Human Preferences for the Visual Appearance of Desks: Examining the Role of Wooden Materials and Desk Designs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After revision of the article 'Human Preference for Visual Appearance of Desks: Examining the Role of (Wooden) Materials and Desk Designs' I have the following observations.
1. Research aiming to systematically investigate user preferences for indoor furnishings and functions, the relationships between functional, design elements, and the restorative qualities of the built environment is relevant and may be of interest to stakeholders responsible for human well-being.
2. The article is written in an appropriate way, and the investigation is sufficiently clearly presented.
3. There are some shortcomings and obscurities that require correction or additional comments.
Please provide statistically sound reasoning for how many respondents should participate in the survey for the results to be considered reliable.
The reader would benefit from a general scheme (or flow chart) of the experiment, which combined all the studies planned to be carried out and the statistical processing of the obtained results.
Please, clarify what is the rating scale? From 1 to 7, with Step 1? If so, is it appropriate to present the evaluation results in such detail to the nearest hundredth? I doubt whether the respondents can determine the difference, as, for example, between 4.63 (SD = 1.41) of the maple evaluation and 4.53 (SD = 1.39) of the guibourtia evaluation.
Also, I noticed that the names of the wood are different from in the database from which the photos were taken. Why?
Why is Spearman's rank correlation coefficient used for statistical processing, when the objects are not ranked but scored?
Why was not Kendall’s coefficient of concordance used to determine the level of agreement of the respondents?
The article should be written without the use of personal pronouns. Please, restructure the sentence to remove the 'we examined', 'we identified', 'we prepared', 'Our goal', 'our study', 'our results', etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The article basic work is innovative and very mindful. However, the article needs major updates as the structure of the article is bit different from standard. Title must be free from "()". Follow MDPI guidelines during restructuring. Name/affiliation ... numbering is missing. Draw a single methodology diagram for the complete work. References must be written in MDPI format. The focus must be constant throughout the article and it must be on the user preference. Standard structure of article contains...abstract, keywords, introduction, literature, materials and methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and future scope of work. The design of this research study can be presented more effectively (with a better research methodology diagram and its explanation). Try to embed all important figures in the main file as it would be easy for readers to understand the work. I wish all the very best to the authors for their work.
Okay.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to recommended to the authors of the article to improve the quality of the figures.
It would be good when authors explain, why they didn´t take attention to patterns of each kind of tested wood and the direction of cutting wood during the manufacturing of veneers (radial and tangential direction of slicing)?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the effort to correct the article based on the comments. I think, the quality of the article was improved despite that your explanation about calculation of Kendal coefficient did not convince me. I believe that the paper can be accepted for publishing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The suggestions/comments has been addressed. The article is in good shape and there are no more comments.
