Interoperable, Smart, and Sustainable Urban Energy Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article provided the results for validating the utility of a conceptual model for Interoperable Smart and Sustainable Urban Energy Systems (ISSUES) through the urban energy system case with a high potential for decarbonizing Southern European Smart Cities and integrating several commercial solar technologies.
The authors' work is a significant contribution to the importance of knowledge information research in sustainability science and to the development of such research in that it succeeds in clearly situating the significance and process of methodology development to ensure interoperability.
However, to ensure its academic and social practice value, a little more careful discussion is needed. The comments on this are shown as below.
Figure 2
Figure 2 required considerable magnification to view. The text in some parts of the figure is a bit blurred, so if possible, we would like the figure to be revised to be larger and easier to read.
3. Results and Discussion
Implications and validity of the results obtained and data issues need to be discussed. A separate chapter for the discussion is needed.
Overall.
There is a duplication in the numbering of subsections, which needs to be corrected.
Author Response
* We improved the language use using Word and Grammarly correctors.
This article provided the results for validating the utility of a conceptual model for Interoperable Smart and Sustainable Urban Energy Systems (ISSUES) through the urban energy system case with a high potential for decarbonizing Southern European Smart Cities and integrating several commercial solar technologies.
The authors' work is a significant contribution to the importance of knowledge information research in sustainability science and to the development of such research in that it succeeds in clearly situating the significance and process of methodology development to ensure interoperability.
However, to ensure its academic and social practice value, a little more careful discussion is needed. The comments on this are shown as below.
* Yes, you are right. The intention is to show that there a way of monitoring if some topics are being considered in the Smart City design. To do more we need more dialogue and resources, as mentioned in the Conclusion.
Figure 2
Figure 2 required considerable magnification to view. The text in some parts of the figure is a bit blurred, so if possible, we would like the figure to be revised to be larger and easier to read.
* Thanks, we have increased the resolution and size will be increased in the last edition.
- Results and Discussion
Implications and validity of the results obtained and data issues need to be discussed. A separate chapter for the discussion is needed.
* Thanks. We will try to explain some.
Overall.
There is a duplication in the numbering of subsections, which needs to be corrected.
* Yes, thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find the review in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Paper is interesting and basically well-structured. The topic is related to the profile of the magazine.
*Thanks! The intention is to put to collaborate different perspectives and to manage the expert's knowledge for conducting further research.
The content is valuable because it deals with important and practical topics for sustainable cities
* We have tried to populate a generic model for cities, and to use it for energy systems but could be used for any other urban systems. There is a lack of explicit metamodels
management. However, the scientific value is slightly lower in its current form. The following
corrections and additions are suggested:
- Strengthen the state of the art. Increase your overview of other scientific publications.
* We have limited resources to conduct massive document search. This is one of the next steps mentioned in the Conclusions.
- Demonstrate the originality of the idea against the background of similar ideas
* You are right. This was missing. Included 2.3 and check note in 4. Discussion (new). Notice that the massive seach included a contrast block excluding "District heating" (Table 1). We found no similar "interdisciplinary reseach" models.
- 2. Determine the usefulness of the work - who will benefit from the research results and the developed system model
* 2.2 describes the purposes of use of the model. It has been expanded to define the main agents of such the introduced use cases. Thanks.
3. Figure 2 is illegible. You need to increase the font
Sorry. We have increased to 600 ppi and zoom would work fine. The space is limited but in the publication the figure will be available too. Hope this helps.
4. Point 2.5.: explain why these 3 questions are crucial for the ISSUES model.
* Good advise. Explained: is about providing a significant sample for a first validation and motivate improvements.
5. Tables 1 and 2 require a more detailed explanation of their content and relation to the ISSUES model.
* Yes. Included.
Section 3 should be preceded by an appropriate introduction.
Yes. Done
6. Section 3 de facto includes no discussion (contrary to the title of the section). Results should be discussed with references to analogous research.
Done. There was not found analogous reseach, but the authors alert about the need of including non-academic readings.
Thank you very much!!!. I attach rev 4 after the changes for you to compare if you need it. This time with english corrector applied.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has presented a good topic for the body of knowledge. However, the improvement must be made to enhance the arrangement. My comments are as follows:
1. Introduction: the art of literature is less clear where the numbers of references are less supportive.
2. Method: ISSUES model is not in detail explained.
3. How did the researchers design the questions Q1-Q3? The significant support reason from the literature & problem statement is not clear.
4. Results are not comprehensive enough. To clarify and improve.
5. Results: less evaluation and synthesis discussion.
6. References: need more latest significant references.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
The paper has presented a good topic for the body of knowledge. However, the improvement must be made to enhance the arrangement. My comments are as follows:
* Thanks
1. Introduction: the art of literature is less clear where the numbers of references are less supportive.
Your right. Nevertheless, most of the references are about context and non-academic. To include the other style (Author, year...) would add little value to the introduction and more to the methodology.
2. Method: ISSUES model is not in detail explained.
Thanks. More explanations added. Hope that helps.
3. How did the researchers design the questions Q1-Q3? The significant support reason from the literature & problem statement is not clear.
Thanks, More explanation added. The intention is to use the model (concepts + relationship) and start validating the utility with interesting questions. The model is designed to support more since the poopulation of alerts is carried by the experts. The more questions, the more resources... so we decided to make 3 questions based on the introduction mostly.
4. Results are not comprehensive enough. To clarify and improve.
You are right. Added complementing text.
5. Results: less evaluation and synthesis discussion.
Added Discussion.
6. References: need more latest significant references.
We conducted a bibliograhic reseach from Dec 2022 to Feb 2023. Of course there should be more updated references, specially in regulatory field in the European Union, but is not affecting the model too much.
The methodology for building the model could include more references about interdisciplinary research. Adding this for the future in Conslussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I wanted to reach out and express my sincerest appreciation for your efforts in writing this paper.
I want to be forthright in my feedback. I found the manuscript challenging to comprehend. It was only in the conclusion section that I fully grasped your model's purpose as a tool aiding expert in information retrieval. From the title through to the abstract and conclusion, I assumed it was a conceptual model for a novel urban energy system. I suggest revising the title to better reflect the nature of this tool.
Allow me to offer constructive feedback on your paper's quality and provide recommendations:
- Given the abundance of abbreviations, a "List of Abbreviations and Acronyms" would aid readers.
- Enhance the Abstract by providing specific research details and additional background on the Smart Cities framework to contextualize the issue. Also, briefly mention the research methods employed.
- It is good practice to state in the “keywords” strong terms that you refer to in the abstract or/in the title. It is quite odd “smart cities” or “urban energy systems” not being present in the keywords.
- The Introduction section requires improvement, including restructuring, better organization, and smoother transitions to enhance readability. A proper literature review is missing, which should address studies on “Smart Cities” and “Energy Urban Systems”, offering a framework and insights into recent developments in the field. Alternatively, explore other tools that aid in information retrieval which appears to be the core of this paper. Additionally, enhancing the context for cited references would be beneficial. Nonetheless, I must highlight that it effectively addresses the research topic, states the most prominent challenges, and introduces relevant initiatives and concepts.
- Line 42-46: They could, but is it your goal to do it? I don’t see the relation between this and the article scope.
- Line 58-60: I cannot understand the meaning of this sentence.
- Line 75-76: I cannot understand. 20 million in Europe and 40 million in Russia? Is there any reference concerning the Russian data?
- In Figure 1 what is the meaning of the three colors?
- The Methodology section provides a comprehensive description of the ISSUES model and its potential applications, it could benefit from simplifying language, providing more context, and incorporating concrete examples to enhance reader understanding. The latter is particularly important.
- Line 153-154: I wonder what is their experience? I recommend you describe the foundation element that supports your model otherwise it is a leap of faith.
- Line 163-164: Sentence interrupted. Looks unfinished.
- In which way NLP will help you to validate the model? In what way does this kind of research validate the proposed conceptual model?
- The Results section lacks a comprehensive discussion. It's important to state the implications of these results—what they signify and represent. Address any pertinent limitations in your model that require attention. Compare your results with existing studies to showcase alignment or divergence. Highlight your study's unique differentiators from similar research. Lastly, clearly outline the main contribution of your study.
- The conclusions need better alignment with the rest of the paper. There is no link between it. For instance: the second conclusion does not explain the significance or implications of this finding; the third one does not provide a specific example to support it.
Your work holds promise but requires further development to provide depth and clarity. Given this, I regret to inform you that I do not recommend this paper for publication.
Keep up the good work and all the best!
Dear Author (s),
The language require moderate editing. Beware of some typos and also unfinished sentences which gaves a clumsiness feeling to your work.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Dear authors,
I wanted to reach out and express my sincerest appreciation for your efforts in writing this paper.
* Thank you very much!!!
I want to be forthright in my feedback. I found the manuscript challenging to comprehend. It was only in the conclusion section that I fully grasped your model's purpose as a tool aiding expert in information retrieval. From the title through to the abstract and conclusion, I assumed it was a conceptual model for a novel urban energy system. I suggest revising the title to better reflect the nature of this tool.
* Yes, it's a title confusing, but impacts. The resason we keep the title is because the use of the model would help to develop "interoperable... urban energy systemS", because those (and other) systems will need to "interoperate" to contribute to sustainability. So we have to "validate utility" of a generic model for those systems (district heating has been the first).
* I think that we were missing our intention in the Conclussion and further steps and thank to your advise this has been added.
Allow me to offer constructive feedback on your paper's quality and provide recommendations:
- Given the abundance of abbreviations, a "List of Abbreviations and Acronyms" would aid readers.
* Thanks. You are right, but only a few appear for a second or third time. The MDPI template doesn't mention but we will look for it before submitting.
- Enhance the Abstract by providing specific research details and additional background on the Smart Cities framework to contextualize the issue. Also, briefly mention the research methods employed.
* Good idea. Done
- It is good practice to state in the “keywords” strong terms that you refer to in the abstract or/in the title. It is quite odd “smart cities” or “urban energy systems” not being present in the keywords.
* You are right. Added: Smart City, Urban Energy Systems
- The Introduction section requires improvement, including restructuring, better organization, and smoother transitions to enhance readability. A proper literature review is missing, which should address studies on “Smart Cities” and “Energy Urban Systems”, offering a framework and insights into recent developments in the field. Alternatively, explore other tools that aid in information retrieval which appears to be the core of this paper. Additionally, enhancing the context for cited references would be beneficial. Nonetheless, I must highlight that it effectively addresses the research topic, states the most prominent challenges, and introduces relevant initiatives and concepts.
- Line 42-46: They could, but is it your goal to do it? I don’t see the relation between this and the article scope.
* We are doing it in fact. It cannot be explained in details but is a clea connection between Urban Energy Systems and Circular Economy. So I put "can be" instead.
- Line 58-60: I cannot understand the meaning of this sentence.
Confusing, right. Modified. The intention was to say that new services are being designed (informative). ISSUES model can be used by those agents. Now, in 2.2 we put a list of possible beneficiaries of this interdisciplinary (but modest) research.
- Line 75-76: I cannot understand. 20 million in Europe and 40 million in Russia? Is there any reference concerning the Russian data?
- In Figure 1 what is the meaning of the three colors?
* Thanks! Added. Some colors are explained in 2.4 and 2.7 not affecting the model.
- The Methodology section provides a comprehensive description of the ISSUES model and its potential applications, it could benefit from simplifying language, providing more context, and incorporating concrete examples to enhance reader understanding. The latter is particularly important.
*It has been added examples for an alert with patterns related to Q1, to better understand the "reverse" definittion.
*It has been added agents for the use cases in 2.2 and Tables 1 and 2 has been described better this time.
- Line 153-154: I wonder what is their experience? I recommend you describe the foundation element that supports your model otherwise it is a leap of faith.
* The experts are the authors and this is an initializing model. Let's remark "initilializing". Knowledge retreival is always an iterative process that starts with a seed and look for some validation (of potencial users).
* Search for bibliography is not always such explicit... but the intention is to make the model (and the alerts) explicit (and evolving).
- Line 163-164: Sentence interrupted. Looks unfinished.
* Thanks, Closed.
- In which way NLP will help you to validate the model? In what way does this kind of research validate the proposed conceptual model?
* Now it has been added in 2.7 some notes regarding the relationship between the questions and the way of looking for answers ("NLP-based alerts" defined from the model's relationship).
* If managing knowledge (with the model) is useful to help to answer questions (to experts), we are validating the utility of the model somehow. Validation of utility is qualitative. the intention is to create rational ways for conducting interdisciplinary research because Smart Cities is plently of complexity....
- The Results section lacks a comprehensive discussion. It's important to state the implications of these results—what they signify and represent. Address any pertinent limitations in your model that require attention. Compare your results with existing studies to showcase alignment or divergence. Highlight your study's unique differentiators from similar research. Lastly, clearly outline the main contribution of your study.
* 5. Discussion has been added. Your are right. It includes our limitations but also a note about the innovation because the search was prepared with a A/B test.
- The conclusions need better alignment with the rest of the paper. There is no link between it. For instance: the second conclusion does not explain the significance or implications of this finding; the third one does not provide a specific example to support it.
* 2nd modified. It was not clear at all. Thanks!!
* 3r . What is being defended is that district heating are using systems engineering "processes" for many things and they can manage interoperability too. So it's about time to make requirements about interoperability. An example has been added. Thanks!!
Your work holds promise but requires further development to provide depth and clarity. Given this, I regret to inform you that I do not recommend this paper for publication.
* We did our best. At the end the fed-back helped us to improve as you will see.
* Your feed-back was very interesting, really.
* You can imagine a "vigilance service" and to do it with experts and explicit is neccesary, but to get funded takes time.
Keep up the good work and all the best!
Thanks !!!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Nothing in particular.
Author Response
Hi!!
Hope the new version have better english and quality.
Thank you very much!!!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors addressed most of the comments. However, the review of the scientific background is still poor and it hasn't been extended. The explanation to the comment 1 is not convincing. The number of references (23) is quite humble as for the scientific paper. The Authors are encouraged to take this aspect into consideration.
Author Response
Hi!!
The Authors addressed most of the comments. However, the review of the scientific background is still poor and it hasn't been extended.
The explanation to the comment 1 is not convincing. The number of references (23) is quite humble as for the scientific paper. The Authors are encouraged to take this aspect into consideration.
* We have added more references (7 approx.) to provide context / proof of some sentences. In fact most of the "new" references were being considered in the experts "own research domain". Thanks for the alert!!
* Notice that the findings (other references) are not being analyzed for conclussions appart from their contribution to help to answert each questions. This way we could only find generic conclussions, but in the future we expect add more sources (portals / reviews) after being validated the utility of the model (with some resources).
*There are papers focused on analysis of findings. We are more focused on the methods for explicit and reausable knowledge from "interdisciplinary research".
* English use improved too.
Thank you very much!!!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no further comments.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Hi!!
We did some changes to improve thanks to all the reviwers: a few more references, quality of images and language review.
Thank you vey much!!!!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author(s),
I hope this message finds you well.
Your efforts in addressing my comments and suggestions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript. The revisions you made have strengthened the overall argument and contribution of your work, making it a valuable addition to this field. It looks promising.
Givin this, I accept you article in its present form with a minor revision:
- Enlarge Figure 2. make it full width otherwise we cannot read it.
Once again, congratulations on this achievement, and I look forward to seeing your work published.
Dear Author(s),
I hope this message finds you well.
Please just keep polishing the english in your article to enhance clarity and readability.
Thank you.
Author Response
I hope this message finds you well.
* Yes, thanks!!! _Hope you too.
Your efforts in addressing my comments and suggestions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
* It was a very good review helping.
The revisions you made have strengthened the overall argument and contribution of your work, making it a valuable addition to this field. It looks promising.
* Now we include 7 references more to reinforce some messages / context.
Givin this, I accept you article in its present form with a minor revision:
- Enlarge Figure 2. make it full width otherwise we cannot read it.
* Done. The MDPI rules requiere 600 ppi and the max. size is not defined. We enlarged the figure as max, as possible. Thanks!!!
Once again, congratulations on this achievement, and I look forward to seeing your work published.
Thank you very much!!! Hope to get more resources to get more results in the future and to help "interdisciplinary research", maybe towards "intergenerational co-research" too.
MBRs!!!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
