Climate Change Adaptation Measures for Buildings—A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 49: Does "to review the literature in-depth" mean that you are not conducing systematic review? Please explain what kind of overview are you providing. What you wrote is quite generic and might be misunderstood.
Line 69: The objective of the study is not clear. Is it to analyze research trends and uncover knowledge gaps?
Line 75: did you mean collecting as step 5?
Line 115: Perhaps you would found interesting articles in the previous 4 years. I see there were many articles in 2018, but since you did not find anything relevant, you would better complete the study with papers from published in previous years as you did for all the other journals.
Line 126: Figure caption is too long and procedure to identify key words should be part of the chapter and written before the Figure.
Line 148: What do you mean by "obviously irrelevant"? Which criteria guided your thought? Please illustrate them in the paper.
Line 169: Sentence "The process of categorizing all the findings was somewhat strenuous" is irrelevant to the study. Please delete.
Line 179: Research purpose should be illustrated in the introduction, not in the results. You may want to show that results accomplish the research purpose, instead.
Line 185: You say again "in the past 5 years". There is no reason to exclude articles published in "Construction and Building Materials" before 2018.
Line 212: Figure caption is too long. Please move "Notably, articles about policy as well as frameworks and guidelines have not been found 213 to consider future weather scenarios. This trend might be explained by the nature of the topics. Future 214 weather scenarios are considered in a majority of articles in most of the other categories" in the main text.
Line 216: delete "all corners of the world". Writing "from 22 countries from all inhabited continents" is more than enough.
Line 227: Figure caption is too long. Please move "Future climate scenarios are notably absent from the categories eclipsing 228 qualitative research methods, presumably because their inclusion is not applicable in the research 229 design of such studies. All but a few studies conducting computer simulations took future weather 230 scenarios into account, while this was significantly less common in laboratory studies" in the text as it is a personal thought and not figure description.
Please homogenize references throughout the text.
Line 521: you can not say comprehensive since you did not analyze everything in the literature.
Line 533 and line 546: how many is "few articles"?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article compiles existing research on the measures to be taken in buildings to address climate change. To carry out this study, the authors perform a detailed and exhaustive analysis of the existing literature. This analysis is carried out in an orderly way and it is properly exposed to readers. As a result, the research results in a very interesting work for researchers and for the general population. As a suggestion to the authors, they could try to make the article more graphic and attractive by adding figures on the constructive solutions analyzed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) The rationale of the study is not well stated. Please improve the introduction section.
2) Even though Arksey & O’Malley stated the unnecessary check on the quality of the articles, the justification for the quality of the articles could improve the quality of the research. This is because "predatory journals" is a serious problem currently which are available in the Google Scholar database. In this research, only 2 unique publications from Google Scholar indicate the acceptable quality of the research results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
