Review Reports - Assessing the Role and Efficiency of Thermal Insulation by the “BIO-GREEN PANEL” in Enhancing Sustainability in a Built Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has presented a good topic of assessment for the bio-green panel. However, the paper must be revised before it can be accepted for publication. I've included here the comments for the improvement.

1. Abstract- problem statement in the abstract needs to be clarified. Therefore, focusing on the problem statement reflecting the main topic is recommended.

2. Abstract- the explanation of the summary of results and findings needs to be included. The current explanation is more towards the hypothesis of a research proposal. Please clarify and make the necessary improvements.

3. Please use the correct symbol for Carbon Dioxide (CO₂).

4. Introduction: It is suggested to combine topics 1.1, 1.2 & 2.1 to be an introduction for the manuscript. Simplify the explanation while rearranging the necessary information so that readers can understand better general information about the central issue of the paper.

5. Expand the explanation of sub-section 2.2. Find more current related literature to represent 2.2 as the second section of your paper.

6. Methodology: make some adjustments to simplify the method. For example, present the flow of the methodology. There needs to be more explanation of the different approaches of the study compared to other methods. What is the main contribution of the study? To clarify and explain.

7. Methodology: I suggest detailing the equation used in the method. Put them as equation numbers to reflect the flow of the experiment. For example, “The most crucial subject in this article is calculating energy-saving performances and environmental impact for each selected plant, which will be calculated in an experimental test unit in different local microclimates according to plants' taxonomy.” How the equation was applied to produce the output “calculating energy saving and environmental impact, especially on CO₂ emission reduction.

8. Methodology: Are there any constraints on the measurement and selection of the materials? Please clarify; if yes, update it accordingly.

9. Results: To make a proper explanation for the method process in Figure 3.

10. Results: According to the sentence on Page 7, lines 300-301: “The most crucial subject in this article is calculating energy-saving performances and environmental impact for each selected plant, which will be calculated in an experimental test unit in different local microclimates according to plants' taxonomy”, there should be results on that impact, the relationship of the selected plant to the calculation of saving and how much CO₂ impact that can be reduced by using the adequately chosen materials.

11. Results: to compare material passport and material selection process.

12. Figures 6-8 are to be put under the results section.

13. Figure 1. Marginal temperature for different plants selected, including the Ton of the plant leaf. - Figure too small. It is challenging for the reader to view the numbers.

14. Page 19, lines 670-672: Please clarify and explain the sentence, “A more significant temperature differential signifies higher energy conservation, particularly during peak heat periods of the day. Conversely, a smaller temperature differential suggests lower energy-saving capabilities.

15. Results: to provide significant synthesis and analysis discussion of the findings of the results.

16. Section 4 (Discussion): less related to the study’s findings. It is suggested to put them under section 2 as a literature review.

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

We express our gratitude to the reviewers for their meticulous, supportive, and constructive critique, which significantly enhanced the structure and substance of this manuscript. We have marked the modifications in red within the document to help them identify them.

To facilitate comprehension and comprehensively address the reviewers' comments, we have organized their remarks chronologically and presented our corresponding responses in the tables below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

sustainability-2440926-peer-review-v1

Assessing the Thermal Insulation Role and Efficiency of the "BIO-GREEN PANEL" in Enhancing Sustainability in the Built Environment.

Author shares a study on the implementation of plant panels suitable for future building designs, representing the next generation of sustainable buildings and creating a new sustainable building component. Nevertheless, the contribution seen in the paper is very less. There are many technical flaws in this paper. There is no strong result and application in this manuscript. Further, comments are the following:

1. The abstract isn't sufficiently concise and informative.
2. The purpose of the article doesn't clearly state in the introduction.
3. The article achieve doesn't declare the purpose.
4. The article doesn't show clarity of presentation.
5. The English and syntax of the article are not satisfactory.
6. The document is not concise.

***

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

To facilitate comprehension and comprehensively address the reviewers' comments, we have organized their remarks chronologically and presented our corresponding responses in the tables below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have presented a study entitled “Assessing the Thermal Insulation Role and Efficiency of the "BIO-GREEN PANEL" in Enhancing Sustainability in the Built Environment”. The work is innovative in the context of Zero energy buildings. However, I have some suggestions to improve the quality further:

· Please rewrite introduction (Line 36- 89).

· Please mention the full abbreviation at the first appearance (like IPCC, RCP). `

· Line 202- Reference has not been cited for Brázdová, A.; Kupka, J. 2023.

· Check Line 207-210, sentence is not clear.

· There is a need to improve the sentence formation at various places in the manuscript. Thus, authors are advised to check it.

· There is a need to reduce Section 1 and Section 2 content logically and meaningfully.

· Figures are not cited properly; references are also missing. Please check.

· In table 2, what is the meaning of A+++ and other variants is not clear.

· Last figure needs quality improvement as in this form it is not readable.

· There is a need to improve the sentence formation at various places in the manuscript. Thus, authors are advised to check it.

Author Response

To facilitate comprehension and comprehensively address the reviewers' comments, we have organized their remarks chronologically and presented our corresponding responses in the tables below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for getting back to me. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. The finding and method of the study is valuable for the body of knowledge. However, minor English language editing is required. Good Luck.

Minor English language editing is required.

Reviewer 2 Report

sustainability-2440926-peer-review-v2
Assessing the Thermal Insulation Role and Efficiency of the "BIO-GREEN
PANEL" in Enhancing Sustainability in the Built Environment.

After a careful evaluation of the revised manuscript, it is difficult to recommend the very manuscript for publication in its entirety. The authors' responses to the referee's comments are incomplete, confusing, and incomprehensible. The authors should read manuscript published in related JCR ranked journals to see how the authors have presented their work. Should in case the authors may want to submit the manuscript to other venues for publication, I would advise them to carefully take into consideration the point raised to them especially regarding the technical content of the manuscript, the organisation of the introduction and the survey. There are too many technical issues with the paper. The authors should possibly consult scholars who have published in same areas for improvement on their work. It is suggested that the editor remove this manuscript from the evaluation process.

***

Extensive editing of English language required

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been modified as per the comments. I am okay with that. Manuscript can be accepted for publication.