Digital Twins for Intelligent Green Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting, it provides a sufficient overview of the current trend in the field of building design, design and operation.

On the other hand, it brings nothing new. Rather, it is a search for current issues related to modern trends in building design and operation. Other possible development trends in this area are not listed.

Reminders:

1. The abstract is not well structured - there are no methods of scientific work, material, it is not specified what is the goal and what are the main outputs (conclusions).

2. The structure of the article is not well set - there is no method of scientific work, a clear determination of what the aim of the article is, material for scientific work, discussion.

3. The introduction lacks a broader comparison with foreign experience - it would be good to add Chapter 1.

4. The article needs to be supplemented with a Discussion of where current trends in building design are heading.

5. The references are extensive, but there is a lack of publications with the theoretical basis necessary for proper building design.

6. It is necessary to emphasize what is the purpose of the article.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The article is interesting, it provides a sufficient overview of the current trend in the field of building design, design and operation.

On the other hand, it brings nothing new. Rather, it is a search for current issues related to modern trends in building design and operation. Other possible development trends in this area are not listed.

Reply: Thanks for reviewing the article. We have highlighted the innovation in the introduction section.

Reminders:

1. The abstract is not well structured - there are no methods of scientific work, material, it is not specified what is the goal and what are the main outputs (conclusions).

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The abstract of the manuscript has been rewritten to highlight the methodology, materials, motivations, and main conclusions of the Green Building Review study.

2. The structure of the article is not well set - there is no method of scientific work, a clear determination of what the aim of the article is, material for scientific work, discussion.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. This article is a review research. First, in the introduction part, the development status and trend of the core term green building involved in this research are introduced, and the advantages of the combination of digital twins and green building are mentioned. Second, in the second chapter, a specific overview and analysis of the intelligent application, realization and trend of green buildings are carried out; in the third chapter, the development research on the integration of green buildings and digital twins is reviewed; in the fourth chapter, the advantages and challenges of the follow-up development of intelligent green buildings are reviewed and studied, which further highlights the advantages and problems. The fifth chapter is the conclusion part, which summarizes the review, highlights the results of this research, and further understands the deficiencies and future prospects. Therefore, the structure of this study is clear and unambiguous. Among them, the purpose and motivation of this research are highlighted in the last paragraph of the first chapter. The discussion related to green building and the related materials and methods are analyzed and discussed in the second, third, and fourth chapters respectively.

3. The introduction lacks a broader comparison with foreign experience - it would be good to add Chapter 1.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. In this review and research, the introduction part mainly introduces the development status, trends and theoretical knowledge of green building design. Category and specific review comparisons and analyses are carried out in the following sections. Of course, in the follow-up green building related research, the ability to write manuscripts will be further improved, so that the research content can be expressed in a more appropriate form.

4. The article needs to be supplemented with a Discussion of where current trends in building design are heading.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. In sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the manuscript, the intelligent development of green intelligent building and its realization mode are respectively explored, which is consistent with the connotation of the current architectural design trend. At the same time, the present situation and development trend of architectural design are briefly explained in the introduction part. Therefore, the content of the manuscript contains the current trend of architectural design.

5. The references are extensive, but there is a lack of publications with the theoretical basis necessary for proper building design.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. References in the manuscript have been checked and revised to include publications of the theoretical foundations required for correct architectural design.

6. It is necessary to emphasize what is the purpose of the article.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. The motivation and purpose of this study have been highlighted in the last paragraph of the introduction section of the manuscript, and the purpose of this study has also been described in the abstract section.

Reviewer 2

The theme of this review is interesting. The authors propose a finalized revision to promote the development of a green ecological city and to make the creation of a green building concentrated contiguous development region easier.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The questions in this review study have been revised to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

The authors propose an integration of Intelligent Green Building (IGB) and Digital Twins (DTs) to support the development of smart cities.

Reply: Thanks for the recognition.

Do the authors not state how they organised the review, for example, how were the references in support of the review selected with reference to literature?

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. In the manuscript, the references that appear are corresponding to the sentences cited, and are reviewable.

The proposed revision is too discursive. I understand that it is a revision and not an article, but the only structuring is that for paragraphs and sub-paragraphs within which are reported information with reference in most cases with to the literature, that is to authors who have dealt previously with the subject, in other cases with reference to some cases applied, in other cases without reference to literature.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. In this review study, not only the research review of scholars in related fields is included, but also the related case analysis of architectural design implementation and application in green building related fields. Therefore, this study includes literature review analysis and relevant case application analysis.

Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs are not organized for example by reference to some keywords or topic areas. They do not have that minimum of analytical capacity required for a review. The figures that the authors report in the context of the different paragraphs are in most cases disconnected or poorly linked to the text proposed in the relevant paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The overall structure of this study has been described at the end of the introduction section of the manuscript. In specific chapters, the content of each subsection is developed based on the core of the chapter. Therefore, the overall content of the manuscript is relevant.

I suggest organizing the information presented in the various paragraphs based on topic areas or keywords, using bulleted lists or tables that could increase the clarity and overall efficiency of the review.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. Bullet points have been used in the manuscript to summarize the structure of the study and provide clarity to improve the overall efficiency of the review.

I suggest that we add further bibliographical references

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. More accurate literature references have been added to this review study to give it more credibility.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The theme of this review is interesting. The authors propose a finalized revision to promote the development of a green ecological city and to make the creation of a green building concentrated contiguous development region easier.

The authors propose an integration of Intelligent Green Building (IGB) and Digital Twins (DTs) to support the development of smart cities.

Do the authors not state how they organised the review, for example, how were the references in support of the review selected with reference to literature?

The proposed revision is too discursive. I understand that it is a revision and not an article, but the only structuring is that for paragraphs and sub-paragraphs within which are reported information with reference in most cases with to the literature, that is to authors who have dealt previously with the subject, in other cases with reference to some cases applied, in other cases without reference to literature.

Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs are not organized for example by reference to some keywords or topic areas. They do not have that minimum of analytical capacity required for a review. The figures that the authors report in the context of the different paragraphs are in most cases disconnected or poorly linked to the text proposed in the relevant paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.

I suggest organizing the information presented in the various paragraphs based on topic areas or keywords, using bulleted lists or tables that could increase the clarity and overall efficiency of the review.

I suggest that we add further bibliographical references

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The theme of this review is interesting. The authors propose a finalized revision to promote the development of a green ecological city and to make the creation of a green building concentrated contiguous development region easier.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The questions in this review study have been revised to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

The authors propose an integration of Intelligent Green Building (IGB) and Digital Twins (DTs) to support the development of smart cities.

Reply: Thanks for the recognition.

Do the authors not state how they organised the review, for example, how were the references in support of the review selected with reference to literature?

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. In the manuscript, the references that appear are corresponding to the sentences cited, and are reviewable.

The proposed revision is too discursive. I understand that it is a revision and not an article, but the only structuring is that for paragraphs and sub-paragraphs within which are reported information with reference in most cases with to the literature, that is to authors who have dealt previously with the subject, in other cases with reference to some cases applied, in other cases without reference to literature.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. In this review study, not only the research review of scholars in related fields is included, but also the related case analysis of architectural design implementation and application in green building related fields. Therefore, this study includes literature review analysis and relevant case application analysis.

Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs are not organized for example by reference to some keywords or topic areas. They do not have that minimum of analytical capacity required for a review. The figures that the authors report in the context of the different paragraphs are in most cases disconnected or poorly linked to the text proposed in the relevant paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The overall structure of this study has been described at the end of the introduction section of the manuscript. In specific chapters, the content of each subsection is developed based on the core of the chapter. Therefore, the overall content of the manuscript is relevant.

I suggest organizing the information presented in the various paragraphs based on topic areas or keywords, using bulleted lists or tables that could increase the clarity and overall efficiency of the review.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. Bullet points have been used in the manuscript to summarize the structure of the study and provide clarity to improve the overall efficiency of the review.

I suggest that we add further bibliographical references

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. More accurate literature references have been added to this review study to give it more credibility.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is supplemented by significant changes that have improved its quality.

Author Response

In this latest version of the paper the authors have partially improved the quality of their paper with reference to the integration of some bibliographic references and with reference to the contents proposed in the different sections highlighted at the end of the Introduction section.
Reply: Thanks for the recognition.

I point out that there is no number 2 between the sections referred to at the end of Introduction. “Section 2 conducts a specific overview and analysis of the intelligent application,  realization, and trend of IGB”.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The second chapter in the chapter organization mentioned at the end of the introduction has been refined.
The authors in this first phase of revision have integrated and improved the critical points found only with reference to these two points. As regards the other issues highlighted in the first phase of the reviews, the issues remain. The authors did not respond to all the points highlighted in the first revision phase.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The following questions have been rechecked and the manuscript content has been carefully revised.
It remain the following points highlighted in the previous revision phase:

“Do the authors not state how they organised the review, for example, how were the references in support of the review selected with reference to literature?
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. In this review, its structure is clearly stated at the end of the first chapter of the manuscript. In terms of literature selection, based on the organizational structure of each chapter, the corresponding green building related literature is selected for review, analysis, and discussion, which reflects the integrity of the content of this review.
The proposed revision is too discursive. I understand that it is a revision and not an article, but the only structuring is that for paragraphs and sub-paragraphs within which are reported information with reference in most cases with to the literature, that is to authors who have dealt previously with the subject, in other cases with reference to some cases applied, in other cases without reference to literature.
Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. In this review, not only the research review of scholars in related fields is included, such as the research analysis of scholars in related fields in Chapter 2.2, but also the case analysis content of architectural design implementation and application in green building related fields, such as section 2.1.2 of the specific application of green buildings. Of course, it also includes a summary analysis and description based on the research and specific applications of scholars in related fields, as shown in Figures 1 to 5. Therefore, this review finally presents the current organizational structure and has evidence.
Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs are not organized for example by reference to some keywords or topic areas. They do not have that minimum of analytical capacity required for a review. The figures that the authors report in the context of the different paragraphs are in most cases disconnected or poorly linked to the text proposed in the relevant paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.
Reply: Thanks for pointing out this. The links between paragraphs and subparagraphs of the manuscript as a whole have been strengthened to make the links between paragraphs closer.
I suggest organizing the information presented in the various paragraphs based on topic areas or keywords, using bulleted lists or tables that could increase the clarity and overall efficiency of the review”.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. Bullet points have been used at the end of the introduction section of the manuscript to summarize the structure of the study and provide clarity to improve the overall efficiency of the review analysis.
I suggest to the authors who may not have grasped the significance of the suggestions put forward in the first stage of revision, that they organize their revision better. With reference to the methodological approach used, the databases from which the references, the keywords and topic areas selected, etc. Topic areas are those that they highlight in paragraphs, which could for example be presented and justified in a presentation paragraph. References have been selected from the SCOPUS database or other and you with what criteria.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. The content of the manuscript has been re-integrated and revised, so that there is a connection and overall effect between the paragraphs. As for the content of this review, from the introduction of green buildings at the beginning, to the application of intelligent technology in green buildings, and finally to the challenges and prospects in the process of green building construction. The review method is to analyze and summarize the research of scholars in related fields, so as to obtain the summary conclusions of this review and the relevant content of the follow-up development direction. The literature selection is based on a review and analysis of scholars' research in high-quality journals in related fields under the corresponding theme.
Authors should state and clarify the methodological approach they have adopted for their review in order to validate its robustness. Without the support of a methodological approach, the review is too discursive and self-referential.
Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. The content and methods used in this review have been clearly explained in the manuscript, so that the chapters and paragraphs in the manuscript are organized.
Were Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 produced by the authors? If so, they should declare this.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have been explained in the manuscript, stating that they are all made by the author.
However, the figures are given at the end of the paragraphs without being linked or described in the text of the preceding paragraph.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. All the figures appearing in the manuscript have been linked or described in the manuscript to the previous paragraph and the next paragraph, so that the paragraphs in the manuscript are more closely connected.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this latest version of the paper the authors have partially improved the quality of their paper with reference to the integration of some bibliographic references and with reference to the contents proposed in the different sections highlighted at the end of the Introduction section.

I point out that there is no number 2 between the sections referred to at the end of Introduction.

“Section 2 conducts a specific overview and analysis of the intelligent application,  realization, and trend of IGB”.

The authors in this first phase of revision have integrated and improved the critical points found only with reference to these two points.

As regards the other issues highlighted in the first phase of the reviews, the issues remain.

The authors did not respond to all the points highlighted in the first revision phase.

It remain the following points highlighted in the previous revision phase:

“Do the authors not state how they organised the review, for example, how were the references in support of the review selected with reference to literature?

The proposed revision is too discursive. I understand that it is a revision and not an article, but the only structuring is that for paragraphs and sub-paragraphs within which are reported information with reference in most cases with to the literature, that is to authors who have dealt previously with the subject, in other cases with reference to some cases applied, in other cases without reference to literature.

Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs are not organized for example by reference to some keywords or topic areas. They do not have that minimum of analytical capacity required for a review. The figures that the authors report in the context of the different paragraphs are in most cases disconnected or poorly linked to the text proposed in the relevant paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.

I suggest organizing the information presented in the various paragraphs based on topic areas or keywords, using bulleted lists or tables that could increase the clarity and overall efficiency of the review”.

 

I suggest to the authors who may not have grasped the significance of the suggestions put forward in the first stage of revision, that they organize their revision better.

With reference to the methodological approach used, the databases from which the references, the keywords and topic areas selected, etc.

Topic areas are those that they highlight in paragraphs, which could for example be presented and justified in a presentation paragraph.

References have been selected from the SCOPUS database or other and you with what criteria.

Authors should state and clarify the methodological approach they have adopted for their review in order to validate its robustness. Without the support of a methodological approach, the review is too discursive and self-referential.

Were Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 produced by the authors? If so, they should declare this.

However, the figures are given at the end of the paragraphs without being linked or described in the text of the preceding paragraph.

Author Response

In this latest version of the paper the authors have partially improved the quality of their paper with reference to the integration of some bibliographic references and with reference to the contents proposed in the different sections highlighted at the end of the Introduction section.
Reply: Thanks for the recognition.

I point out that there is no number 2 between the sections referred to at the end of Introduction. “Section 2 conducts a specific overview and analysis of the intelligent application,  realization, and trend of IGB”.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The second chapter in the chapter organization mentioned at the end of the introduction has been refined.
The authors in this first phase of revision have integrated and improved the critical points found only with reference to these two points. As regards the other issues highlighted in the first phase of the reviews, the issues remain. The authors did not respond to all the points highlighted in the first revision phase.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. The following questions have been rechecked and the manuscript content has been carefully revised.
It remain the following points highlighted in the previous revision phase:

“Do the authors not state how they organised the review, for example, how were the references in support of the review selected with reference to literature?
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. In this review, its structure is clearly stated at the end of the first chapter of the manuscript. In terms of literature selection, based on the organizational structure of each chapter, the corresponding green building related literature is selected for review, analysis, and discussion, which reflects the integrity of the content of this review.
The proposed revision is too discursive. I understand that it is a revision and not an article, but the only structuring is that for paragraphs and sub-paragraphs within which are reported information with reference in most cases with to the literature, that is to authors who have dealt previously with the subject, in other cases with reference to some cases applied, in other cases without reference to literature.
Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. In this review, not only the research review of scholars in related fields is included, such as the research analysis of scholars in related fields in Chapter 2.2, but also the case analysis content of architectural design implementation and application in green building related fields, such as section 2.1.2 of the specific application of green buildings. Of course, it also includes a summary analysis and description based on the research and specific applications of scholars in related fields, as shown in Figures 1 to 5. Therefore, this review finally presents the current organizational structure and has evidence.
Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs are not organized for example by reference to some keywords or topic areas. They do not have that minimum of analytical capacity required for a review. The figures that the authors report in the context of the different paragraphs are in most cases disconnected or poorly linked to the text proposed in the relevant paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.
Reply: Thanks for pointing out this. The links between paragraphs and subparagraphs of the manuscript as a whole have been strengthened to make the links between paragraphs closer.
I suggest organizing the information presented in the various paragraphs based on topic areas or keywords, using bulleted lists or tables that could increase the clarity and overall efficiency of the review”.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. Bullet points have been used at the end of the introduction section of the manuscript to summarize the structure of the study and provide clarity to improve the overall efficiency of the review analysis.
I suggest to the authors who may not have grasped the significance of the suggestions put forward in the first stage of revision, that they organize their revision better. With reference to the methodological approach used, the databases from which the references, the keywords and topic areas selected, etc. Topic areas are those that they highlight in paragraphs, which could for example be presented and justified in a presentation paragraph. References have been selected from the SCOPUS database or other and you with what criteria.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. The content of the manuscript has been re-integrated and revised, so that there is a connection and overall effect between the paragraphs. As for the content of this review, from the introduction of green buildings at the beginning, to the application of intelligent technology in green buildings, and finally to the challenges and prospects in the process of green building construction. The review method is to analyze and summarize the research of scholars in related fields, so as to obtain the summary conclusions of this review and the relevant content of the follow-up development direction. The literature selection is based on a review and analysis of scholars' research in high-quality journals in related fields under the corresponding theme.
Authors should state and clarify the methodological approach they have adopted for their review in order to validate its robustness. Without the support of a methodological approach, the review is too discursive and self-referential.
Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. The content and methods used in this review have been clearly explained in the manuscript, so that the chapters and paragraphs in the manuscript are organized.
Were Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 produced by the authors? If so, they should declare this.
Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 have been explained in the manuscript, stating that they are all made by the author.
However, the figures are given at the end of the paragraphs without being linked or described in the text of the preceding paragraph.

Reply: Thanks for the careful reading. All the figures appearing in the manuscript have been linked or described in the manuscript to the previous paragraph and the next paragraph, so that the paragraphs in the manuscript are more closely connected.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

In the latter version of the paper the authors improved the quality of their paper. The authors responded in the authors' replies to the reviewers about the question of the methodological approach to support the review, but did not include any description in the paper’s text.

They provided the following justification:

“The review method is to analyze and summarize the research of scholars in related fields, so as to obtain the summary conclusions of this review and the relevant content of the follow-up development direction. The literature selection is based on a review and analysis of scholars' research in high-quality journals in related fields under the corresponding theme”.

It is not entirely shared by me, but it could be accepted if invoked in the paper text at the beginning of section 2.

I believe that the review was not conducted with reference to a rigorous methodological approach.