The Carbon Inventory of the Reuse Phase’s Life Cycle: The Example of the Reconstruction of a Zero-Carbon Campus on an Unused Military Camp
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Carbon Inventory of the Reuse Phase's Life Cycle - An Ex- 2 ample of the Reconstruction of a Zero-Carbon Campus in Un- 3 used Military Camps
ABSTRACT:
- The aim should be stated in the abstract
- What methodology was used in the study
iii.What results was achieved.
INTRODUCTION
i.The introduction section is very scanty, the author need to introduce the research work properly and avoid the use of personal pronoun.
ii.Figures should be acknowledged with appropriate citations.
METHODOLOGY
I.The methodology used was not properly stated.
ii.How many buildings were sampled and what is the reason for the choice of the building types.
iii.The authors should state the methodology used in developing the models.
RESULTS.
The authors should reinforce the discussion section with relevant citations to support the authors position.
CONCLUSION
The author should rewrite the conclusion in line with objectives earlier set at the beginning of the write up.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your advice, and please see the attached response & the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
I suggest, at least theoretically, analyzing alternative roof finishing solutions, facade finishes and land surfaces, in order to be able to optimize the choice of the adopted solution.
Best regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Thank you for your advice, and please see the attached response & the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the opinion of the reviewer, the article is original and very well prepared in terms of its content. The aim of the article was formulated, the literature was reviewed, the methodology and the results of own calculations were described. The description of the results is supported by a graphic form, which is additionally a positive value of the evaluated article.
In terms of content, the reviewer has only two comments to the "Conclusions" section:
- a paragraph indicating further research directions should be added,
- conclusions are not supported by the results presented in the article, therefore should be completed with an appropriate paragraph in which the authors refer to the most important results.
Despite the high quality of the content of the article, there are many editorial shortcomings that must be corrected. Below I mention a few of them, but I recommend to check the editing issues completely:
- numbering of all sections of the article have to be verified; for example, in the "Introduction", "Literature review" or "Methodology" sections, subsections are distinguished 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, respectively and the main sections are always numbered as 1; the same is true further in the article, and from the "Results" section (from line 219), the subsections are renumbered from 1.1,
- many Figures permeate with the main text; location of the Figures requires correction, because for example Figure 2 (lines 66-69) overlaps the main text of the article together with its description; it is similar with other Figures, and in addition, Figure 3 has no caption at all (lines 158-163),
- some tables also permeate the text of the article (for example Table 2),
- the text (line 438) has deletions and highlights (red line on a yellow background) which should be removed.
Unfortunately, the editing quality of the reviewed article is not its strehgth. The editorial aspect of the article have to be corrected.
Author Response
Thank ypu for your advice, and please see the attached response & revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
