Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well structured and interesting also for a non-specialist reader.

I did not find any particular weakness. In my opinion, the paper can be published in the present version

Author Response

Thank you for your kind comments.

We have reviewed the manuscript according to other reviewers' suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The review concerns the article entitled Assessment of Water Flow Glazing as Building-Integrated Solar Thermal Collector.

This is a continuation of the previous work of the authors on this topic.

The article is interesting, but it needs some major corrections.

The following questions arise:

- in what software was the solar collector model built?

- have the measurement uncertainties been calculated?

- was the model validated on the basis of experimental results? What were the deviations?

There is a lot of information in the text, but in order to prove its quality, the methodology for generating results needs to be clarified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

is there any uncertainity achieved in the present investigation?

Table1: caption should be refremramed, authors please keep in mind nomenclature should be not addressed in tablaur form.

Fig.5 and Fig.6 authors data is believable. However, authors should add more discussion to I can't see any justification. 

Authors are missing a weather characterics such as  wind speed and ambient temperature, why so far is still questionable for me?

I sincerely recommend authors to merge and solar radiation and relative humidity data. Moreover, justify the relation between solar radiation and relative humidity 

Authors can compare similar studies with other researchers, and define what is the improvement work in the present study. 

Finally, authors should try to reframe the abstract because abstract and authors work some connection is mission 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections significantly improved the quality of the article.