Performance Optimization Studies on Heating, Cooling and Lighting Energy Systems of Buildings during the Design Stage: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper made a comprehensive review on the studies about HVAC and lighting systems' optimization, especially during the design stages. The topic of the work is highly important and worthy of investigation. The manuscript is well written and organized. To further improve the quality of the manuscript, the following comments are made:
- The main difference between the author's review content and previous research needs to be further clarified including a few reasons worthy of a further review by the authors.
- Some figures are difficult to read because the letters are a bit small.
- Some figures, tables, and graphics require a reference. Please check if correct references were mentioned.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time from your busy schedules to review our manuscript.
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the whole original manuscript according to your constructive comments as outlined in this attached report and final version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author
First, I think your research topic is essential for promoting sustainable construction. Reviews of articles and books on this issue have been conducted several times in the past years, but they still need to be reviewed to update the trend & new findings in research trends. However, there are some issues in the manuscript that need to be resolved before publication.
First, your manuscript is too long, which makes it difficult for readers to reach, an acceptable manuscript should be around 5000 words or some more. Try to condense the manuscript, the introduction should be more concise but still clearly state the research gap and the purpose of the research. The tables of the articles you have reviewed should be moved to the study's appendix, or you can remove them and simply summarize the trends of the studies mentioned.
Then, the results of the study have not yet shown different findings from the previous review papers. Many of the findings of this study have been clarified in many previous studies and are well known. So I think you need to show new findings in this research.
Overall, the research methodology is well designed, but the manuscript needs to be more concise and contains new findings than previous review papers or books. The new knowledge you find and suggest will be an important contribution of this study to the academic, so consider it with caution.
Thanks
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time from your busy schedules to review our manuscript.
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the whole original manuscript according to your constructive comments as outlined in this attached report and final version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper “Performance optimization studies on heating, cooling and lighting energy systems of buildings during the design stage: A review” provides a review of studies on optimising the performance of heating, cooling, and lighting energy systems in buildings at the design stage. The review concerns papers on optimization applications of early-stage buildings in terms of design features, optimization approach, optimization inputs, and other design issues. The authors' stated aim is to identify current research gaps in the field of optimising the performance of energy-efficient buildings and to define potential future research opportunities.
This is a good review and highlights important issues on quality of the process in the design stage.
The following minor revision is required:
1) The final part of the abstract needs revision to clarify the results achieved.
2) The claim in lines 39-40 must be supported by adequate references.
3) The meaning of the acronym on line 251 should be given in full, as in the previous acronyms.
4) Typos must be corrected (e.g. line 372).
5) Try to avoid stretching the figures (e.g. figure 4) and improve the graphic quality.
6) Use a clearer font and appropriate size in figures (e.g. figures 5-6).
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time from your busy schedules to review our manuscript.
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the whole original manuscript according to your constructive comments as outlined in this attached report and final version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
I understood you are working hard for preparing the journal manuscript.
However, Your manuscript is really too long, and it's really hard to capture the information you want to convey. I agreed that you have reviewed and evaluated the essentials for fulfilling the previous research gap. But effectively presenting these findings has not really been successful in your review paper. Try to condense paragraphs using charts, tables, or anything possible and clarify your main points in the introduction, result, and discussion parts. It's not an easy thing but it's a necessary skill for your research career.
Please understand, this is the manuscript of a scientific journal, not a research report or thesis.
Author Response
Dear Sir
We thank you very much for your valuable comments, which are added scientific value to our manuscript. We also regret the length of our manuscript and hope that you will accept the apology.
As For revisions, we have revised the whole original manuscript according to your constructive comments as outlined in this report and final version of the manuscript. We have rewritten and revised large parts in the final version of the manuscript according to your valuable, including introduction, section3, section 4 and section 5. In addition to adding a new table summarizing the major limitations of the reviewed literature and future research opportunities.
Thank you again for your valuable comments and efforts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank for revising, the manuscript is okay for publicising
