Solar Architecture in Energy Engineering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Solar architecture is defined and a decision-making process is presented. The article is well written. Some minor comments as as below:
1. line 485: "embodied energy" or "embodied cost"
2. subscript and superscript, e.g. "m2" is m2; "CO2" is "CO2"
The article is not an research-oriented paper. It is not possible to evaluate the innovation.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions – we appreciate your effort.
We used these comments/suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Please see attached responses to your comments; the adjusted manuscript is also ready for upload.
Sincerely,
Alexandre Pavlovski, PhD, P.Eng.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. There are already multiple repetitions of words in the abstract, e.g. "solar architecture", "solar solution / s", "solution / s". Subsequent repetitions appear in the content of the article. High similarity of the content of the abstract and conclusions.
2. Is it deliberate to use some word phrases in capital letters?
3. I have the impression that the article is written in a too simplified language – of course, it depends to whom this study is addressed.
4. he article should be corrected in terms of editing.
5. Some drawings are of poor quality.
6. Some parts of the text are clipped by the picture frame, e.g. Figure 6 and its label.
7. The article was written correctly. Most of the descriptions are general in nature. Some of the appearing definitions or phrases do not coincide with commonly accepted definitions in the field of solar energy; however, the terms adopted by the authors are also understandable.
8. The references are largely based on websites (e.g. Wikipedia); in my opinion there is a lack of reputable scientific journals.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions – we appreciate your effort.
We used these comments/suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Please see attached responses to your comments; the adjusted manuscript is also ready for upload..
Sincerely,
Alexandre Pavlovski, PhD, P.Eng.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The present paper is an interesting overview about solar architecture, defined as the decision-making process to figure out the energy problem my means of solar-based technologies. The paper is really clear, concise, and well-presented. Therefore, the reviewer think that it can be considered for publication only if the authors answer to the following points
- In the reviewer's opinion, there are too many paragraphs in each section/subsection. Therefore, it is suggested to employ new lines only when the context is changing through the text
- Some more guidelines about how to read scorecards in Tables 2 and 3 is strongly suggested
- Would it be possible to improve resolution in Figs. 2 and 4?
- As a suggestion, please place figures always at top/bottom of each page
- Please revise typos; for instance in lines 526 m2 should be with 2 as a superscript
- Please clarify better the scales defined; for instance, which is an order of magnitude of "short-term"?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions – we appreciate your effort.
We used these comments/suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Please see attached responses to your comments; the adjusted manuscript is also ready for upload..
Sincerely,
Alexandre Pavlovski, PhD, P.Eng.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
To start with, I would like to thank authors for their work. It was a pleasure to read the work in terms of both the quality of used English and interesting topic.
The paper under reviewing is devoted to Solar Architecture and describes within which describes its features (spatial, temporal, mobile, transferable, material and social ones) and application groups (buildings, outdoor spaces, solar farms, solar landscapes, solar transportation, and spacecraft).
Overall, the presented paper looks like lecture notes and contains a short history of Solar Architecture, its features and application groups as well as well-known resources where to get data (like National Solar Radiation Database). The paper does not give a comprehensive review on the topic and present any data, formulas to use. To sum up this point, the paper suffers from contains excessive number of bullet points instead of more comprehensive and cohesive description of presented information.
Other comments:
Figures’ quality should be improved
Figures' calls out need to be organized
Self-citation should be removed
Self-citation should be removed
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions – we appreciate your effort.
We used these comments/suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Please see attached responses to your comments; the adjusted manuscript is also ready for upload..
Sincerely,
Alexandre Pavlovski, PhD, P.Eng.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed all the comments by the reviewer. The revision is acceptable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments on the entry manuscript, we appreciate your careful attention.
Best regards,
Alexandre Pavlovski
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Following the authors' responses to the comments in the previous entry review, I find that the authors made the desired corrections to the entry.
2. Underneath Figure 3, a), there is a marking of the line: "305".
3. In Table 3, there are entries with different alignment and height of the font. Also, not all entries start with a capital letter.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments on the entry manuscript and your careful attention to its text, we appreciate it.
To Comment 2: line 305 is missing in our text, we will coordinate this with the editor.
To Comment 3: the alignment and font in Table 3 have been adjusted.
Thank you again for your effort in reviewing the manuscript.
Best regards,
Alexandre Pavlovski
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper can be accepted as it is in the revised form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments on the entry manuscript, we appreciate your careful attention.
Best regards,
Alexandre Pavlovski
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revision
Unfortunately, you addressed my concerns weakly and it is sad.
However, if to look at the paper in terms of entry assesment (not article) , my concerns are not crucial and I think your paper can be published
Best regards!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for your comments on the entry manuscript, we appreciate your careful attention.
We also respect your vision of entry publications.
Best regards,
Alexandre Pavlovski
