Next Article in Journal
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic in Public Mental Health: An Extensive Narrative Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Approaches to Social Innovation in Positive Energy Districts (PEDs)—A Comparison of Norwegian Projects
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of Regional Competitiveness in Poland from 2010–2019 in the Context of the Concept of Sustainable Development
Article
Peer-Review Record

Unboxing Buildings: Engaging with Occupants during Design, Testing and Use

Sustainability 2021, 13(6), 3201; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063201
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(6), 3201; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063201
Received: 4 February 2021 / Revised: 4 March 2021 / Accepted: 10 March 2021 / Published: 15 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Integrated Planning of Positive Energy Districts)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

article is interesting and relevant, but part of the research as it was
conducted, the research methodology is very poorly described.
The results are also presented in a descriptive form in an unformalized example
into graphs or tables.
This would allow a more accurate assessment of the importance
and accuracy of the results obtained.
   

Author Response

Methods has been revised. A new table describing each project, the phases when actions took place, and the role of the authors has replaced the previous tables.

The reviewer suggested using graphs and table to present results from the three examples. This was considered, but the analysis in all three examples is qualitative. A descriptive presentation is the most common solution to present results in qualitative social science research. Graphs and tables would not have been helpful in this case. We have instead rewritten the description of each of the examples.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research comes from the field of anthropology. The application was made for a real case in the field of construction.  The authors conducted a series of interviews with the actors involved and tried to have a discussion based on them.

However, the paper is difficult to follow. The choice of respondents is not clearly defined. Some conclusions are presented following the discussion with a small number of people. The answers may be a personal reflection that does not conform to reality. I recommend the authors to try to standardize the questions and answers in order to eliminate the errors induced by the personal perception. Graphic representations are completely missing. I also recommend using them in the paper.

Author Response

The presentation and analysis of the three examples has been rewritten. We have also revised the methods section to clarify our approach, which is a retrospective meta-analysis, where we the authors have reflected back on experiences during the research process in the 3 examples.

We have revised the order in the whole section, shorted the texts presenting the three examples and have focused on why black boxes were controversial.

We have not added graphic representations. The qualitative approach and results are difficult to present in this way. A descriptive presentation is the most common solution to present results in qualitative social science research. Graphs and tables would not have been helpful in this case. We have instead rewritten the description of each of the examples. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is much better and can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improve the paper in correlation with my previous review. I give at this moment a positive response.

Back to TopTop