Olfactory Attribution Circle (OAC): Designing Crossmodal Congruence Between Scent, Color, and Language

Comment 1: The work presents a genuinely original and ambitious effort to integrate olfactory, chromatic, and linguistic dimensions into a unified design framework. I can see the significant effort that went into this research, especially in synthesizing a vast body of literature and developing a structured methodology. The meticulous refinement of the conceptual model and its presentation as a coherent process for sensory design is evident.

That said, there are several aspects that would benefit from focused revision before the paper can reach its full potential. Scope and Focus: The paper covers a wide range from historical taxonomies to phenomenology and AI protocols. Consider tightening the narrative, condensing repetitive discussions (inclusivity, intensity control, congruence), and highlighting the OAC’s core methodological and theoretical contribution

Response 1: We have tightened the narrative and condensed repeated discussions (e.g., inclusivity, intensity control, congruence). When concepts are revisited, they are now addressed more concisely and directly. We also foreground the OAC’s core methodological and theoretical contribution, with substantive revisions in Sections 5.1, 6, and 7.

Comment 2: Empirical Grounding: At present, the OAC remains conceptual. It would help to explicitly frame this as a conceptual pilot and outline how future empirical or cross-cultural validation could follow.

Response 2: We now explicitly frame the OAC as a conceptual pilot. The revised text outlines potential pathways for future empirical and cross-cultural validation and situates these as next steps. These clarifications appear in Sections 1, 5, 6, and 7.

Comment 3: Method Transparency: The description of AI prompting is insightful but overly narrative. A short summary table or schematic of the prompt sequence and refinement criteria would make the process clearer and more reproducible.

Response 3: The description of AI prompting has been streamlined for readability. We added a concise summary table and a schematic diagram—Workflow of AI-assisted generation of the OAC—to clarify the prompt sequence and refinement criteria, thereby enhancing transparency and reproducibility (see Section 5.1).

Comment 4: Visual and Structural Clarity: Please include a compact, high-quality diagram of the OAC and ensure captions explain its analytical function. Streamline terminology across sections (“bipolar attributes,” “semantic pairs”) for consistency.

Response 4: A compact, high-resolution diagram of the OAC is now embedded in Section 5.1, accompanied by a caption that explains its analytical function. We also reviewed and standardized terminology across the manuscript (e.g., “bipolar attributes,” “semantic pairs”) to ensure consistency.

Comment 1: The article is quite interesting and was a pleasure to review. Authors offers valuable insights that contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field of multisensory approaches. Abstract is clear and concise, and it effectively outlines the study’s focus and provides a summary of results. The study would benefit for further clarity on specific parts mentioned below, and the overall structure might be revisited to respond to the clarity need. Please find my comments below: Terminology: I suggest clarifying the use of terms such as sensory atmosphere, sensory layer, and sensory design. A brief description of each would help establish consistency and define the scope of the paper with respect to existing literature. Another key terminology clarification is needed regarding the term “identity” being used broadly. In Table 4, the pairing of “atmosphere and identity” is ambiguous, does “identity” refer to user identity here? Later, the term “physical environment” is introduced; is this what is meant by “atmosphere”? Consistent terminology is essential, especially since “identity mapping” carries varied meanings in the social sciences. Please refine and standardize the language throughout.

Response 1: We refined and standardized key terms—sensory atmosphere, sensory layer, and sensory design—and now introduce them early in Section 1 to align with the literature and define the scope. We also clarified the use of “identity” and distinguished it from “atmosphere” and “physical environment,” noting where “identity” refers to user identity versus environmental characteristics. The table was revised to improve coherence and interpretability, and terminology has been harmonized throughout.

Comments 2: I recommend avoiding sentence interruptions using dashes many times ("– ... –"), which disrupt the flow for the reader.

Response 2: We reviewed the manuscript to reduce interruptions caused by dashes, improving sentence flow and readability.

Comment 3: Research Questions: The primary research question is framed as a yes/no, which limits the depth of inquiry, while the manuscript provides further analysis specified with sub questions. Consider reframing or having these secondary questions as the highlight of the study to clarify the scope and analytical ground.

Response 3: We revised the primary research question to avoid a yes/no framing and elevated the set of four sub-questions as the analytical backbone of the study. The Introduction presents the revised questions, and the Conclusion addresses them explicitly, one by one.

Comment 4: Clarification needed for the methodology: (1) Be specific about which keywords were used in the literature search. For example, was smell or scent included?; (2) Clarify whether there were any language limitations in the search; (3) Explain why 2010 was chosen as the starting year for the review; (4) Justify the selection of the 14 relevant papers and clarify the exclusion criteria.

Response 4: Keywords: We now list the specific keywords used in the literature search (including terms such as “smell,” “scent,” and related variants) and explain the search logic. Language limitations: We state the language parameters applied in the search. Start year (2010): We justify the 2010 starting point for the review and explain the temporal scope. Selection and exclusion: We provide a clear rationale for selecting the 14 relevant papers and specify the exclusion criteria used.

Comment 5: The method of conducting semi-structured interviews with academic and industry experts is an exciting and valuable addition to the study. However, further clarification is needed regarding the selection of interviewees. Only four individuals were interviewed, with two representing academia, one of whom is from pharmacy, as specified. It would be helpful to understand whether these participants were chosen based on their publication record / contribution to the field, geographic relevance, or another rationale.

Response 5: We expanded Sections 1.1 (Methodological Approach) and 4.1 (Semi-structured interviews: Academia and Industry) to clarify the selection rationale for the four interviewees (e.g., disciplinary relevance, publication record/contributions, and sectoral representation). We also explain the balance between academic and practice-based perspectives.

Comment 6: Semi-structured interview: Additionally, the interview section should include information on what makes the interview format “semi-structured” and how the responses were analyzed. Line 241 introduces insights and concerns, but the scientific analysis process is not clearly outlined.

Response 6: We now describe what makes the interviews “semi-structured” (protocol, flexibility, and probing strategy) and detail the analysis procedure (coding approach, synthesis of insights, and how concerns and convergences/divergences were derived).

Comment 7: To improve clarity and flow, I recommend presenting Table 2 earlier in the paper, before the discussion of evaluation insights begins. This would help contextualize the findings and support the reader’s understanding of the interview outcomes.

Response 7: Table 2 (see Section 2 – Methodology) is presented earlier in the manuscript to contextualize the evaluation insights before their discussion. The revised table also highlights convergences and divergences across the thematic axes derived from the interviews. Another Table was created to be presented in 4.1.

Comments 8: If the intention behind the semi-structured interviews was to compare academic and practice-based perspectives, this should be explicitly stated. It is currently unclear which interviewee made the highlighted comments and whether these reflect an academic critique of industry practices. Clarifying whether the interviewees were selected to represent specific viewpoints would strengthen the analysis. Additionally, if there are noticeable differences in insights based on the participants’ professional backgrounds, these distinctions should be discussed to enrich the comparative dimension of the study.

Response 8: We explicitly state that the interviews were designed to surface academic and practice-based perspectives. We clarify attribution at the level of perspective (while maintaining anonymity where appropriate) and discuss notable differences associated with participants’ professional backgrounds in Sections 4.1 and 6.

Comment 9: There is a missing reference at line 374, and line 391 lacks clarity regarding authorship, please specify whether it refers to a single author or multiple authors.

Response 9: The missing citation previously noted at line 374 has been corrected. The authorship ambiguity at line 391 has also been resolved and explicitly stated.

Comment 10: The discussion section introduces several ideas that were not previously presented in the paper. Ideally, these concepts should be grounded in the literature review and results sections to build a coherent argument. For example, Figure 4 opens up a compelling new avenue for analysis, but it is introduced only at the end. Integrating such elements earlier would strengthen the paper’s structure and analytical depth.

Response 10: We revised the structure to ensure that ideas introduced in the Discussion are properly foreshadowed and grounded in the literature review and results. Specifically, we moved concepts associated with Figure 4 earlier in the manuscript. Section 3 (Theoretical Foundation) now includes Synesthesia and Material Agency, which brings forward phenomenological aspects that were previously introduced only in the Discussion.

Comment 11: In some parts, particularly in the conclusion, the language tends to promote the OAC tool rather than presenting it as a methodological contribution. While the enthusiasm is understandable, and agreed, I suggest maintaining a more scientific tone that aligns with the expectations of the Journal of Architecture. The conclusion should focus on the methodological implications and potential for future research rather than sounding like an endorsement.

Response 11: We carefully revised the language—especially in the Conclusion—to maintain a scientific tone aligned with the Journal of Architecture. The OAC is positioned as a methodological contribution and conceptual pilot. We emphasize implications and future research directions rather than promotional language. Related clarifications appear in Sections 1, 5, 6, and 7.

Comment 1: I can clearly see the significant effort you have invested in addressing the earlier feedback. A few minor refinements would further strengthen the final version. Condense the historical background (Section 3.1) to maintain momentum.

Response 1: We have tightened the narrative and condensed the historical background (3.1) and made improvements regarding this issue in 3.2 to 3.4.

Comment 2: Ensure figure resolution and legibility at journal scale, especially for Figure 5.

Response 2: The figures inserted in the text are in high resolution. We will make sure to upload them as single files as well.

 Comment 3: Standardize minor inconsistencies in spelling (“color/colour”) and reference formatting (remove duplicates and incomplete DOIs).

Response 3: The spelling “color” has been standardized in the article. “Colour” is only seen when in a reference. One incomplete DOI has been removed, and all the rest was reviewed. No duplicates were found. The only case of referencing the same work is: 21. Henshaw, V., McLean, K., Medway, D., Perkins, C., & Warnaby, G. (Eds.). Designing with smell: practices, techniques and challenges; Routledge: Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 2017 and 35. McLean, K. Communicating and mediating smellscapes: The design and exposition of olfactory mappings. In Designing with Smell: Practices, Techniques and Challenges; Henshaw, V.; McLean, K.; Medway, D.; Perkins, C.; Warnaby, G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 67–77. The first the whole work is referenced, the second only a chapter within it. Both have different contributions to the text.

Comment 4: Consider linking the Discussion more explicitly to each research question for tighter closure.

Response 4: We linked the research questions in the discussion as suggested by the reviewer. Instead of providing them in the conclusion, as it was in the previous version. The conclusion now is more concise.

Comment 1: Thanks for providing the updated manuscript. The structure is quite developed which helped the flow, while I understand the time constraints to rush, there are still minor mistakes in the manuscript that need to be revised, along with a couple of suggestions for improvement. Please find my suggestions below: Methodology: Please correct the terminology use: outputs, outcomes

Response 1: The terminology has been corrected to “Output(s)”, only.

Comment 2: Line 582 - title spacing correction

Response 2: Title spacing has been corrected.

 Comment 3: Subtitles for section 5 - Please make the subtitles consistent in their formatting: Creation of ... Investigate

Response 3: We revised the subtitles and they are consistent in their formatting. The results are divided in 2 parts: 1- Creation of the OAC and 2-Implementation of the OAC. The 4 phases of the implementation are: Investigate, Attribute, Designate and Test.

Comment 4: Lines 590-595 - Reformatting the sentences to clarify the meaning, is it suggested to examine users, or the results, 3. "offer" doesn't imply a subject.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding clarity of the term “offer.” In response, the paragraph has been revised to replace “offer” with “narrative,” a term that more accurately reflects the semantic foundation of the Olfactory Attribution Circle (OAC). This change was made for three reasons: (a) Conceptual precision: The OAC is a language-based tool, and “narrative” explicitly denotes the communicative and semantic dimension through which olfactory identity is articulated; (b) Clarity of subject: The revised structure clearly identifies the three analytical layers—Users, Built Environment, and Narrative—each with distinct roles in shaping sensory identity; (c) Methodological consistency: By framing narrative as the linguistic field that anchors the bipolar attributes of the OAC, the paragraph now establishes a clearer connection between semantic intent, sensory correspondence, and spatial expression. This revision therefore enhances readability, conceptual alignment, and coherence with the study’s focus on crossmodal and language-driven design processes.

Comment 5: Line 660 minor spacing issues

Response 5: Spacing issue corrected.

Comment 6: Line 776: Reference missing: [??]

Comment 6: The line has been revised and the references added. “The alignment of citrus essences with luminous hues and woody or resinous notes with darker tones echoed established studies [57,61,62,67,68]”.

Comment 7: Ethical statement: "According to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, any research involving human participants, including interviews, surveys, or focus groups, must undergo ethics review before commencement." Please clarify how semi-structured interviews did not require ethical approval, as it is not an observational study only but an interview with selected experts.
Comment 7: This study did not require formal ethical approval, as it involved only semi-structured interviews with professionals from academia and industry and a non-interventional case study. The interviews focused on expert opinions and professional practices in sensory and olfactory design and did not involve personal, sensitive, or identifiable data. Similarly, the case study was based on non-participant observation, without any experimental manipulation, data collection from users, or interference with individuals or commercial operations.

According to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament (General Data Protection Regulation – GDPR) and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA, 2017), studies that do not include personal data processing or interventions involving human participants are exempt from formal ethics committee review. The research therefore complies fully with the ethical standards applicable to non-interventional, expert-based, and observational design studies.

Comment 8: I suggest adding a limitations section as this study is subject to some limitations. First, the sample size is relatively small, consisting of a limited number of interviews, which may constrain the generalizability of the findings. Second, all participants identified as women, which, while offering valuable gendered insights, limits the diversity of perspectives. Third, the case study approach, while rich in contextual detail, restricts the applicability of results to broader context.

Comment 8: Although limitations are presented briefly in the introduction and methodology we now address a specific section as suggested by the reviewer. It is now part of the conclusion and bridges with the future research directions, providing a tighter closure.