Review Reports - Green Building Rating Systems (GBRSs)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to provide a comprehensive definition of GBRs as well as a timeline of their evolution. The manuscript is good contribution that summary 4 types of GBRs. However, the following suggestions hope to help authors strengthen the manuscript before publication:

The title of the article "Green Building Rating Systems (GBRSs)" seems too broad and there are too many GBRS around the world, but the authors summarize and compare only four of them in the manuscript. Perhaps a more appropriate title could be considered;
Keywords need to be rearranged alphabetically;
Research methods seem very weak and need to be strengthened;
The following latest research about GBRs can be referred for the summary:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102180
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030586
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.050
It is good to provide reference for the tables’ info;
The authors argue that the 4 GBRS mentioned in the article are the most diffused globally, but I don't seem to see any evidence to support this view;
Perhaps considering adding a section about future research direction and development of GBRs.

Author Response

Please find in red italics our response.

Many thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion given to improve the paper. The authors tried to incorporate them while being compliant with the structure and form of the type of paper the call requested, namely “Entry paper”.

The title of the article "Green Building Rating Systems (GBRSs)" seems too broad and there are too many GBRS around the world, but the authors summarize and compare only four of them in the manuscript. Perhaps a more appropriate title could be considered; The aim of this Entry paper is to give a broad picture of GBRS as tools and not of comparing specifically 4 of the most diffused ones. The comparison is just an excuse to show some similarities and differences in approaches, methods, etc. Indeed, apart from par. 2.2, the remaining part of the paper refers to GBRSs in general. However, lines 17-18, and lines 217-223 have been reformulated to better highlight this point, hoping that now the scope is clearer to the reader.
Keywords need to be rearranged alphabetically; Done
Research methods seem very weak and need to be strengthened; As explained above, this is not a Research paper but an Entry: thus it does no present a research project underpinned to a scientific methodology, but it tries to fix a state-of-the-art on GBRSs as tool at present days.
The following latest research about GBRs can be referred for the summary: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102180; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030586; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.050 Many thanks for the suggestion: the three references have been included in the paper.
It is good to provide reference for the tables’ info; Data sources have now been provided for both Tables.
The authors argue that the 4 GBRS mentioned in the article are the most diffused globally, but I don't seem to see any evidence to support this view; The reader can found the reference to Say and Wood (2008) [12] at Lines 173-174. In addition, the reference has been made explicit in the caption of Table 1 at Line 175.
Perhaps considering adding a section about future research direction and development of GBRs. Paragraphs 3.2-3-3 were already intended to trace some development and future research directions (e.g. considering sustainability in a holistic perspective, LCA integration, rating on resilience, or well-being), along with the conclusion section. The title of section 3 has been integrated to better highlight the intent to the reader.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for the well written paper.

However after reading through the paper I find no nee information about GB. Everything written in this paper is known already. No nee genuine information. No comparison with clear cut difference. Just a total summary of what a already exists in other literatures

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewer for appreciating the style of the paper.

As for the content, the reviewer claimed that the paper has no novelty and original content, which is true, but as it is an Entry paper (specifically required for the Encyclopaedia ZEMCH call) this cannot be considered a weakness, as the goal of an entry is right to fix the state-of-the-art about a specific topic. In fact, authors have followed the instruction also for what concern the main sections of the paper: Introduction or History; Data, Model, Applications and Influences; Conclusions and Prospects.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has addressed my concerns. I think this is enough for publication as an Entry type manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading through the paper once again. I understand the novelty as an entry paper. It’s a well documented background study about green building rating system and how it operates