Mosque Morphological Analysis: The Impact of Indoor Spatial–Volumetric Visibility on Worshipers’ Visual Comfort
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents a study on the impact of indoor spatial-volumetric visibility on the visual comfort and spirituality of mosque-goers. The study uses spatial and volumetric metrics to analyze various mosque typo-morphologies and identify the patterns that provide a higher level of visual comfort. The researchers present an integrative framework for understanding the impact of mosque morphological analysis on worshipers' visual comfort. The article also includes information on the author contributions, funding, data availability, and acknowledgments.
The manuscript is well-written, the method is sound and conclusions are solid. However, the authors need to further emphasize the novelty of the study. In its current verison, the reviewer finds it difficult to identify the scientific significance of the study.
The language is good enough.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Note: - The author's answer page number is determined by (All Mark Up) as shown in (Track Change).
Point 1:- The manuscript is well-written, the method is sound and the conclusions are solid. However, the authors need to further emphasize the novelty of the study. In its current version, the reviewer finds it difficult to identify the scientific significance of the study.
Response 1:- More clarification on the novelty and significance of the study has been done in (Lines 260-270) as follows:-
- References [55,56,57,58] in the previous manuscript version have been cited to support the argument in lines (260-263) as references number [37,38,39,40]
- As well as references [1,3-4] have been added to strengthen the introduction. Accordingly, the cited references have all been organized by the new reference number
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written; however, the introduction should further highlight the research gaps; the like -55-58 should be cited to support the argument. Further, the ending is abrupt, so include a proper concluding sentence and mention the structure of the remaining paper. For the citation of the equation, cite them in the text instead of citing the equation.
eg. euation (1) [1].
abc=abc .....................................(1).
Also, type the equation using the equation function of the word; most of the equations are in the text format; hence the formatting issue is there.
The main issue with the paper is the length of the paper. Most of the study is covered by the literature review and a long methodology.
The paper's methodology needs to be properly explained as shortly as possible so that study can be repeated; currently, the reader must go through many concepts to get to the actual methodology.
My suggestion (not necessarily to agree) is to divide the paper into two portions. First, covering the literature review and the second part, the method etc., might be helpful for the readers to understand the contribution of the paper. This will keep the interest of the readers in the study.
The language and grammar are fine but need proofreading. Specially the punctuation are missing and citations have issues that needs to be resolved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Note: - The author's answer page number is determined by (All Mark Up) as shown in (Track Change).
Point 1:- Is the article adequately referenced? ( must be improved)
Response 1:- The authors relied on credible, important, and sufficient references. This is evident from the list of more than 60+ references, the majority of which are up-to-date and relevant to the topic
Point 2:- The paper is well written; however, the introduction should further highlight the research gaps;
Response 2:-
- References [55,56,57,58] in the previous manuscript version have been cited to support the argument in lines (260-263) as references number [37,38,39,40]
- As well as references [1,3-4] have been added to strengthen the introduction. Accordingly, the cited references have all been organized by the new reference number.
Point 3:- Further, the ending is abrupt, so include a proper concluding sentence and mention the structure of the remaining paper
Response 3:- A summary ending has been added (Line 1138-1140)
Point 4:- For the citation of the equation, cite them in the text instead of citing the equation eg. equation (1) [1].
abc=abc .....................................(1).
Response 4:- Done
Point 5:- Also, type the equation using the equation function of the word; most of the equations are in the text format; hence the formatting issue is there.
Response 5: - Done
Point 6:- The main issue with the paper is the length of the paper. Most of the study is covered by the literature review and a long methodology
Response 6:- Due to the combination of three fields of previous work (Visibility in general, visibility in mosques, and simulation tools), thus it is difficult to represent it in a short description section.
Point 7:- The paper's methodology needs to be properly explained as shortly as possible so that study can be repeated; currently, the reader must go through many concepts to get to the actual methodology.
Response 7:- The main principles have been described in a paragraph (lines 806-808). In reality, the approach is approximately three pages long and is demonstrated in two sections (2D and 3D isovist analysis) before moving on to the result section.
Point 8:- My suggestion (not necessarily to agree) is to divide the paper into two portions. First, covering the literature review and the second part, the method etc., might be helpful for the readers to understand the contribution of the paper. This will keep the interest of the readers in the study.
Response 8:-
Sections 3,4, and 5 focused on the study's theoretical framework have been strengthened into one main section (Theoretical framework of visual comfort), and all other sections have been changed to fit inside the main section. To present the content of the study in fewer sections with strong interrelation to each other such as:
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Theoretical framework
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Conclusions
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Very interesting and an important topic.
In introduction, line 23-24-The sentence on four aspects of indoor environment should be referenced. also 29-34 does not contain any references.
Section 2, 3 and 4 should be refined to avoid repetition. For instance, literature review also highlights aspects of visual comfort, but the other two sections are also very similar. These three sections builds the conceptual framework for the study and should be very clear with the argument supported by literature. Section 3, visual comfort and architecture seem to be out of place. It does not link with 2 and 4.
Table 1 is a good synthesis, the literature should be framed around this approach. Section 5, particularly the figure 3 is also a good representation.
Methodology has details for easy replicate. Figure 4 has given a very detailed conceptual framework, it would be good to reflect back on literature and see how this was supported. Also not very clear on the relationship between figure 3 and 4. This shows you need clarity in your argument. If there is too much constructs , just select the most relevant ones and refine the literature to suit the argument.
Very good analysis of the situation. The paper provides a detail account of the results but a discussion is required to position the research within current studies. Specially, whether similar ranking is observed in other studies looked at the issue from a more subjective perspective.
The visual comfort has subjective perceived aspects that is not covered in the study. These should be celery stated in a limitations sections.
In the conclusion, you may have to reflect back on the objectives stated in the introduction
Overall :
Need to workout a clear flow in the argument presented within the sections, 2, 3,4, and 5 that leads to developing your conceptual framework in figure 4. You analysis and results are well detailed but need to have a discussion positioning your findings, conclusions within current research. In conclusion, reframe to say halo you achieve the objectives and provide your limitations.
Please make sure your literature review sections are adequately referenced.
Check for typos specially when there are in-text references.
English language is simple and easy to understand, but you may have to refine by checking for typos and sentence structures.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Note: - The author's answers page number is determined by (All Mark Up) as shown in (Track Change).
Point 1:- Is the article adequately referenced? ( must be improved)
Response 1:- The authors relied on credible, important, and sufficient references. This is evident from the list of more than 60+ references, the majority of which are up-to-date and relevant to the topic.
Point 2:- Very interesting and an important topic
Response 2:- Appreciated
Point 3:- In the introduction, lines 23-24-The sentences on four aspects of indoor environment should be referenced. also 29-34 does not contain any references
Response 3 :- References [1,3-4] that have a direct relation to the paragraph requested lines have been added to the citation and to the list of references too. See lines 24,32,33 and the references list in lines 1155,1158-1160.
Point 4:- Sections 2, 3, and 4 should be refined to avoid repetition. For instance, the literature review also highlights aspects of visual comfort, but the other two sections are also very similar. These three sections build the conceptual framework for the study and should be very clear with the argument supported by the literature. Section 3, visual comfort and architecture seem to be out of place. It does not link with 2 and 4.
Response 4:- Sections 3,4, and 5 focused on the study's theoretical framework have been strengthened into one main section (Theoretical framework of visual comfort), and all other sections have been changed to fit inside the main section. In order to present the content of the study in fewer sections with strong interrelation to each other such as:
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Theoretical framework
- Materials and methods
- Results and discussion
- Conclusions
Point 5:- Table 1 is a good synthesis; the literature should be framed around this approach. Section 5, particularly figure 3 is also a good representation
Response 5:- Appreciated
Point 6:- Methodology has details for easy replication. Figure 4 has given a very detailed conceptual framework; it would be good to reflect back on the literature and see how this was supported. Also, not very clear on the relationship between figure 3 and 4. This shows you need clarity in your argument. If there is too much constructs, just select the most relevant ones and refine the literature to suit the argument
Response 6:- Figure 3 depicts the framework of previously observed parameters such as spatial visibility and volumetric visibility of space that affect human visual comfort. Figure 4 depicts an organized method for explaining spatial (2D) and volumetric (3D) variables and how to calculate them using depthmapX and Rhinoceroses grasshopper
Point 7:- Very good analysis of the situation. The paper provides a detailed account of the results but a discussion is required to position the research within current studies. Especially, whether similar ranking is observed in other studies that looked at the issue from a more subjective perspective.
Response 7:- A paragraph was added to the end of the discussion part for more clarification (Line 1091-1094)
Point 8:- The visual comfort has subjective perceived aspects that is not covered in the study. These should be celery stated in a limitation’s sections
Response 8 :- A paragraph was added to clarify the limitation of visual comfort as a subjective concept (lines 260-270)
Point 9 :- In the conclusion, you may have to reflect back on the objectives stated in the introduction
Response 10:- The conclusion has been updated to include a concluding summary of the whole article Line (1138-1140)
Point 10:- Overall:
Need to work out a clear flow in the argument presented within sections, 2, 3,4, and 5 that leads to developing your conceptual framework in Figure 4. Your analysis and results are well detailed but need to have a discussion positioning your findings, and conclusions within current research. In conclusion, reframe to say halo you achieve the objectives and provide your limitations.
Response 10:- Done (answered in points 3 & 4 above)
Point 11:- Please make sure your literature review sections are adequately referenced.
Response 11:- The authors relied on credible, important, and sufficient references. This is evident from the list of more than 60+ references, the majority of which are up-to-date and relevant to the topic.
Point 12:- Check for typos especially when there are in-text references
Response 12:- Done
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Please note that there is a discrepancy with the line numbers given in the response and submitted manuscript. There seem to be some additions also missing.
Specially, the responses, 7,8, and 9.
Please resubmit with the correct line numbers and responses.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Round 2
Point 1: Please note a discrepancy with the line numbers in the response and submitted manuscript. There are some additions also missing.
Specially responses, 7,8, and 9.
Please resubmit with the correct line numbers and responses.
Point 7:- Very good analysis of the situation. The paper provides a detailed account of the results, but a discussion is required to position the research within current studies. Especially whether a similar ranking is observed in other studies that looked at the issue from a more subjective perspective.
Response 7:- A paragraph was added to the end of the discussion part for more clarification (Line 1090-1093), the authors took a snapshot for more clarification as shown below:-
Point 8:- The visual comfort has subjective perceived aspects that are not covered in the study. These should be celery stated in a limitation’s sections
Response 8:- A paragraph was added to clarify the limitation of visual comfort as a subjective concept (lines 260-270) , the authors took a snapshot for more clarification as shown below:-
Point 9:- In the conclusion, you may have to reflect back on the objectives stated in the introduction
Response 9:- The conclusion has been updated to include a concluding summary of the whole article Line (1136-1138), the authors took a snapshot for more clarification as shown below:-
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
