Human-Centric and Integrative Lighting Asset Management in Public Libraries: Insights and Innovations on Its Strategy and Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This paper presents a strategy for human-centric and integrative lighting asset management in public libraries. It emphasizes the importance of developing sustainable practices based on ISO 55000, providing a framework for managing physical assets, including lighting assets in public libraries. The approach encompasses context identification, a management framework, and a maturity assessment model to ensure that public libraries become luminous spaces for users.

The paper is interesting and some issues need attention before publication.

* Summarize the introduction section, highlighting essential information.

*  Move the paper's contribution after the related work (state of the art) to emphasize its significance.

*  Include more details regarding interviews and surveys conducted with lighting professionals, library staff, and users.

* Include quantitative results to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of lighting asset management. This should encompass illuminance measurements to validate lighting effectiveness, measurements of energy consumption and costs, and simulations using Dialux software or any other relevant tool to demonstrate improvements.

*  Therefore, include quantitative results in the abstract.

*   Furthermore, the conclusions will need to be complemented with additional modifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The research aims to explore and develop strategies for human-centric and integrative lighting asset management to enhance lighting environments in public libraries. It underscores the importance of understanding the distinct challenges and needs presented by diverse library settings.

In general, the text appears to be excessively verbose, lacking examples, numbers, and practical cases.

It is recommended to review the formatting of the text, as some sentences are in blue while others are in black.

It is recommended to refine the language used in the abstract to make it more consistent with a scientific article. For example, in lines 20 and 21, "Our research offers a cohesive approach encompassing context identification, a management framework, and a maturity assessment model" could be revised to "The research..."

It is necessary to include the definition of "Human-centric lighting" upon which the entire article is based since it is extensively discussed but has not been clearly defined.

It is necessary to check the formatting of tables spanning across two pages.

Line 369: Explain, possibly through an example, how the directive "human-centric lighting design considers the diverse needs of different age groups" could be implemented.

Line 373: Explain, possibly through an example, how the directive regarding gender considerations could be implemented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors acknowledge the importance of quantitative analysis in their project's findings but have omitted any measurements or simulations to demonstrate the impact of their proposal. The research remains inconclusive, with the authors indicating that this will be addressed in a subsequent study.

Recognizing the inherent complexities of research projects, I encourage the authors to consider incorporating preliminary quantitative findings. This approach would significantly enhance the current paper, fostering a more comprehensive discussion of their research. The addition of empirical data not only strengthens the paper's overall credibility but also offers valuable insights to readers, showcasing the immediate impact and effectiveness of the proposed approach. This enhancement would render the paper more robust and impactful within the current academic landscape.

The authors acknowledge the importance of quantitative analysis in their project's findings but have omitted any measurements or simulations to demonstrate the impact of their proposal. The research remains inconclusive, with the authors indicating that this will be addressed in a subsequent study.

Recognizing the inherent complexities of research projects, I encourage the authors to consider incorporating preliminary quantitative findings. This approach would significantly enhance the current paper, fostering a more comprehensive discussion of their research. The addition of empirical data not only strengthens the paper's overall credibility but also offers valuable insights to readers, showcasing the immediate impact and effectiveness of the proposed approach. This enhancement would render the paper more robust and impactful within the current academic landscape.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

After reviewing the revised version and considering the author responses to my previous comments, I must conclude that the manuscript does not meet the required standards for publication in its current form

Despite the modifications made, significant concerns remain unresolved.

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

This is an excellent paper that reviews all potential factors who can influence the efficiency of a Human Centric Lighting system. It sets the basis for future research and shall constitute an inspiring paper for the the associates research community. The paper is well structured and written. The discussion is sound and the paper's archival potential is high.  Reviewer, doesn't identified any weakness on the paper thus it propose to accept it and publish it at the present form.

Reviewer considers that the paper is well written without any specific English expression problems.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has underscored the significance of tailoring asset management strategies to distinct library environments. The framework has also been developed.

In Section 3.2, Furniture and bookshelf are considered in two different categories. However, the reasons for considering furniture/bookshelf position and characteristics are pretty similar. Do you think we can combine them into one category?

It’s better for you to align the hierarchical symbol across the page. In section 4.1, the second-level symbols are solid dots, but in section 4.2 they are hollow dots.

Could you explain the difference between the asset management goals in plan and roof? If the goal in roof is more generic, do you think we can change the name of roof?

In Figure 4.1, why do we have colon at the end of every sentence in the plan? But in the Do, Study and Act, there is no colon.

In the lighting asset management framework, it suggests incorporating human-centric and integrative requirements into the goals. However, the goal is reflected in the KPI. The KPI also needs to be human-centralized.

Can I know the reason to have the arrow between Act and Plan? Do you mean after the Act, we need to review the Plan again? If this is a flow chart, why doesn’t it have the arrow between plan and do, between do and Study? 

There are some typos in the paper. For example, In Section 3.4, there is a typo. Should be “health” rather than “healt”

Reviewer 3 Report

This study introduces an innovative strategy for Human-Centered and Integrative Lighting Asset Management. Embracing both visual and non-visual effects, 'integrative lighting' aims to improve the physiological and psychological well-being of users. The paper focused on ISO 55000 and  foundational strategies, aligns it with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Authors should clarify the following issues:

-       A review section of the state of the art must be included.

-  Although the authors draw attention to the introduction of a novel approach to integrated and human-centered lighting asset management, the novel idea is not well-supported by a pertinent literature study. The authors address user physiological factors, but neither the analysis nor the incorporation of recent research that has already addressed these issues is presented. Furthermore, no mention is made of earlier studies that looked at both the visual and non-visual components in the literature. As a result, the article's contribution is not made apparent.

 -    Research methodology is not clear enough.

-     Text in figures on table 2.1 is not readable (SDGs)

-  Sections 3-6 appear to have been written as descriptions of concepts, as no case study is presented for any of the elements featured in these sections. For example, in the case of the user factor and the cost factor, no implementation was evaluated through measurements or simulations on the distribution of light intensity, visual well-being, light enjoyment, or quality of perception. No study or implementation scenario was presented.

English language fine. No issues detected

Reviewer 4 Report

The article refers to a specific subject. This could result in a limited range of potential readers – mostly from Nordic countries. The article has more descriptive nature. Despite the fact that authors claim that: “Human-centric and integrative lighting asset management aims to develop lighting asset management to promote effective lighting and to help the users get the right light at the right time to support various activities” I see lack of direct aims or hypothesis what makes an article confusing.

Insufficient literature, data or reports that would confirm potential issues (etc. physical health).