Effects of COVID-19 on Residential Planning and Design: A Scientometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is relatively complete collating the research related to COVID-19 and architectural design/planning, and a good list of the latest research results are put forward.

However, the manuscript still has the following problems, which seriously affect the level of the manuscript.

1. This manuscript reads like a report. The content is too simple, just listing the conclusions of the relevant research.

2. The manuscript lacks necessary discussion and does not discuss the relationship, similarities, or differences between the existing research conclusions.

3. The research lacks focalization. Is this manuscript aimed at COVID-19, infectious disease, or building a healthy community?

4. The manuscript has no forward-looking conclusions. The review paper is to show the current research results and summarize the lack of relevant research and the future development trend from the existing research.

5. Please refer to the PDF document for other comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my view, this is a model of how such a scientometric study should be undertaken. The paper provides studies scientific output in order to measure and analyse it. Main research topics include impact measurement, article references set to investigate the impact of main databases WoS and Scopus, understanding scientific citations, mapping scientific fields and producing indicators for use in policy and management contexts. The first and major service of this work is to pull together comprehensively, with thorough research into records and archives, all the evidence of bibliometric parameters: in so doing, the study offers a model of what needs to be done in numerous other case-studies.

Probably the main and only weakness is that the time span analysed is too short, in general the speed of the research is too high, perhaps it needs some time perspective. At least five years of data could have been analysed, for the results to be truly meaningful. In this sense, there is a risk that some topics are still underdeveloped in the literature, especially those linked to big data analysis. Another possibility to avoid the lack of time perspective would have been to extend the number of databases analysed. Yet the value of this collection of fragments, just like the fragments of an ancient author, is not to be underestimated. They provide crucial information about the trends on COVID-19 research areas.

The manuscript is clear, presented in a well-structured way and also is relevant to the field. References cited are mostly recent (within the last 3 years). However, there is a lack of relevant papers that are not included in this publication rank and are essential for the origin of the scientometrics approach and which should not be missing in any study of these characteristics, as they constitute its basis: Garfield, E. (1955): Citation Index for Science: a new dimension in Documentation through association of Ideas. Science, 122 (3159), 108-111; De Solla Price, D. (1978). Editorial statements. Scientometrics 1, 3–8. The paper does not include an excessive number of self-citations. The manuscript scientifically sound and the experimental design is adequate to test the working hypothesis. Perhaps the design could have been implemented by combining keyword analysis through qualitative software (ATLAS.ti/Ethnograph/MAXQDA/NVivo) is getting good results: DOI: 10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0194.

Where the caption of figure 5 have to be found (line 275) there is a piece not correctly expressed, it is confusing and not understandable.

The results of the manuscript are reproducible according to the details provided in the methods section. (Using the library module Bibliometrix in Rstudio software). Figures and tables are adequate and easy to understand. They are also easy to interpret and understand. In fact, the data are interpreted adequately and consistently throughout the manuscript.

The conclusions are consistent and helpfully linked to the evidence and arguments presented. Although it is true that a reading of other literature references could have expanded the results to a key point not sufficiently addressed in the conclusion: the decision to bet on bioclimatic architecture. This type of design takes account of the local climate conditions - sun, wind, rain, etc - to reduce a building's environmental impact. Another key aspect is energy efficiency, which is a crucial weapon for fighting climate change. In this sense there is a reiteration in the discussion of the issues and limitations on literature. In this context it is necessary to raise further the options for the future of the research.

Similar papers have been published recently but the review paper is still relevant and has interest to the scientific community. As an example, it is enough to cite: 1) Ayyoob Sharifi, Amir Reza Khavarian-Garmsir,  The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142391; 2) Sadia Afrin, Farhat Jahan Chowdhurry and Md. Mostafizur Rahman, COVID-19 Pandemic: Rethinking Strategies for Resilient Urban Design, Perceptions, and Planning https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.668263; 3) Dirk HR Spennemann, RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE IN A POST-PANDEMIC WORLD: IMPLICATIONS OF COVID-19 FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND FOR ADAPTING HERITAGE BUILDINGS; Journal of Green Building (2021) 16 (1): 199–215; https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.16.1.199.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this manuscript has met the basic level for publication. Thanks for the author's work