Working Toward Advanced Architectural Education: Developing an AI-Based Model to Improve Emotional Intelligence in Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is very interesting and has high potential, but the research was badly executed, or poorly described, not sure which is. The sequence of the steps is confusing, and the control group in the experiment is missing, as seen from the presented material. It is unclear what groups of students/teachers are involved in the comparison data, which is crucial for the research results to be valid. This paper contains very good research material, so I recommend this paper for a major revision, primarily to rewrite it to clarify whether the methods are valid.
More detailed comments are in the file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are some words that should be corrected, I marked in the file.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reviewer comments
The manuscript (Towards Advanced Architectural Education: Developing an AI-Based Model for Advancing Emotional Intelligence in Education) aims to raise academic competence of architectural education by measuring the impact of emotional intelligence on students. While the research is interesting and thought-provoking, various improvements are needed before publication.
1. The authors need to enhance the readability of the Abstract and include ideas of potential further research in its concluding sentences.
2. The authors have failed to use the appropriate EndNote style of MDPI Buildings, link: https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references
3. The Introduction needs more academic support from related journal articles when presenting the research background/state-of-the-art.
4. The Introduction of the research must present the rationale to the readers? Why is the development of AI-Based Model for Advancing Emotional Intelligence in Education needed?
5. An outline statement at the end of the Introduction is needed for readers to understand the structure of the research.
6. To ensure repeatability in other academic institutions, colleges, and universities, the authors must provide the following information in the Methodology section: research philosophy, research type, research strategy, time horizon, sampling strategies, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and methodological limitations.
7. Various claims are presented in Section 4 that substantially lack academic support, e.g., L261-L263. This needs to be assessed throughout the manuscript.
8. Table 5 in the Pilot Study section needs more explanation.
9. The Discussion section needs to be added in the manuscript and must include: (1) a summary of key findings; (2) a comparison with academic literature; and (3) research limitations.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors responded to all the comments and remarks I suggested. The paper has been improved significantly.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have failed to respond to the requested changes and have not provided a point-by-point summary of the requested improvements, therefore the manuscript is rejected.
Author Response
Please see Attached reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have worked hard to improve the manuscript, there are just a few minor improvements needed related to writing style. Please ensure writing in paragraph form rather than bullet or point form in the article, e.g., the text in Research Limitations needs to be converted to paragraph form. Please check this throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
