Language
In line 192, 333%, right？.
Response 2: Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
In this connection, in this work, a review study is 31 carried out to obtain the relevant scientific literature on enclosing structures with air gaps in 32 various climatic conditions. Upon a detailed review, the reviewer believes that the manuscript is far from the standard that is used in the Journal and cannot recommend it for publication. The authors can review the below for reasons behind this decision.
Unfortunately, due to the "many" shortcomings of this study in its present form, the reviewer cannot recommend it for publication or revision. I hope this does not discourage the authors in enhancing the manuscript in the future.
The authors identified the need for the study and provided unconfined and confined compressive strength and microstructural images with weight compositions.
Please check the grammar throughout the document.
The authors must recheck all calculations as the percentage increases mentioned were wrong and difficult to check. Please indicate the value in those percentages taken as the denominator.
The authors are encouraged to add more critical analysis of the data that they have provided. In particular, standard deviation and hypothesis testing are highly suggested to see the statistical significance of the test results. Furthermore, the authors are suggested to give objective reasoning to the results they reported.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2!
Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions and comments that improve our paper.
Comment 1 : Please check the grammar throughout the document.
Response 1: The article has been carefully proofread by a native English speaker
Comment 2 : The authors must recheck all calculations as the percentage increases mentioned were wrong and difficult to check. Please indicate the value in those percentages taken as the denominator.
Response 2: The article has been carefully proofread by a native English speaker
Comment 3 The authors are encouraged to add more critical analysis of the data that they have provided. In particular, standard deviation and hypothesis testing are highly suggested to see the statistical significance of the test results. Furthermore, the authors are suggested to give objective reasoning to the results they reported..
Response 3: Corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
This work reviewed the thermophysical processes and the air-moving process of the multilayer composite external enclosing wall structures with air gaps or channels. Nevertheless, the reviewer thought that the mechanical properties of this special structure may also alert the attention of the scholars. As a result, the reviewer suggested that the author should add some relative contents about this issue to satisfy the requirement of the publication.
Some confused expressions are iaccurate. Some spelling and grammer mistakes should be clarified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3!
Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions and comments that improve our paper.
Comment 1 : Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some confused expressions are iaccurate. Some spelling and grammer mistakes should be clarified..
Response 1: The article has been carefully proofread by a native English speaker
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Please check the data and spelling carefully.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript can be accepted in this current form.
