A Method for Estimating Instantaneous Predicted Mean Vote Under Dynamic Conditions by Accounting for Thermal Inertia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors developed a method to determine the expected thermal sensation under non-stationary conditions. The topic is timely. Some important points that should be addressed in the study are presented below:
- References should not be used in the abstract.
- The novelty of the study should be clearly expressed in the abstract, as this would enhance the quality of the work.
- It is recommended to expand the keywords to better match the study.
- The motivation section in the Introduction should be better organized. The necessity of the study should be clearly stated.
- There is no literature critique. The authors should create a literature survey section.
- The contribution and novelty of the study to the literature are unclear. The authors should create a contributions section.
- A paper organization section should be added.
- The Kruskal-Wallis test should be explained in detail.
- The methods used to prove the accuracy of the study are not clear.
- A conclusion section should be created for the paper.
I believe that the study, in its current form, cannot be accepted. A thorough literature review should be conducted, and the methods and evaluation techniques used should be explained in detail.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer I

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer I for their constructive and detailed feedback. We have carefully addressed all the comments, and we believe the revised version of our manuscript has significantly improved as a result. Please find our point-by-point responses below.

 

Comment 1: References should not be used in the abstract.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed all references from the abstract in the revised manuscript, as per the journal’s guidelines.

 

Comment 2: The novelty of the study should be clearly expressed in the abstract, as this would enhance the quality of the work.

Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have revised the abstract to explicitly highlight the novelty of our approach.

 

Comment 3: It is recommended to expand the keywords to better match the study.

Response: Thank you for this recommendation. We have expanded the keyword list to include terms that better reflect the content and scope of our study, including: Thermal inertia; thermal comfort; predicted mean vote; indoor environmental quality; comfort map; dynamic thermal environment; sensor-based monitoring

 

Comment 4: The motivation section in the Introduction should be better organized. The necessity of the study should be clearly stated.

Response: We agree that a clearer structure would benefit the introduction. We have reorganized the motivation section to more logically present the research gap and necessity of our study. We now explicitly state the limitations of current models under dynamic conditions and position our contribution accordingly.

 

Comment 5: There is no literature critique. The authors should create a literature survey section.

Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have added a dedicated literature review section to critically examine recent studies on thermal sensation modeling under both stationary and non-stationary conditions. 

 

Comment 6:The contribution and novelty of the study to the literature are unclear. The authors should create a contributions section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. Rather than creating a separate contributions section, we have emphasized our contributions in the sections where they are most applicable. Specifically, we clarified the novelty and relevance of our approach in the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections. 

 

Comment 7: A paper organization section should be added.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We've updated the structure of the article.

 

Comment 8: The Kruskal-Wallis test should be explained in detail.

Response: We have expanded the explanation of the Kruskal-Wallis test in the methods section, including its purpose, assumptions, and suitability for our data.

 

Comment 9: The methods used to prove the accuracy of the study are not clear.

Response: We acknowledge that this part required clarification. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the paragraph on hypothesis testing to better explain the statistical methods used, including the rationale for selecting specific tests and how they support our findings. Additionally, we revised the discussion section to more clearly interpret the results in light of the study objectives and related literature. To further support the clarity of our findings, we have also added a dedicated conclusion section that summarizes the main results and their implications.

 

Comment 10: A conclusion section should be created for the paper.

Response: A dedicated conclusion section has been added, summarizing the key findings, contributions, and potential applications of our study, along with suggestions for future research.

 

Final Comment: I believe that the study, in its current form, cannot be accepted. A thorough literature review should be conducted, and the methods and evaluation techniques used should be explained in detail.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s critical evaluation. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, particularly focusing on enhancing the literature review and clarifying the methodology and evaluation techniques. We hope that the revised manuscript meets the journal’s standards and addresses all concerns raised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study titled “An effective method for determining the instantaneous PMV, considering thermal inertia ” proposes to develop a method to determine the expected thermal sensation under non-stationary conditions. Overall, the quality of the paper reasonably well but can be improved by following the suggestions:

• I would suggest using the full form of PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) in the title.
• As the novelty of this research is to develop a new method to determine the expected thermal sensation under non-stationary conditions. Therefore, I would recommend to use the work “developed of bla bla method” in the title.
• Only 3 keywords, which are not sufficient to reflect the work conducted in this study. Add more meaningful keywords.
• Findings of the newly developed method are not mentioned in the title. Add effectiveness (of the newly developed method) related results in the abstract section.
• Remove all the references from the abstract because the abstract is usually standalone readable. Usually, references are not listed in the abstract, however, if this essential then the full reference needs to be added in the abstract, which does not look good, however, can be added if it is unavoidable.
• Be sure to modify the introduction section because it does not give any detail about the background of the study, research gap, etc. Is this enough for an introduction? There is no proper start of the introduction particularly related to the methods available in the literature to determine the expected thermal sensation under non-stationary conditions.
• Captions of the figures as well as tables require more details. Update all the captions which should explain the need and scope of the figure presented.
• “According to recommendations in the literature [16–21]” please avoid bulk citation of the references, instead, please explain the recommendations of each reference the authors are talking about.
• Briefly describe how questionnaire responses were validated.
• Please must include a dedicated conclusion section to summarize the findings of this research in a conventional fashion of a journal article.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We would like to thank Reviewer #2 for the insightful and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the suggestions, which we believe have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper. Our detailed responses are provided below.

 

Comment 1: I would suggest using the full form of PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) in the title.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the title to include the full form:  A Method for Estimating Instantaneous Predicted Mean Vote Under Dynamic Conditions by Accounting for Thermal Inertia

 

Comment 2: As the novelty of this research is to develop a new method to determine the expected thermal sensation under non-stationary conditions. Therefore, I would recommend to use the word “development of bla bla method” in the title.

Response: We appreciate this comment. While we revised the title to reflect the full form of PMV, we opted for a concise wording that still highlights the novelty. The updated title now implies the development of a method. We also emphasized the methodological innovation more explicitly in the abstract and introduction. A Method for Estimating Instantaneous Predicted Mean Vote Under Dynamic Conditions by Accounting for Thermal Inertia

 

Comment 3: Only 3 keywords, which are not sufficient to reflect the work conducted in this study. Add more meaningful keywords.

Response: Thank you for the recommendation. We have expanded the keyword list to better reflect the scope and methodology of the study. The updated keywords now include: Thermal inertia; thermal comfort; predicted mean vote; indoor environmental quality; comfort map; dynamic thermal environment; sensor-based monitoring

 

Comment 4: Findings of the newly developed method are not mentioned in the title. Add effectiveness (of the newly developed method) related results in the abstract section.

Response: We agree that the effectiveness of the method should be highlighted. While we did not modify the title to include detailed results (to preserve clarity and length), we have updated the abstract to include key performance outcomes of the method and its demonstrated improvements under non-stationary conditions.  A Method for Estimating Instantaneous Predicted Mean Vote Under Dynamic Conditions by Accounting for Thermal Inertia

 

 

Comment 5: Remove all the references from the abstract because the abstract is usually standalone readable.

Response: As suggested, we have removed all references from the abstract to ensure it remains self-contained and reader-friendly.

 

Comment 6: Be sure to modify the introduction section because it does not give any detail about the background of the study, research gap, etc.

Response: We have thoroughly revised the introduction to provide a clearer overview of the background, context, and challenges of modeling thermal sensation under non-stationary conditions. We now also explicitly identify the research gap and explain how our method addresses it.

 

Comment 7: Captions of the figures as well as tables require more details. Update all the captions which should explain the need and scope of the figure presented.

Response: We have updated the captions of figures and tables to include more informative descriptions. Each caption now better communicates the content, purpose, and context of the figure/table to support independent understanding.

 

Comment 8: “According to recommendations in the literature [16–21]” please avoid bulk citation of the references, instead, please explain the recommendations of each reference the authors are talking about.

Response: We agree with this point. We revised bulk citations to individually cite and explain the recommendations or findings of each relevant reference, improving transparency and readability where applicable.

 

Comment 9: Briefly describe how questionnaire responses were validated.

Response: Thank you for this remark. The questionnaire used in our study follows the EN ISO 10551:2020 standard, which is explicitly stated in the manuscript. This standard not only provides validated thermal comfort assessment scales but also outlines the procedures for evaluating subjective responses. By adhering to this standard, our questionnaire design, response format, and evaluation methods are all based on well-established, internationally accepted guidelines.

 

Comment 10: Please must include a dedicated conclusion section to summarize the findings of this research in a conventional fashion of a journal article.

Response: As advised, we have added a dedicated conclusion section. It summarizes the main findings, discusses the implications of the results, and outlines possible directions for future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscritpt buildings-3557158 entitled "An effective method for determining the instantaneous PMV, considering thermal inertia" submitted by Lenkovics et al. present an experiemental activity focused on the predicted mean vote estimation, related to the thermal inertia, estimation by the use of different methods.

The topic discussed deserves to be addressed according to the availability of new tools. However, the manuscript develop is poor and it is difficult to read it. The introduction is cursory and does not present well the state of the art and novelty of the present work. The materials and methods are poorly detailed especially in the calculation part. The results are poorly descriptive while the discussion is poorly developed and limited to a few remarks without bibliography. In general, the manuscript is poor and needs complete revision. 

My specific comments are detailed below:

Abstract: abstract not is very informative. It is pretty speculative. add more details regarding material and methods and results. Avoid to add citation.

Keywords: avoid to repeat words already mentioned in the title.

Line 47: artificial intelligence (AI)

Introduction: The introduction must to be implemented describing in depth the actual state of the art and then describing the aim of this experimental activity.

Lines 80-88: please add more technical details about the chamber.

Lines 198-226: From a technical and IT perspective, how were the data handled?
Artificial intelligence is discussed extensively in the text. How was it implemented in the experiment?

Lines 236-244: This part should be moved in the M&M section.

Results: many data presented derived from analysis not described in the M&M section.

Figure 6: language within figure.

 

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the thorough and detailed review. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all concerns and believe that these changes have significantly improved the overall quality, clarity, and structure of the work. Our point-by-point responses are provided below.

 

General Comment: The manuscript development is poor and difficult to read. The introduction is cursory and does not present well the state of the art and novelty of the present work. The materials and methods are poorly detailed, especially in the calculation part. The results are poorly descriptive while the discussion is limited to a few remarks without bibliography.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s overall assessment and have carried out a substantial revision of the manuscript. The introduction has been thoroughly expanded to better present the background, and the research gap. We emphasized our contributions in the sections where they are applicable, and clarified the novelty of our approach. The Materials and Methods section has been enriched, and the Results and Discussion sections have been rewritten for better clarity, with additional references and interpretation of the findings. A new Conclusion section was also added.

 

Comment 1: Abstract: not very informative; speculative. Add more details regarding materials, methods, and results. Avoid citations.

Response: We have revised the abstract to include the methods applied, and the key findings of the study. All citations have been removed from the abstract, in line with the reviewer’s recommendation and the journal’s best practices.

 

Comment 2: Keywords: avoid repeating words already mentioned in the title.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the keywords to reduce redundancy. The updated keywords now reflect specific themes and techniques used in the study, while avoiding repetition.

 

Comment 3: Line 47: artificial intelligence (AI)

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Upon further consideration, we have removed the mention of artificial intelligence (AI) from the manuscript entirely, as it was not directly relevant to the current study. Its inclusion was due to overlap with our other related research projects, and we acknowledge that it may have caused confusion in this context.

 

Comment 4: Introduction must be expanded to describe the actual state of the art and the aim of the study.

Response: The introduction has been substantially revised. We now provide a more comprehensive overview of the current literature on thermal sensation modeling, particularly under non-stationary conditions. The gap in existing approaches and the objective of our experimental activity are clearly stated.

 

Comment 5: Lines 80–88: please add more technical details about the chamber.

Response: We have expanded the description of the climate chamber in the Materials and Methods section. These details are relevant for interpreting the experimental setup.

 

Comment 6: Lines 198–226: From a technical and IT perspective, how were the data handled?

Response: We have extended the subsection detailing the data acquisition and handling process. This includes sensor sampling rates, data synchronization methods, and software tools used for analysis.

 

Comment 7: Artificial intelligence is discussed extensively. How was it implemented in the experiment?

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this. After reviewing the manuscript, we recognized that references to artificial intelligence (AI) were not directly relevant to the current study and may have caused confusion due to overlap with our other ongoing research projects. Therefore, we have removed all mentions of AI from the manuscript to maintain focus and clarity specific to this topic.

 

Comment 8: Lines 236–244: This part should be moved to the M&M section.

Response: We agree with this structural suggestion. The relevant content has been moved from the Results to the Materials and Methods section, where it now appropriately supports the experimental design and analysis.

 

Comment 9: Results: many data presented derive from analysis not described in the M&M section.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the Results section and ensured that all analyses presented are now fully described in the revised Materials and Methods section. This includes statistical methods, preprocessing steps, and modeling procedures.

 

Comment 10: Figure 6: language within figure.

Response: We have updated the text within Figure 6 to ensure that all labels and annotations are in English, and consistent with the main text of the manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to all my comments. In my view, the paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the positive evaluation and for acknowledging the improvements made in our manuscript. We are glad that the revisions addressed all previous concerns and that the paper is now considered suitable for publication. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful feedback and support throughout the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the revision of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort spent on the review process and are glad the revised version meets the expectations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was greatly improved by the authors following the suggested revisions.

I suggest to the authors to improve the manuscript by develop the discussion reporting also results from other studies or experience.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the improvements made in the manuscript. In response to the additional suggestion, we have further developed the Discussion section by incorporating comparisons with results from other relevant studies and experiences. This contextualization helps to better position our findings within the existing body of literature and supports a more comprehensive interpretation of the results.