Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

  There are language errors and incorrect terminology usage throughout the manuscript. Please review and correct these errors to ensure clarity, accuracy, and the appropriate use of technical terms.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a valuable study on carbon emission reduction through retrofitting high-rise office buildings, addressing an important issue for urban sustainability, particularly in China. The focus on building lifecycle phases—embodied, operational, and demolition—is timely and relevant. However, the manuscript requires major revisions to improve clarity, strengthen the methodology, and enhance the interpretation of results. The findings need clearer contextualization within global carbon reduction efforts, and practical implications should be more explicitly discussed. Additionally, the presentation of data and use of technical jargon reduce accessibility for a wider academic and policy-making audience. These revisions will help the paper better address its research goals and contribute to the field.

Main ocncerns:

1. The introduction does not clearly define the problem or gap the research addresses, making it difficult to understand the study’s significance in relation to existing literature.

2. The process of extracting typical models from the data is not adequately explained. The criteria for selecting these models and their representativeness are unclear, which affects the credibility of the results.

3. The sample size of 100 buildings is not justified as being sufficient for the conclusions drawn. More explanation is needed on whether this sample is representative of broader building stocks.

4. The description of retrofit strategies lacks specificity, particularly regarding how these strategies were applied and how they affect carbon emissions. The study's narrow focus on building envelopes without considering new materials and technologies is limiting.

5. The results, particularly in tables and figures, are difficult to interpret. There is insufficient explanation of the comparative analysis between building eras (pre-2007 vs. 2007–2021), and the significant impact of building orientation and shape on carbon reduction is underemphasized.

6. The discussion fails to situate the findings within the wider literature on carbon reduction in buildings. It lacks an exploration of the practical and policy implications of the research, particularly how it relates to China’s carbon neutrality goals and urban planning strategies.

7. The study does not adequately discuss the limitations of its geographic focus on one district in Hangzhou and the assumptions made in the carbon simulations. These limitations could significantly affect the generalizability of the findings.

8. The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasing that reduce readability. The use of technical jargon without sufficient explanation further complicates comprehension for non-specialist readers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires extensive editing for grammar, sentence structure, and clarity. There are numerous instances of awkward phrasing, unclear explanations, and inconsistent use of technical terminology, which make it difficult to follow. Additionally, some sections contain overly complex language that could be simplified for better readability. It is recommended that the authors seek professional English editing services to improve the overall fluency and comprehension of the text.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor issues and grammar errors still exist.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' comprehensive efforts in addressing my previous concerns. The revisions significantly improved the clarity and depth of the manuscript, making a valuable contribution to the study of carbon emission reductions in high-rise office buildings.