Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Apex Shape for Mounting to the Bead Bundle Using FEM
Next Article in Special Issue
Uncertainty of Quantitative X-ray Fluorescence Micro-Analysis of Metallic Artifacts Caused by Their Curved Shapes
Previous Article in Journal
On Transformation Form-Invariance in Thermal Convection
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Multianalytical Approach for the Characterisation of Materials on Selected Artworks by Monogrammist IP
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Degradation Processes of Medieval and Renaissance Glazed Ceramics

Materials 2023, 16(1), 375; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010375
by Mária Kolářová 1,*, Alexandra Kloužková 1, Martina Kohoutková 2, Jaroslav Kloužek 3,4 and Pavla Dvořáková 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Materials 2023, 16(1), 375; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010375
Submission received: 11 December 2022 / Revised: 25 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 December 2022 / Published: 30 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Material Research in Monument Conservation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, please find my comments in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your review and suggestions for improvement, the point-by-point response is uploaded in PDF below.

Yours faithfully.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper uses a set of techniques to study Prague's different types of glazes. The test of the corrosion effects happened on the materials. Overall, the data is sufficient, and the conclusion is solid. However, the writing is not very scientific, and the figure editing skills need to be improved. Some of the figures may confuse the readers. After improving the figure and the writing, I think it is an interesting study worth publishing. Here are several comments on their figures:

1.     In Figure 2 and Figure 3, what’s the difference between PC1 and PC2? Is it PC represent the principal component analysis? I think is better clarified in the figure caption.

2.     For the XRD image, I think it is better to show the experiment data and the background curve more clearly (such as changing to another color and adding a legend for the data). And what does the yellow line represent in the XRD data? I think it is the experiment's peak position, but it is better to clarify it.

3.     In the Figure 6 caption, what does the b represent?

4.     In Figure 6, does the e represent the zoom-in value of Figure D? It is better to clarify it in the figure caption.

 

5.     The scale bars formats are inconsistent in some figures; better keep them in the same format.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your review and suggestions for improvement, the point-by-point response is uploaded in PDF below.

Yours faithfully.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors implemented the suggested revisions

Back to TopTop