Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research tackles an urgent and important issue by using a relatively recent evaluation approach (BCA 2020vEB) to real-world infrastructure.  The framework is generally apparent, and the results are useful.  However, the originality of the BCA technique necessitates greater explanation, and the work would benefit from a more in-depth examination of its methodology and ramifications.

• How was the BCA 2020vEB approach validated and chosen for this study?
• The report should discuss the inadequacies detected in "User Identity and Intended Use" and how they may impact building performance or user satisfaction.
• How applicable are the findings of this case study to other buildings or institutions?
• Additional information is required on scoring methodology and thresholds for each category.
• How sensitive is the BCA scoring system to slight inaccuracies in input data?
• The reference list does not include recent research on post-occupancy evaluations and user-centric design from the last five years. Including papers like as doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2025.106071, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-06-2023-0610 would provide better background.

Author Response

Referee 1 to Response:

The referee selected for our article made very appropriate and consistent evaluations. We would like to express our gratitude to our referee for this.

The updates and corrections made are explained below:

1. BCA 20.20vEB verification was added to the text.
2. The question of how it will affect user satisfaction was addressed and added to the text.
3. Information on the application of this case study to other buildings and institutions was added to the text.
4. Information on the scoring methodology and thresholds for each category was presented.
5. BCA sensitivity to possible errors was explained.
6. The number of sources was increased from 72 to 94, and two sources suggested by the referee were found and added to the source list and cited in the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a promising user-focused certification method with practical value for sustainable building design. However, it requires stronger validation, broader contextualization, and methodological transparency to achieve academic and industry impact. Addressing these gaps could position BCA as a complementary tool alongside existing systems like LEED and BREEAM. It may be suitable for publication after addressing the following critiques, particularly comparative analysis and methodological justification：

1. The format of the Equations in this paper is confusion. It should be changed to the template of the journal " Sustainability ".
2. While the BCA method is positioned as novel, insufficient comparison with existing certification systems (e.g., how "User ID" overlaps with LEED’s occupant comfort criteria) weakens claims of uniqueness. A table contrasting BCA with other methods would strengthen this.
3. The 25% deficiency threshold for "bioharmological suitability" lacks empirical justification. Citing prior studies or statistical validation would improve credibility.
4. Key terms like "bioharmology" and "fatigue-wear performance" require clearer definitions and alignment with established concepts (e.g., biophilia, lifecycle assessment).
5. Equations (e.g., significance coefficients, FWP values) need justification for parameter selection.
6. Referenced Figure 2 (e.g., BCABOX Chart) are absent in the provided text. It is recommended to supplement Figure 2.
7. Heavy reliance on the authors’ own work (e.g., 20+ self-citations) risks confirmation bias. Incorporating more external, peer-reviewed sources would bolster academic rigor.
8. No discussion of cost, feasibility, or stakeholder engagement for implementing recommended changes limits practical utility.

Author Response

Referee 2 to Response:

The referee selected for our article made very appropriate and consistent evaluations. We would like to express our gratitude to our referee for this.

The updates and corrections made are explained below:

1. Confusions in the equations were resolved.
2. Attempts were made to explain the criteria overlap between BCA and LEED.
3. The reason for the 25% deficiency-insufficiency percentage rate was explained.
4. The reasons for the fatigue-wearing of the building were explained in the text.
5. The FWP value used in the equations was explained.
6. BCABOX was added to the text.
7. No reference was made to the authors themselves (Because the studies on this subject are pioneering studies, and there is a possibility that the authors may self-plagiarize).
8. The eighth request of our referee's update-clarification question could not be understood.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Expansion of Evaluation Indicators‌
The authors should supplement the discussion by considering additional potential indicators to enhance the BCA (Bioharmonic Compatibility Assessment) framework. From the perspectives of user experience, sustainable building performance, and adaptability to special circumstances, the following indicators are recommended for inclusion:
1) Indoor air quality (e.g., ventilation efficiency, pollutant control)
2) Building intelligence level (e.g., smart systems integration, IoT-enabled adaptability)
3) Resilience to public health emergencies (e.g., spatial flexibility for quarantine, sanitation infrastructure).
A rationale for their relevance to bioharmonology principles should be provided.

2. Clarification of Importance Coefficients‌
The manuscript must elaborate on the methodology for determining the importance coefficients of the 12 existing indicators. Specifically:
1) Describe the criteria and procedures (e.g., Delphi method, AHP) used to assign weighting values.
2) Provide validation analyses (e.g., sensitivity testing, statistical consistency checks) to verify the reliability of these coefficients.
3) Discuss how user identity and intended usage influenced the weighting process.

3. Scientific Basis of Calculation Principles‌
The derivation process and scientific foundations of the BCA metric calculations require explicit justification:
1) Cite established theories or standards (e.g., ISO norms, biomechanical models) underlying the computational logic.
2) Clarify whether the principles originate from empirical studies, bioharmonology literature, or interdisciplinary adaptations.

4. Case Study Representativeness‌
The selected higher education building (commissioned 2016–2017) lacks contextualization regarding its:
1) Typicality vs. uniqueness within the educational building typology.
2) Generalizability to other building types (e.g., commercial, residential).
3) Revise to address how user identity diversity and functional variability in this case align with broader BCA applicability, including limitations imposed by architectural typology differences.

5. Strengthening Discussion Section‌
The Discussion requires expansion to:
1) Systematically interpret results in relation to bioharmonology objectives.
2) Conduct a comparative analysis with existing building assessment systems (e.g., LEED, WELL).
3) Highlight novel contributions of BCA while acknowledging methodological divergences from conventional approaches.

6. Conclusion Section Enhancement‌
Add a dedicated "Conclusions" section structured to address:
1) Core findings and their significance for sustainable architecture.
2) Limitations in current BCA implementation (e.g., regional adaptability, scalability).
3) Future research directions (e.g., AI-driven optimization, multi-climate validation).
4) Explicitly outline potential BCA developments, such as dynamic weighting mechanisms or IoT-enabled real-time assessments.

7. Terminology Refinement‌
Revise the etymological explanation of "Bioharmology" (Lines 110–113) for linguistic precision and academic coherence.
Verify the citation format in Line 113 ("[4,") for potential typographical errors.

8. Standardization of Formula Notation‌
Reformat mathematical expressions to align with conventions in architectural analytics publications:
1) Define all variables in italics with units where applicable (Lines 219–221, 226–230).
2) Use consistent notation frameworks (e.g., subscript indices for spatial parameters).
3) Reference exemplars from high-impact journals in building science.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing style and terminology in this paper require further refinement to align with the standards of scientific and technical academic writing. 

Author Response

Referee 3 to Response:

The referee selected for our article made very appropriate and consistent evaluations. We would like to express our gratitude to our referee for this. As can be understood from the comments made by our referee, his sensitivity on this issue has been understood. There are very radical and detailed updates in his comments. We believe that these updates may need postgraduate studies to be very radical and detailed updates. In this case, we plan to conduct scientific studies that take the referee's suggestions into account in our future studies.

The updates and corrections made are explained below:

1. Evaluation indicators have been expanded in the text.
2. Explanations have been made regarding indoor air quality.
3. Comments have been made regarding the intelligence level of the building.
4. The reason for the weight scores of the importance coefficients has been explained.
5. The use of the Delphi method and AHP method has been reflected in the text.
6. Sensitivity tests and statistical consistency checks based on the data obtained in the findings have not been performed.
7. Spelling errors in the calculations have been corrected.
8. The ISO and biomechanical models used in the study were explained.
9. The number of references was increased from 72 to 94 by re-examining the international literature.
10. The representativeness of the case study was explained.
11. The typology and similarity of the educational building could not be explained because it was a very broad topic, and there was a limitation in presenting only the engineering features of the building. There is only a short explanation about the building in the second section.
12. A general comparison of BCA with other certification methods was made, and the results were tabulated.
13. The discussion section was expanded. The importance of BCA was explained by considering other methods.
14. The conclusion section was expanded. General explanations were made about the basic findings and sustainability architecture.
15. It was expanded with new suggestions for future studies.
16. The requested terminological deficiency in lines 110-113 was resolved.
17. Updates were made regarding formula representations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted. Please double-check references [73] and [74], as I could not locate them in the main text. Additionally, ensure that no single sentence contains more than five citations, in accordance with academic writing standards.

Author Response

Thank you for your sensitivity in reviewing the article.

1. References 73 and 74 in the text have been reflected in the text.

2. The English proofreading of the main text has been checked. Some spelling errors have been corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The references in the paper may involve extreme self-citation. It is recommended to reduce the non-essential non-English references from the author.
2. It is suggested that the conclusion section in "4.  Discussion" be made into a separate chapter at the end of the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We thank you for your sensitivity in reviewing the article.

1. The primary source of sources 59, 60, 61, and 62 in the text have been accessed, and necessary changes have been made.
2. Necessary changes have been made to the presentation format of the sources given in Turkish and have been reflected in the system.
3. The discussion and conclusion section titles have been changed.
4. The English proofreading of the main text has been checked. Some spelling errors have been corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has addressed all my concerns and is now acceptable for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for your sensitivity in re-examining the article. Your previous suggestions have contributed to the restructuring of our study with a different perspective.