Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents goog academic style, hence, it should be improved in some misspellings, and grammatical errors. 

Abstract: The abstract would benefit from the sharper formulation of studies/problem/question, problem/answer question and implication of research results in a broader context (who will benefit from knowing what the authors discovered in their research).

The Conclusions are too blurry without specified information, what are the results of the survey. 

The paper lacks sufficient limitations and the future scope for the following studies. 

Fig. 1. the flowchart- might be improved, both in terms of content and aesthetics. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find answer on your remarks in the attached file.

Best regards,
On behalf of authors,

Ewa Leszczyszyn

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very interested from the point of persons or firms and institutions working in the branch wooden construction buildings.  In the article there are many information about using the wooden based construction about demands for these kinds of buildings from the point different part of Europe and Chile and from the points of different organizations. But I am missing the point from different ages of these building users or future users

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find answer on your remarks in the attached file.

Best regards,
On behalf of authors,

Ewa Leszczyszyn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend considering the wording of the topic. The purpose of the article is not entirely clear from the introduction. I suggest that you introduce The future of wood construction: Opportunities and barriers based on surveys in Chile on the background of Europe. Europe as a reference is justified in the article.
Consequently, the remaining parts of the article should be re-edited.
As it stands, the text looks like a project report with no scientific overtones.
It is not clear what is shown in table 1. Please rewrite it.
I believe that by writing about something "Interestingly", you take away your objectivity.
The article is very extensive. I propose to divide the Results part into subsections for the ease of the reader.
The applicability of the results should be emphasized.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find answer on your remarks in the attached file.

Best regards,
On behalf of authors,

Ewa Leszczyszyn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for those changes