Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines the practical applications of circular industrialized housing concepts through the Solar Decathlon Europe competition and provides recommendations for advancing its adoption. The study topic is highly relevant, environmental and affordability challenges in housing sector. 

The manuscript is clear, well-structured, uses a sound methodology, and presents to-the-point results and conclusions. 

Two observations under References, if authors can address:

- Ref. [18], upon which this paper is build upon (line 87, 96-97) seems to have been removed from SSRM. Is there an alternative location to access that paper?

- Incomplete details for ref, [33] Concular 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides insights into circular industrialised housing from the Solar De-16 cathlon Europe competition through interviews and observations with fifteen participating teams. The results were analyzed based on a predefined framework by previous review studies conducted by the author. The topic is timely and relevant, and the methodology is innovative. However, there are a few concerns that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for acceptance:

1.       Line 86: As this research builds on a prior review paper, it would strengthen the manuscript to elaborate more on the key findings of that study. Additionally, the authors should clearly explain how this work complements or extends the earlier research, justifying its novelty and significance.

2.       Confusion about interviewees: While Line 141 mentions student teams, Figure 3 suggests the inclusion of industrial roles. Line 126 reiterates the focus on "student teams," yet the information in Figure 3 could mislead readers into assuming the study involved professional practitioners. If the interviewees are all students, the authors should address how their insights can represent real-world industrial practices.

3.       Section 1.1: While the introduction to the Solar Decathlon Europe competition is important, it contains overly detailed information, such as team names and competition results, which do not appear directly relevant to the research topic.

 

4.       Conclusion section: Referring to specific figures or tables in the conclusion is not recommended, as this section should focus on synthesizing key findings and providing actionable insights for readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General concept comments

Overall, this manuscript deals with an engaging and innovative subject, that is relevant both to the field as well as to the scope of this journal. Building on knowledge from a student competition, the empirical analysis of this paper is focused on circularity and sustainability in construction by exploring design for disassembly solutions. Moreover, it has an educational impact as it points out innovative methods of learning by doing. The manuscript is presented with clarity and it’s adequately structured.

Major points:

I believe that more literature from scientific journals should be cited to state the gap in the literature explicitly. Another point is that limitations of this study should be addressed. The section that talks about future research should be extended. Moreover, this section has a promotional sound, so I recommend excluding particular information e.g. about the mentioned start-ups or companies, in terms of removing their names.

Minor points:

Minor points will be addressed in chronological order of appearance in the manuscript.

·       Sentence from lines 35-39. I suggest rephrasing it and/or breaking it into smaller information packages.

·       Sentence from line 110. Is there any recent data about this competition, or is it edition of 2022 still the most recent one?

·       When comparing Figure 2 with information given in lines 134-135, I believe there is a mismatch between the dimensions provided. Please check this once more.

·       Please correct the numbering of your sections: in the current version of the manuscript, section 2.3. is before 2.2.

·       The process of content analysis in section 3.1. should be explained in more detail.

·       Line 357. Do you write “table” with a capital letter?

·       Once more I have a feeling of subtle propaganda when mentioning the name of companies, such as in line 414. Is mentioning the company names in fact necessary in this paper?

·       What is about reference 18? I don’t seem able to find it at the given source.

·       Please supplement information for reference 33.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed most comments effectively, and I appreciate their efforts. However, I did not find a direct response to the question regarding how the insights presented in the paper can represent real-world industrial practices, particularly since the authors clarified that most reviewees are students. I recommend the authors briefly address this point to strengthen the practical implications of their study. With this minor revision, the paper can be considered acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf