Overall statement:

The study investigates the energy and exergy of an air-based PV/T with and without glazing. The thermal model and analysis were carried out for the city of Kerman, Iran. The findings show the energy and exergy efficiencies for the electrical, thermal and overall components. The authors found that thermally (and overall) the glazed system performed better in terms of energy efficiency. While. Electrically (and overall) the unglazed system performed better in terms of exergy efficiency. The paper presents a theoretical analysis and modelling of the investigated PV/T collector - moreover, the efficiency calculation for each component. Then, the results are presented and discussed, and finally, the conclusions were made.

The study contributes by offering a case study of air-based PV/T systems in the city of Kerman. Moreover, it investigates the effect of glazing on the performance of these systems. This can help in selecting the optimal design by the end-user to make the system electrically or thermally biased.

The strengths:

1) The introduction presents the research background and study objectives. 2) The procedure of the study is to use energy-balance equations, assume boundary conditions, and utilize the temperature findings (along with boundary conditions) in calculating energy and exergy yields (and efficiencies). 3) The illustrative figures are very helpful in understanding the topic, the system and the thermal modelling. 4) The references used are all related to the topic and generally up to date (relative to the date of the paper’s publication). 5) The results show the data in a very simple manner which allows to understand the outcomes of the study easily. 6) The compatibility of the findings with other research papers provide an element of validation for the overall findings (e.g. with that of Chow [14] and Shahsavar et al. [19]).

Weaknesses:

1. In the introduction, the problem statement should have been clearer. Moreover, a further explanation of why glazing is important as the subject of the investigation.
2. A flow chart should have been presented to elaborate on the method to the readers.
3. Given that no experiments were made to validate the findings, it is preferred to compare the findings to those of published work in Kerman and model the system after that of Kerman (if such experiments exist).

Minor mistakes:

1. Some grammatical errors are observed in the language of the manuscript. For instance: In the introduction, in the sentence: “… heat extracted by the fluid. and increase the energy yield per square meter …” after the full step the word and should be capitalized.

Also, in the introduction, in the sentence: “.. the PV/T system is the technology that is developed for satisfy this purpose.” The word “for” does not match the word “satisfy”. An alternative way of writing it is:

The PV/T system is the technology that is developed to satisfy this purpose.

Or

The PV/T system is the technology that is developed for satisfying this purpose.

1. There are some typographical errors, for instance, when citing the paper:
2. Shahsavar, A., Ameri, M. and Gholampour, M., "Energy and exergy analysis of a photovoltaic-thermal collector with natural air flow", Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 1, (2012).

In the text, in the results and discussion section, the cited name was “Shahsavari et al. [19]” the letter ‘i’ at the end of the name is a typographical error.

• This is a post-publication review. The adherence to journal guidelines is not considered as the paper has already been processed by the editorial team of the journal