The Development of Energy-Efficient and Sustainable Buildings: A Case Study in Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This article did not meet the standard for a scientific journal even after revision - 1. The methodology section is not clear and lacks details; 2. The results and discussion section includes a large portion of the literature review. These are not your results and also not integrated; 3. This study also lacks novelty in the research field.

Many long sentences are too complex to follow.

The whole article also lacks coherence and a major topic.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

I am sending you our revised Manuscript ID: sustainability-2626288 entitled “Research to Improve The Test Capacity of Energy–Saving Materials In Vietnam”. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

According to reviewers comments, the following points have been revised:

• The title was revised with more specific information
• The novelty of this research was clearly indicated (see the last paragraph of introduction part);
• The conclusion part was re-considered
• The aim of this study was emphasized and clearly indicated in the last paragraph of introduction part in which the research questions were clarified (see the red part).
• More references on related studies were added within revised manuscript.
• English language was checked by native speaker.

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Would you please take your time to consider our manuscript one again.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your hard works.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

In this paper, authors summarize the local strategies and measures towards energy saving in building and construction sectors, with governance code/standard introduction and lab development description for building related parameters measurement and evaluation. The manuscript is somehow informative, with emphasis on the versatile and comprehensive statement on the capacity improvement. However, the key problem lies in the novelty or academic value for the present work. The layout and content of the present form is more like a development report or research proposal, rather than a scientific article. The authors are highly suggested to reconsider the expression style and key findings of this study, and might re-submit in, maybe in communication or report type, for publication consideration. 

1. Rephrase the title with more specific information. 

2. Extend literature review, with emphasis on international studies on related regards. Moreover, describe the main advance or reference over others.

3. Clarify the novelty of this work. Comparative studies with available initiatives or labs in both developed and developing countries.

4. It lacks research problem and objective description. An abbreviated structure of the whole content is also missing.

5. The methodology part is far from in-depth and inductive. It needs significant extension with detailed expressions on hypothesis, modelling approaches, benchmarks, key design parameters determination etc.

6. The main content are qualitative-statement-based. For instance, the heat transfer coefficient U-value, new testing method? The equation for thermal resistance is meaningless here, since it is a handy off-shelf basic one.

7. Results or discussion? Without indicating the fundamental elements, the study seems easily to loss its value, which might basically discredits any scientific work.

8. Please double-check the typo and punctuate errors, such as definite and indefinite articles, capital letters. Language editing is suggested.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

I am sending you our revised Manuscript ID: sustainability-2626288 entitled “Research to Improve The Test Capacity of Energy–Saving Materials In Vietnam”. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

According to reviewers comments, the following points have been revised:

• The title was revised with more specific information
• The novelty of this research was clearly indicated (see the last paragraph of introduction part);
• The conclusion part was re-considered
• The aim of this study was emphasized and clearly indicated in the last pharagraph of introduction part in which the research questions were clarified (see the red part).
• More references on related studies were added throught revised manuscript.
• English language was checked by native speaker.

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Would you please take your time to consider our manuscript one again.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your hard works.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at [email protected]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Le Thi Song

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper focuses on the promotion of actions addressed to energy and resource-efficient construction practices in Vietnam

The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner.

The cited references are mostly recent publications and relevant.

The manuscript scientifically sounds and experimental design is appropriate to test the hypothesis

The figures/tables/images/schemes are simple but appropriate: the paper could be better arranged if there were more images.

The conclusions are not sufficiently consistent with the evidence and arguments presented; in particular, conclusions could focus on the subject concerning the transition towards sustainability in countries that don't have specific expertise and tradition in this field. On the other hand, the discussion about materials and component labels should be debated in a more extensive way than proposed.

According to this, it is highly recommended to:

1) introduce considerations about the potential use of the proposed method in developing countries which present similarities with Vietnam in the transition towards sustainability;

2) describe the subject relating to the labeling of building materials and components better than proposed, also through additional images, tables, and diagrams

3) pay attention to typos

The English language is quite appropriate and understandable; however, there are several typos, e.g. 

1) issused line 31

2) exiting line 34

3) ar-eas line 39

4) achive line 41 

5) im-pacts line 51

6) and others below ...

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

I am sending you our revised Manuscript ID: sustainability-2626288 entitled “Research to Improve The Test Capacity of Energy–Saving Materials In Vietnam”. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

According to reviewers comments, the following points have been revised:

• The title was revised with more specific information
• The novelty of this research was clearly indicated (see the last paragraph of introduction part);
• The conclusion part was re-considered
• The aim of this study was emphasized and clearly indicated in the last pharagraph of introduction part in which the research questions were clarified (see the red part).
• More references on related studies were added throught revised manuscript.
• English language was checked by native speaker.

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Would you please take your time to consider our manuscript one again.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your hard works.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at [email protected]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Le Thi Song

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Thank you for your diligence in revising this paper. While the authors have acknowledged the existing knowledge gaps, it is evident that the study has yet to offer a substantive resolution to address these gaps. In terms of academic novelty, structure, and overall coherence, this paper surpasses the conventional expectations for a scientific research article.

I recommend that you streamline your focus to a specific facet of your study, such as the development of a labeling system aimed at conveying material properties to the market and facilitating informed decision-making by stakeholders. To achieve this, you might want to commence by conducting a comprehensive review of prior research on labeling systems, identifying the prevailing knowledge gaps within this domain, elucidating the details of your innovative methodology, and outlining the practical implications of your work.

Moderate editing of English language is required on the Logical Coherence/Strength of Argument/Academic Soundness aspects.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

Thank you very much for your valuable comments to our manuscript.

I am sending you our revised Manuscript ID: sustainability-2626288 entitled “Research to Improve The Test Capacity of Energy–Saving Materials In Vietnam”. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

According to reviewers comments, the following points have been revised:

• The methodology section was revised with more details
• In this manuscript, the authors focused only on the research and development of laboratory concepts for energy-saving builidng materials. According to your comments, the development of labeling systems was assigned for next publication. Therefore, the following lines were deleted:
• From line 478 (In line with…) to line 487 (…among consumer);
• From line 504 (At the institure level…) to line 531 (…Fig. 3);
• From line 538 ( The labeling system…) to line 540 (…by stakeholders);
• From line 558 (Thirdly…) to line 562 (…2024)
• From authors point of view, the concepts of laboratory for testing energy properties of building materials has not been published. Therefore, the authors believe that this study has great practical and scientific significance. This point is a novelty of this study
• English language was checked by using MDPI editing service

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Would you please take your time to consider our manuscript one again.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your hard works.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at [email protected]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Le Thi Song

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

After scrutiny on reviewer's report and the revised version and response, I still think the present form might be of distance from scientific article. Authors paid main attention to literatures update and expressions improvement, rather than carefully re-consider the academic value. As the review 1 stated, it seems like "No Results or Original Findings". And no major revisions on methodology and discussion, according to last review comments.

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewers

Thank you very much for your valuable comments to our manuscript.

I am sending you our revised Manuscript ID: sustainability-2626288 entitled “Research to Improve The Test Capacity of Energy–Saving Materials In Vietnam”. We would like to have the manuscript considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

According to reviewers comments, the following points have been revised:

• The methodology section was revised with more details
• In this manuscript, the authors focused only on the research and development of laboratory concepts for energy-saving builidng materials. According to your comments, the development of labeling systems was assigned for next publication. Therefore, the following lines were deleted:
• From line 478 (In line with…) to line 487 (…among consumer);
• From line 504 (At the institure level…) to line 531 (…Fig. 3);
• From line 538 ( The labeling system…) to line 540 (…by stakeholders);
• From line 558 (Thirdly…) to line 562 (…2024)
• From authors point of view, the concepts of laboratory for testing energy properties of building materials has not been published. Therefore, the authors believe that this study has great practical and scientific significance. This point is a novelty of this study
• English language was checked by using MDPI editing service

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Would you please take your time to consider our manuscript one again.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your hard works.

Please address all correspondence concerning this manuscript to me at [email protected]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript.

Sincerely,

Le Thi Song

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Authors have made substantial improvements and revisions according to the last review comments.

Moderate editing of English language required

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Regular scientific studies are lacking. Performing a lab is not publication-worthy; what is essential is the outcome of the lab. Many aspects of this paper make it more like a report than a scientific publication. There is good support for future laboratory data in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract section needs some results highlights. What are the major takeaways from your study?

Have any previous studies investigated similar topics? What are their research focuses? What approaches/techniques did they implement? What are the limitations and knowledge gaps of those studies? Did your research fill those knowledge gaps? What are the novelties of your approach compared to others?

The energy labeling system was introduced in this study. What is the schematic of this system? What are the major components of this system? What mathematic/decision-making algorithms are behind the system? Is the system working qualitatively or quantitatively? You may need a methodology section.

How does your study/approach guide future implementation and decision-making? Please specify the policy implications on a regional level. You may discuss the applicability/generalizability of your method framework/study to other cases (geographic scale, various types of buildings, etc). 

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript does not have the structure of a scientific paper and is more like a technical document. There is no specific section for introduction, method, findings, and discussion. The paper first starts with “Current Policies related to energy saving building materials in Vietnam” without providing an introduction and a background about the topic. There is no specific method used in this study and the results are not well discussed. The Conclusion does not include the limitations of the study.

The Quality of the English Language is acceptable and needs moderate improvement.