Analysis of Surface Material Design, Construction, and Optimization Measures of Qiang Zhuangfang Based on Physical Comforts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic, comparing traditional Qiang Zhuangfang houses with modern brick–concrete houses in terms of physical comfort, wall surface materials, and thermal performance. The subject is relevant for the field of sustainable architecture and heritage conservation.

However, the paper in its current form suffers from significant issues related to language quality, figure presentation, table formatting, literature coverage, and overall organization. Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Specific Comments by Section

Abstract: The abstract is too long and repetitive. Needs to be shortened to clearly state objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions.

Introduction

• The literature review is limited to Chinese-language sources. More international references (SCI/SCIE indexed articles) are required.
• Some references are repeated with inconsistent years (For example: Citations and references should be consistent. Citation number 3 in the text is dated 2023, but in the references, citation number 3 is dated 2024.).
• The research gap is mentioned but not convincingly argued.

Methodology

• Section 3.1 and 3.2 overlap; the distinction between “Research Theory” and “Research Ideas” is unclear.
• Measurement details are useful, but the text is difficult to follow due to translation issues.

Results and Discussion

• Results are largely descriptive; there is limited critical discussion or comparison with existing studies.
• The analysis should link numerical findings to broader implications for sustainability, comfort standards, and building design.
• Some extreme values (e.g., 600 °C radiation temperature) appear unrealistic and require clarification.

Figures

• Figures and text are mixed, leading to layout confusion.
• The figures are disrupting the text of the article. The figures are intertwined with the text, which hinders readability and creates confusion; please look up to similar works and arrange the figures so that they do not disrupt the flow of the text. All figures need to be corrected in this way.
• The image quality is very low for almost all images; the author's guide should be reviewed, and the text should be placed in the journal at the required quality.
• “Photo source: Author shooting” is not academically appropriate; it should be written as “Photographed by the author (2023)”. These explanations are not fully visible in the text; the figures should be rearranged so that all explanations are clearly visible. All figures should be revised in this regard.

Tables

• Table 1 is overly complex, with poor alignment. Needs simplification and clearer formatting.
• Table 2 contains unit errors (e.g., “Density” should be in kg/m³, not kg/m²).
• Explanations in the tables are too lengthy and should be moved to footnotes.
• All tables should be arranged in such a way that they do not disrupt the flow of text.

Conclusion

• Conclusions are repetitive and not concise.
• The novelty of the study should be emphasized more strongly.
• Current form reads more like a summary than a critical conclusion.

References

• The reference list includes only a few works; many are local Chinese sources.
• International peer-reviewed journal articles on thermal comfort, heritage buildings, or passive design should be added.
• The formatting of references does not fully comply with the MDPI Coatings style.

Important topics to be addressed in the article

• The manuscript must undergo thorough English editing by a professional or native speaker.
• The manuscript must be reformatted to comply with the journal's guidelines. Captions should be clear, independent, and explanatory.
• Needs broader and more international coverage.
• Results should not only describe but also interpret findings and compare them with international comfort standards (e.g., ASHRAE, EN ISO).
• Paragraphs should be shortened; sections should have smoother transitions.

Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript must undergo thorough English editing by a professional or native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzes surface material design construction and optimization measures of Qiang Zhuangfang based on physical comforts. Several research methods are applied to quantitatively analyze each factor of the wall surface of the Qiang high-altitude area, Zhuangzhai. Specifically from the comfort of the wall surface temperature, ambient radiation temperature, air temperature, relative humidity and other factors.  Through the calculation and test of the model of a typical manor house, the better data and additive programs were obtained, confirming that lowering the main body of the traditional manor house structure by 0.1m and as a surface material construction layer, it has the efficacy of energy-saving thermal insulation, both to meet the requirements of load-bearing and to ensure lower heat transfer, giving full play to the role of the wall thermal insulation and its internal surface ambient radiant temperature, and obtaining a better comfort. It is then known that the Zhuang house is more suitable for the local climate and environmental conditions.

This paper provides novel and important results. In addition, it is well organized. Meanwhile, the authors should consider the following issues:

-There is a marked revised paper which is attached below. It provides some required revisions and comments. The authors should complete these revisions. The addition of the following related benchmark study can help to enrich the References part:

1-"Seismic behavior of two monumental buildings in historical Cappadocia region of Turkey." Bull Earthquake Eng 15, 3103–3123 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0082-6 

Overall, this paper can be accepted after the completion of required revisions described above. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I am Zhenzheng Liu, the author of this article. I sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, which have been highly beneficial to me during the revision process. Below is a summary of the changes I have made in response to your suggestions:

Comment 1: There is a marked revised paper which is attached below. It provides some required revisions and comments. 

Reply 1: I have revised the text and completed the corrections.

Comment 2: The authors should complete these revisions. The addition of the following related benchmark study can help to enrich the References part.

Reply 2: I have cited this article as a reference.

The above summarizes the revisions made in response to your comments. Thank you for your review.

Sincerely

Zhenzheng Liu

September 7, 2025

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Generally a well executed, thought out and sound piece of work. There are however, some issues with the text that need addressing.

 

The language of the abstract and introduction is difficult to follow and should be improved, particularly sentence structure.

It would be useful to include more of the recorded data, perhaps as supplementary information

The figures are often placed in the text in such a way to make reading the text difficult, their placement should be reconsidered by the authors. Figure 9 appears some way after it is described in the text and may benefit form placing earlier on.

The results from Figure 13, humidity is not well described in the text and it is hard to see how the authors reached their conclusions, a better constructed argument needs to be presented.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the abstract and introduction is difficult to follow and should be improved, particularly sentence structure.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I am Zhenzheng Liu, the author of this article. I sincerely thank you for your valuable comments, which have been highly beneficial to me during the revision process. Below is a summary of the changes I have made in response to your suggestions:

Comment 1: The language of the abstract and introduction is difficult to follow and should be improved, particularly in sentence structure.

Reply 1: I have revised the wording and finalized the corrections.

Comment 2: It would be useful to include more of the recorded data, perhaps as supplementary information.

Reply 2: I have added relevant data on environmental radiation and temperature to Table 3.

Comment 3: The figures are often placed in the text in such a way as to make reading the text difficult; their placement should be reconsidered by the authors. Figure 9 appears some way after it is described in the text and may benefit from being placed earlier.

Reply 3: I adjusted the placement and labeling of tables to ensure accuracy without interrupting the text flow.

Comment 4: The results from Figure 13, humidity is not well described in the text and it is hard to see how the authors reached their conclusions, a better constructed argument needs to be presented.  

Reply 4: I have changed to a better constructed conclusion to support my argument. 

The above summarizes the revisions made in response to your comments. Thank you for your review.

Sincerely

Zhenzheng Liu

September 7, 2025