PONE-D-24-25657Customised housing design: Bridging gaps through a digital tool for users’ collaboration.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Raposo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript demonstrates an original contribution. However, it needs much more work on developing a critical literature review and on discussing how the outcomes contribute to participatory design and co-design. There are also improvements needed in the presentation of the steps leading to the design and prototyping of the user interface. I trust the authors will consider my comments below and the comments provided by the reviewer when revising the manuscript that requires significant improvements to be considered for publication. - The authors will ensure to provide a link to the complete dataset.

- The scope of the study needs to be more clearly articulated in the introduction and in the abstract and title. It appears that the focus of the manuscript is that of designing, developing, prototyping and testing a graphical user interface that facilitates end-user participation in co-designing buildings.

 -The framework needs to be enriched by including further reference to generative design tools and a discussion on the challenges when engaging users in participatory design.

 - In the methodology, a clearer justification for the choice of the sample could be provided by indicating the criteria used to select the professionals and housing cooperatives for the study. For example why were there 15 professionals from Portugal and 13 from other countries, how were the latter identified and selected for the study?

 - In the methodology, it would be helpful to include a diagram summarizing the 8 steps and how these feed into the development, prototyping, testing and evaluation of the user interface. It would be helpful to provide the interview protocols used with the three groups of interviewees.

 - The presentation of the manuscript needs to be improved. For example, the section titled: “Collection of user needs by interviews – step 1’ is somewhat confusing as some of the headings refer to “interview” outcomes and other subheading refer to the “steps” used to design the digital interface. It would be good to be consistent and refer to the steps in the design and use the findings from the interviews with the 3 groups of respondents to explain how these findings were used to inform each of the 8 steps. The section is too long and the authors could use sub-headings to explain the steps involved and then include a separate section tackling user perceptions and feedback. On p. 20, which step does ‘Evaluation of the high-fidelity prototype’ refer to ?

 - The discussion is very descriptive and though it provides useful practical tips on GUI and their applications, there is very limited (if any) discussion on how the study engages with and builds on relevant literature on the use of GUI in co-design and participatory design. The reviewer's comments below provide valuable insights on how this could be improved.

- The authors need to acknowledge that the manuscript is based on work presented and published at the 'International Conferences Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction' in 2023.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lisa A. Pace

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

3. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper is about user participation in housing design and the development and the use of digital tools and methods - GUI, co-design - to facilitate this. It's a prescient topic and more research in this area is certainly needed. Some development of parts of the paper are required:

Literature review. e.g. from John Frazer and Walter Segal’s digital tools for self-builders in the 1980s to the generative design tools available today e.g. HomeMaker, Bruno Postle (+A Pattern Language, C. Alexander), for clients and other stakeholders e.g. TestFit, Archistar Generative Design. Some discussion of ‘community architecture’, 1980s-90s, ‘planning for real’ events, Habraken, Erskine (Byker Wall), John Turner, 'community architecture' as a continuing movement etc.

The paper is mostly about interaction via GUI with inhabitants and end-users, not about the development of new digital tools. This could be made clearer in the abstract, or introduction. Title ‘… a digital tool’? The use of Figma as an GUI intermediary is novel, relevant and provides some useful insights. It would be helpful to review similar approaches in the literature review.

Figures & Tables. Figures cross-reference check is needed e.g. Fig. 1 lines 329 and 425, Fig. 3. lines 361 and 462. There would appear to be10 images total, however there might be more e.g. Fig. 4 line 513, couldn’t find this. Quite confusing. Table 4, line 607, needs adjusting to clearly show totals and the columns they relate to.

Findings. In general, the evidence which backs up evaluation of the research questions needs to be more thoroughly and carefully presented e.g. it would be helpful if there were more clearly presented graphic/visual data which confirms qualitative outcomes - e.g. charts, graphs – would assist understanding and strengthen the case for evaluations and conclusions drawn.

Providing additional information for co-design users is essential e.g. cost of construction and materials. Consider other information that would assist users’ decision-making e.g. energy use/costs, prefabrication v. site construction, transportation (materials, components, people) costs etc. See how pioneers of this approach, Frazer/Segal, explored and implemented this.

Discussion. Curious to know how regulatory requirements were met by the choices made by users. Also, curious to know how the GUI interfaces with common CAD authoring tools. It would be helpful to classify or group themes that emerged.

Conclusions. This states confirmation of hypotheses – however, the evidence, backed up by a literature review, needs to be presented more fully before these hypotheses can be asserted as confirmed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Robert Doe

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-25657R1Customised housing design: Bridging gaps through the interaction with a graphical user interface for users’ collaboration.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Raposo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The revised manuscript is considerably improved, and the authors have taken appropriate steps to integrate the suggestions made by the reviewer and the editor. I have some further suggestions, mainly in the title, as minor amendments that need to be implemented.

I am suggesting that you amend the title to improve its readability to: “Bridging the gap in customised housing design: integrating a graphic user interface for user collaboration”.

The manuscript would benefit from thorough proofreading to correct several typos. Some are outlined below (but I am sure there are others that I missed):

• p.7 Line 160 “for the [delete their] lack of involvement of the inhabitants……”
• p.14 Ln326 “Portuguese” [capital P].
• p14, Ln329: “…through a request [delete requested]………
• p14 Ln3030: “the main criterion used was that the inhabitants should be the house’s [insert first ever] tenants”
• p. 42 Ln 40: “………..(e.g. ModRule [44] and HOPLA-Home Planner [29]) involved testing their framework [add with different types of users]”. This sentence seems to be cropped short.
• p.46, Ln 1027: “….co-creating [amend to:] design for houses in an informed way”

At this stage, you are to include in-text references to your own work and insert the Acknowledgement. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Lisa A. Pace

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Bridging the gap in customised housing design: integrating a graphic user interface for user collaboration

PONE-D-24-25657R2

Dear Ms. Raposo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Lisa A. Pace

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: