A Holistic Review of Building Energy Efficiency and Reduction Based on Big Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The strengths of the article is original and interesting considerations with is consistent with the pattern of research.
Solid methodology of the research with statistical analysis.
Therefore contribution to existing knowledge is considerable. Also advantage of the research is perfect organization & readability.
I cannot find the weaknesses of the assessed article. Model article worthy of imitation.
In generally it is excellent article and very interesting considerations, which is consistent with the pattern of research.
A very good review article with the analysis of statistics on the topic under study.
Overall evaluation: article it is suitable for publication in current version.
Author Response
The authors thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper reviews literatures related to building energy and big data. Although the general idea is interesting to develop, this paper failed to present in a structured format. The paper must be significantly improved for publication in sustainability. Some of the comments are:
The topic is too broad without a clear focus.
The title of the paper “using big data” is not correctly used. It reads like the authors are using big data to review the paper while apparently it is not the case. The problem remains in the introduction part, when the authors described the topic as “building energy and environmental loads based on big data”. This phrase makes little sense. Perhaps the authors want to express something like “building energy efficiency/reduction based on big data”.
Writing of the paper must be significantly improved. This is not only about the English writing, but the content and presentation of the paper.
The research methodology is not even novel but adopted from others.
Last but not least, I found the contribution of result part is of low value for the journal of sustainability. For example, section 3.1 and 3.2 did provide some findings, but failed to provide valuable academic information for the readers. It reads more like a draft report for literature review.
What is the “evaluation method” in Table 6? Specifically, what is being evaluated, and how are review and survey related to big data methods? The summary and categories does not show a clear grasp of the knowledge to this area. In addition, section 3.3 is just a paraphrase of several relevant literatures without any other comments or conclusions from the authors.
I think the most significant issue of this paper is that there is no clear focus on the topic. Instead, it is more of an aggregation of some past literatures that are more or less related to “building energy” and “big data”, rather than an organized and informative paper.
Author Response
The authors would like to sincerely appreciate the anonymous reviewer who provided thorough reviews and valuable comments to help us improve the manuscript. We strongly believe that in the revision we have fully addressed the reviewer’s comments and concerns and carefully revised the manuscript based on the feedback we have received. Please see the followings below responding to the reviewer’s comments.
Comments
This paper reviews literatures related to building energy and big data. Although the general idea is interesting to develop, this paper failed to present in a structured format. The paper must be significantly improved for publication in sustainability. Some of the comments are:
Comment 1. The topic is too broad without a clear focus.
The title of the paper “using big data” is not correctly used. It reads like the authors are using big data to review the paper while apparently it is not the case. The problem remains in the introduction part, when the authors described the topic as “building energy and environmental loads based on big data”. This phrase makes little sense. Perhaps the authors want to express something like “building energy efficiency/reduction based on big data”.
Reply. The authors revised the title of the paper as follows.
Original.
A Holistic Review of Building Energy and Environmental Loads Using Big Data
Revised.
A Holistic Review of Building Energy Efficiency and Reduction Based on Big Data
Comment 2. Writing of the paper must be significantly improved. This is not only about the English writing, but the content and presentation of the paper.
The research methodology is not even novel but adopted from others.
Last but not least, I found the contribution of result part is of low value for the journal of sustainability. For example, section 3.1 and 3.2 did provide some findings, but failed to provide valuable academic information for the readers. It reads more like a draft report for literature review.
What is the “evaluation method” in Table 6? Specifically, what is being evaluated, and how are review and survey related to big data methods? The summary and categories does not show a clear grasp of the knowledge to this area. In addition, section 3.3 is just a paraphrase of several relevant literatures without any other comments or conclusions from the authors.
I think the most significant issue of this paper is that there is no clear focus on the topic. Instead, it is more of an aggregation of some past literatures that are more or less related to “building energy” and “big data”, rather than an organized and informative paper.
Reply. The authors revised the manuscript overall according to the reviewer's comments. We revised ‘3. Results and findings’ and ‘4. Discussion.’ And collected papers were classified according to the research methodology. In addition, ‘Evaluation methods’ was revised to ‘Research methodology.’ Please see the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Although this is a review article, the results presented in the abstract should be reflected in more detail. So far, they are expressed in only one sentence.
2. I really liked the research flowchart! This is exactly what me want to see in review articles!
3. Pleasantly pleased with the approach to the analysis of magazines. There has never been such a detailed study of the quantity and quality of publications on this topic.
Author Response
The authors would like to sincerely appreciate the anonymous reviewer who provided thorough reviews and valuable comments to help us improve the manuscript. We strongly believe that in the revision we have fully addressed the reviewer’s comments and concerns and carefully revised the manuscript based on the feedback we have received. Please see the followings below responding to the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1. Although this is a review article, the results presented in the abstract should be reflected in more detail. So far, they are expressed in only one sentence.
Reply. (Lines 14~25 of the revised manuscript)
The abstract has been revised to reflect the reviewer's comment. In addition, the authors revised the manuscript overall to enhance the quality of the article. Please see the revised manuscript.
Comment 2. I really liked the research flowchart! This is exactly what me want to see in review articles!
Reply. The authors thank you for your comment.
Comment 3. Pleasantly pleased with the approach to the analysis of magazines. There has never been such a detailed study of the quantity and quality of publications on this topic.
Reply. The authors thank you for your comment.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article deals with a very interesting topic but the current form is weak.
Please check other review articles since a clear critical analysis is missing.
Discussion section is poor as well as more literature should be considered.
Big Data and Analytics were widely addressed from entire Special Issues in top ranked Journals.
Data clustering, construction of hourly profile starting from raw data such as bills, archetypes are key points missing in the opportunities given by big data
Furthermore, the open data is crucial in the field.
Rather than listing the studies, go further in the structure of the analysed studies and provide the added value of critical analysis.
Author Response
The authors would like to sincerely appreciate the anonymous reviewer who provided thorough reviews and valuable comments to help us improve the manuscript. We strongly believe that in the revision we have fully addressed the reviewer’s comments and concerns and carefully revised the manuscript based on the feedback we have received. Please see the followings below responding to the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1. The article deals with a very interesting topic but the current form is weak. Please check other review articles since a clear critical analysis is missing.
Discussion section is poor as well as more literature should be considered.
Big Data and Analytics were widely addressed from entire Special Issues in top ranked Journals.
Data clustering, construction of hourly profile starting from raw data such as bills, archetypes are key points missing in the opportunities given by big data
Furthermore, the open data is crucial in the field.
Rather than listing the studies, go further in the structure of the analysed studies and provide the added value of critical analysis.
Reply. The authors revised the manuscript overall according to the reviewer's comments. We revised ‘3. Results and findings’, ‘4. Discussion’, and Abstract. Please see the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments. It could be accepted with proper format revision.
Author Response
The authors thank you for your comment.
Reviewer 4 Report
The revised version does not meet the required adjustments.
A paragraph citing several works from the authors and from Fediuk et al. that are irrelevant for this paper was added in lines 498-513. Please erase it.
The relevant literature is still missing. See the papers already published in Energies, Frontiers in Energy Research and other relevant Journals. There are entire Special Issues dedicated to the topic of this manuscript like
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/special_issues/open_data_energy_analytics
https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/17004
https://link.springer.com/journal/12273/volumes-and-issues/14-1
How will the advances of such holistic approach match the open data opportunities? See last studies in the field.
Author Response
The authors revised the entire manuscript to reflect the reviewer's opinion. The authors searched additional papers related to BER-B in MDPI Database, Frontiers Database, and Scopus Database. And Springer-link was already used as a search database. That is, 12 papers were added by searching papers in several journals of the American Society of Civil Engineers Library, Frontiers Database, MDPI Database, ScienceDirect Database, Scopus Database, and Springer-link. After the initial screening, a total of 312 papers were selected, and 60 papers were selected as literature samples from the final searched papers by excluding articles with inconsistent research subjects. And all the contents related to the added papers have been revised. Please see the revised manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The new version of the paper addresses my initial concerns and makes the work done by the authors much more clear reaching the suitability for publication.
