Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

it is a thorough literature review of the topic. the study is decent.

 

The suggested improvement can be 1) polish up the writing/quality of the language, correct possible typos or clerical errors, maybe find a proof-reader 2) it is always good to address the possible direction of the future direction of this study, e.g., what are the potential methods and ways to resolve the problem more efficiently?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

manuscript proposes Sustainable Air Conditioning System Enabled by Artificial 
intelligence. It a survey paper. large no of patents and material is refereed. its written like a book. 

I dont see any novelty.

Such papers must have comprehensive section on reserach gaps. All research gaps must be having some closing idea of addressing that gaps. I do not find any new learning for the readers. 

I advise them to publish the work as book chapter compared to such prestigious journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The idea in the review paper is interesting and deserves publication. However, the authors fail to present their contributions succinctly. The biggest problem in the manuscript is poor presentation due to the huge amount of the information that has been involved in the paper. Without presenting such an idea succinctly of the survey, it is not possible to find out interested readers. The authors should revise their paper according to the following comments.

The abstract should be revised. The abstract was written with details focused on the idea of the paper. Be specific and target your research contribution. 

Move table 1 (Nomenclature and abbreviations) to the end of the paper in the Appendix section.

The contribution of the paper is not clear due to the length of the paper (99 pages), which falls in the see the main contributions and research category. In my opinion the paper is considered as an essay.

Paper is hard to follow due to the huge amount of information in the paper, the order is unclear, and a key framework that explains the methodology is missing.

The framework review must explain step by step what is going on and where each contribution is placed.

The authors claim that the study reviewed 12 review papers and selected 85 specific cases of applications of AI for HVAC 19 energy usage reduction. I think the review should focus only on the limitations of the previous studies papers and give some suggestions to reduce these limitations. No need to re-review the review papers from scratch, only can refer to them.

One major problem is that the paper's focus is shifting from solving an important and interesting problem (HVAC energy savings) to interesting improvements in methodology.

The contributions, novelty, and advantages of the proposed method are not clear. Many papers have applied the same efforts and contributions. Justify?

Please compare your proposed method with other based methods in terms of time complexity?

Use some statistical significant test such as T-test or ANOVA to prove your improvements and quality of your method.

Add the research gaps in the end of the paper to touch on all the problems and limitations of the previous papers and suggest some solutions if you can.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript is about the Sustainable Air Conditioning System Enabled by Artificial Intelligence: Research status, enterprise patent analysis, and future prospects.

 The paper is well written and composed. It has already been improved.  Needs some minor improvement.

 Methodology:

 -A comprehensive research framework missing- to follow the research is steps are missing. Add framework-flowchart and write this section in a stepwise pattern.

. This portion should also be written in step wise pattern so that readers can understand the procedure for implementation purposes. [Please add]

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

absolutly no novelty

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Author tried to address all my comments. I he shape of the paper is better, I recommended to be accepted.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf