Digital Twin for Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Building Operations: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study conducts a comprehensive literature review to evaluate the DT performance in building lifecycle and predictive maintenance. The work is in the scope of the journal. The author must justify the following points:
Comment 1: The author is using a lot of abbreviations. Hence, it is suggested to include a nomenclature at the beginning of the article.
Comment 2: The proposed approach in section (3) is not outlined with the necessary vigor. The author needs to include sufficient methodological details in the paper and elaborate on the produced results from the proposed methods. Some sections must be added and others need to be relocated and rewritten to make it clearer for the readers.
Comment 3: The flowchart of the systematic literature review presented in Figure 4 must be justified and explained. The same issue is applicable to the prominent keywords with network parameters presented in Table 1.
Comment 4: How the analysis was built in VOSviewer?
Comment 5: What is the impact of presenting the top journals with the number of publications?
Comment 6: What are the applied criteria to sort out the classification of FDD methods in building operations?
Comment 7: The author is using (we) too much. Please consider that this is a scientific journal publication, where you need to avoid some phrases like (we, our, ….). Instead, you can use (this work, this study, this analysis….).
English language is good
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is a review of papers dealing with the issues of digital twin and fault detection and diagnosis in buildings.
The paper is a summary of the issues addressed. The total number of literature sources is 190.
What I miss in the text is the comparison of different detection and diagnosis methods and techniques. It would be necessary to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the methods (e.g. SWOT analysis).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled “Digital Twin for Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Building Operations: A Systematic Review” it is interesting and makes a relevant contribution to the academic community.
The introduction motivates reading, presents the GAP in the literature and the objectives. However, I suggest that authors include a clear research question.
Section “2. Background” starts with a lowercase letter, I suggest uppercase. The same issue with the subsection “2.1. Maintenance”.
Regarding section 2, I suggest including relevant information on the broader topic of Digital Transformation (DX). In this regard, there are already available/recent studies on Scopus and Google Scholar "Meta-reviews" or "Meta-synthesis" on digital transformation that provide results in great depth and that may be useful to cite.
If you used several databases (WoS) and search engines (e.g. Google Scholar) why did you only present Scopus charts? I was a little confused about this. It may be necessary to further justify its use.
Please note that Google Scholar is not a literature database, it is an academic search engine. It is necessary to review all terminology. Additionally, it is necessary to justify very well why you use these databases and search engines over others.
In section 3.2. I missed a better explanation of the Table and Figures.
The analysis and discussion of the results seems to me adequate to the topic of the article and to the results from the application of the methodological process.
In section 6, the contribution to the theory and suggestions for future research are clear. But, I missed contributions to management practice.
Overall, I believe that the article has potential for publication, but needs more work.
The article needs minor english proofreading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author met the comments. No further actions to be taken
n/a
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is almost in line with the comments/suggestions, however there are some issues that still need to be revised:
1. It is necessary to present a good reason for choosing databases and search engines based on the literature. It is not enough to make comments; a more factual basis is needed. For example, basing comments and citations on published articles. I did a quick search on Google Scholar and I found the following articles:
-> Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB journal, 22(2), 338-342.
-> Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213-228.
2. The same goes for comment 3, it is necessary to substantiate the comments with recent DX literature and from in-depth studies. On Google Scholar the authors can also do a search on "Meta-reviews" or "Meta-synthesis" with regard to DX and cite those articles.
3. Finally, I think the article would still benefit from a more in-depth English proofreading.
Once the revision is concluded according to the above comments, I believe that the article will meet conditions for publication.
Minor English proofreading is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
