Decision-Refillable-Based Two-Material-View Fuzzy Classification for Personal Thermal Comfort

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The originality of the study needs to be highlighted in the abstract. They need to provide hard evidence for their statements. 
2. To make the study comprehensive and robust, the authors should incorporate more papers in the literature review section. The authors are advised to incorporate relevant research from the below-mentioned articles.

1. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2985036
2. org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112704
3. org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.05.247
4. org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.01.058
5. org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108890

3. The authors should also include more research works from 2022.

4. The writers should mention the constraints of their methodology.

5. The manuscript suffers from a number of grammatical errors and typos. There needs to be a lot of proofreading done by an expert.

For example,

i) In figure 6, the word " Thermal Sensaon" should be "Thermal Sensation"

ii) The sentence "The personal thermal comfort model is used to design and control the thermal environment and predict the thermal comfort response of individuals rather than reflecting the average response of the population." should be "The personal thermal comfort model is used to design and control the thermal environment and predict the thermal comfort responses of individuals rather than reflect the average response of the population."

iii)  The sentence "In this paper, a new personal thermal comfort evaluation method based on a reliable decision-based fuzzy classification method from two views was proposed." should be "In this paper, a new personal thermal comfort evaluation method based on a reliable decision-based fuzzy classification method from two perspectives was proposed."

These errors that I highlighted are just for illustration purposes. The authors should proofread the whole manuscript thoroughly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Consider using tools to screen the manuscript for grammar issues.

2. The format of references is not uniform and needs to be modified. 

3. There are some formulas that are not formatted properly. Please check. For example, equation 12 and equation 13.  

4. The following literature is related to your article. Please discuss the differences between your article and the following literature, and consider whether it can be used for reference. 

DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2022.3165690. DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.01.023. DOI:10.1109/TFUZZ.2022.3207318.  DOI:10.1108/SASBE-08-2021-0144. DOI:10.1016/j.ins.2022.05.055.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have incorporated all the suggested comments into this revised manuscript. The only minor change that I will suggest now is that it will be better if the authors can provide some results with data and numbers in the abstract and conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf