Advancing Smart Lighting: A Developmental Approach to Energy Efficiency through Brightness Adjustment Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhile the topic is undoubtedly important in the context of smart lighting and energy efficiency, the manuscript falls short in several key aspects that warrant reconsideration:
-
Generic and Unoriginal Work: The manuscript lacks novelty and originality in its approach. The strategies proposed for brightness adjustment, while relevant, do not significantly advance the field. There is a notable absence of innovative concepts or methodologies that would distinguish this work from existing literature.
-
Insufficient Literature Review: The literature review is notably lacking in depth and breadth. A comprehensive survey of the existing literature is crucial for contextualizing the study, identifying research gaps, and positioning the work within the broader scientific landscape. The manuscript would benefit significantly from an expanded and more rigorous literature review.
-
Concerns About Recent Publications: There seems to be a proliferation of low-quality papers in the recent publications. This trend is concerning as it can dilute the scientific contributions and place undue pressure on peer-reviewers. Maintaining the quality of published work is essential for the integrity and reputation of the journal.
Given these concerns, I regret to inform you that I recommend rejecting the manuscript for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of English language is okay, but there are scientific notation mistakes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings,
I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the time and and effort you have dedicated to reviewing my manuscript.
Your insightful comments and feedback have been invaluable in improving the quality of my work. Each point that you raised has not only improved he current manuscript but will also server as a guide and consideration for my future writing endeavors.
I deeply appreciate your expertise and the thoughtful analysis you provided. Your input as significantly contributed to my growth as a researcher and writer.
Once again, thank you or your time and invaluable contribution.
Best regards,
Vandha Pradwiyasma Widartha
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaaaein
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
bbbBbb
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings,
I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments , correction and suggestion have been invaluable in improving the quality of our work.
We have taken your feedback into careful consideration and have made the necessary corrections to the manuscript. The updated version has been uploaded for your convenience.
We understand the importance of clarity and precision in academic research. Therefore, we are looking forward to hearing from you if there are any aspects of the manuscript that require further clarification.
Once again, thank you for your contribution to improving our work. We greatly appreciate your expertise and dedication.
Best regards,
Vandha Pradwiyasma Widartha
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents a very interesting and timely topic relevant to reducing electricity consumption for lighting purposes.
The following comments were made:
1. Figure 2, in terms of quality and readability, should be improved. The structure of the dimming control strategy presented in Figure 2 is unclear. Energy consumption data comes directly from the luminaires or from the API master system and Database? The meaning of continuous and dashed lines is not described. The description under Figure 2 should be improved by describing in detail the different blocks and functions performed.
2. How was the illumination level measured in the room, on the ceiling or at the work site?
3. Have the requirements of CIE lighting standards or national standards been taken into account?
No reference level for savings required by applicable lighting standards used in the work environment was given.
4. No attention was paid to the problems associated with the control of luminaire flux by PWM control: 1) light pulsation during the attrition of LED sources, 2) changes in the electrical parameters of the installation, such as current harmonics and power factor. Please briefly point out these aspects in the risks.
5. Section 3.3.1 line 260. there is no example of a source of data updated every 15 possible for use in the project.
6. The descriptions in Figure 6 should be corrected are illegible
7. The diagram presented in Figure 7 should be checked. the action presented is one-shot, without a control loop, implemented separately for each sensor. How do the sensors complement each other, how is the synthesis of information performed? Are there three databases or one?
8. What level of illuminance/luminance corresponds to a value of 100% (e.g., line 318)
What is meant by a cloudiness value of 75% vs. 50%? - This should be defined and explained.
9. What is the unit of E index in equations 1 and 2 - is it the same unit?
10. In Figure 9, shouldn't the units be expressed in % ?
11. In Table 4, the unit is expressed in kWh.
12. The data related to the occupancy of the room is not given. Explain why the use of a motion sensor did not significantly reduce electricity consumption.
13. The heuristic relationships in the form of a mathematical model are not explained and the method of obtaining the membership function for the decision rules used is not presented. I recommend supplementing the article with this data.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings,
I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments , correction and suggestion have been invaluable in improving the quality of our work.
We have taken your feedback into careful consideration and have made the necessary corrections to the manuscript. The updated version has been uploaded for your convenience.
We understand the importance of clarity and precision in academic research. Therefore, we are looking forward to hearing from you if there are any aspects of the manuscript that require further clarification.
Once again, thank you for your contribution to improving our work. We greatly appreciate your expertise and dedication.
Best regards,
Vandha Pradwiyasma Widartha
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the article should be considered current and interesting. In order to improve the quality of the text, I recommend making improvements. Detailed comments can be found in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings,
I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments , correction and suggestion have been invaluable in improving the quality of our work.
We have taken your feedback into careful consideration and have made the necessary corrections to the manuscript. The updated version has been uploaded for your convenience.
We understand the importance of clarity and precision in academic research. Therefore, we are looking forward to hearing from you if there are any aspects of the manuscript that require further clarification.
Once again, thank you for your contribution to improving our work. We greatly appreciate your expertise and dedication.
Best regards,
Vandha Pradwiyasma Widartha
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOKAY
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings,
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort that have put into providing valuable feedback on our work. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and have made the necessary revisions according to revision and correction.
In response to research design and results presented "can be improved". We have slightly modified the flowchart of adjusting brightness level strategies and some of contents.
We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript and have addressed the your concerns. I also attach the revised file as your consideration.
Thank you for your consideration
Best regards,
Vandha Pradwiyasma Widartha
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe adjustments made are satisfactory.
Although I have minor comments:
1. line 252: the unit of luminous flux is "lumen", which is written as "lm".
Line 256: The luminous efficacy is in practice written as an integer
3. Table 2.: Instead of "Color temperature" it should be "Correlated color temperature" ("Color temperature" and "Correlated color temperature" are two different parameters).
4. Table 2.: For the LED lamp, the power of 9 W is given twice. It is written" "Max. operation power 9W" and "Wattage 9 W" I pointed this out in a previous review.
5. line 332: Please note the notation of equation (1). What does the "x" symbol mean?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings,
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort that have put into providing valuable feedback on our work. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and have made the necessary revisions according to revision and correction.
In response to comments, we have made the following changes to the manuscript:
1. line 252: the unit of luminous flux is "lumen", which is written as "lm". It has been modified by lumen.
Line 256: The luminous efficacy is in practice written as an integer. It has changed from float to integer value.
3. Table 2.: Instead of "Color temperature" it should be "Correlated color temperature" ("Color temperature" and "Correlated color temperature" are two different parameters). It has adjusted to Correlated color temperature.
4. Table 2.: For the LED lamp, the power of 9 W is given twice. It is written" "Max. operation power 9W" and "Wattage 9 W" I pointed this out in a previous review. --> "The max operation power" has been removed, and use only "Wattage". the Wattage is selected since it represent amount of power consumed by LED light.
5. line 332: Please note the notation of equation (1). What does the "x" symbol mean? --> The x symbol of the equation 1, denotes the multiplication between Bbase and cloud cover percentage dividing result.
We believe that the revisions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript and have addressed the your concerns . I also attach the revised file as your consideration.
Thank you for your consideration
Best regards,
Vandha Pradwiyasma Widartha
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
