The Contribution of IoT to the Implementation of Preventive Conservation According to European Standards: The Case Study of the “Cannone” Violin and Its Historical Copy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors:

The topic fits within the scope of journal and the special issue properly. However, I have some doubts about the novelty of this research project. Basically, you set up sensors to evaluate (T and RH) and an alarm to alert museum staff when it got higher or lower than acceptable range. I admit that it is a valuable task to do through IoT approach but you have to demonstrate its significance, especially to the conventional method which are using IoT for this purpose by comparison.

abstract:

Although you have used an unstructured abstract, yet you have to follow the general stage of a scientific abstract (Context, Objective, Method, Result, Conclusion)

method, and conclusion is not clear in this abstract and it should be quite clear.

Introduction:

I highly recommend beginning the introduction with a more general sentence about the importance of cultural heritage and its conservation such as "In the context of cultural heritage, the preservation of values should be considered in cultural management as it can lead to the sustainability of society. preserving cultural heritage values requires a diverse cultural management framework because of its potential divergent values"  (https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125109) (paraphrased form with mentioning the reference)

line 40-42: this sentence is exactly copied form the reference but you have not put in in double quotation or paraphrase it. (it has something like 11% copy of other references which is quite unacceptable. the normal range should be less than 5%.)

in general although it provides useful background it is very long and exhaustive considering the whole length of the paper.

material and methods:

I can not understand that you mention case study analysis s the main item presented in this paper. it is a very limited goal to write a paper about it. you have to mention a claim or to show the importance of something and for the evidence you present a case study analysis.

Conclusion:

It should demonstrate the implication of your research findings in the general field, not just talking about the impact of this method in your case study.

Reference: 

The amount of self citation must be less than 10%.when you have 26 references on the whole, it is better to cite 2 or 3 articles of your previous studies not more.

Author Response

First at all the Authors want to thank all the Reviewers for the time spent examining the paper and for their positive comments that have allowed the improving of the paper.

Here in the following our answers to each comment received.

Dear Authors:

The topic fits within the scope of journal and the special issue properly. However, I have some doubts about the novelty of this research project. Basically, you set up sensors to evaluate (T and RH) and an alarm to alert museum staff when it got higher or lower than acceptable range. I admit that it is a valuable task to do through IoT approaches but you have to demonstrate its significance, especially to the conventional method which are using IoT for this purpose by comparison.

It is opinion of the Authors that the reviewer has underestimated the importance of the first part of the paper, focusing his attention on the IoT part. On the contrary our intention was that of introducing the importance of EN 14757 as a tool for implementing PC in museum and collections, and how IoT can make easier the process. In our design the case study has mainly a demonstrative function for evidencing the potentialities and the results achievable. We consider the presentation of the case study as a valuable approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of the project, especially in regard to the easy operativity of the system implemented and its sustainability from an energy and cost point of view, that makes easier the application of EN standard. We recognize that probably the original version of the paper doesn’t explain that with enough clarity. The following modifications to the text were done according to your comments.

abstract:

Although you have used an unstructured abstract, yet you have to follow the general stage of a scientific abstract (Context, Objective, Method, Result, Conclusion) method, and conclusion is not clear in this abstract and it should be quite clear.

We restructured the abstract according to your suggestions and cleared the methodology (lines 22-26) and the importance of EN standard in the PC strategy.

Introduction:

I highly recommend beginning the introduction with a more general sentence about the importance of cultural heritage and its conservation such as "In the context of cultural heritage, the preservation of values should be considered in cultural management as it can lead to the sustainability of society. preserving cultural heritage values requires a diverse cultural management framework because of its potential divergent values"  (https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125109) (paraphrased form with mentioning the reference)

According to your comment, the authors added a more general sentence to introduce “conservation” (lines 37-39, from the same reference of the following sentence [1]). The authors didn’t consider relevant the paper you suggested as reference, since it is not about material conservation, while the present paper is focused on preservation of the tangible aspects of work of arts.

line 40-42: this sentence is exactly copied form the reference but you have not put in in double quotation or paraphrase it. (it has something like 11% copy of other references which is quite unacceptable. The normal range should be less than 5%.)

The authors checked the lines (now 49-55) and controlled the correspondence with the reference.

in general although it provides useful background it is very long and exhaustive considering the whole length of the paper.

material and methods:

I can not understand that you mention case study analysis s the main item presented in this paper. it is a very limited goal to write a paper about it. you have to mention a claim or to show the importance of something and for the evidence you present a case study analysis

We added lines 125-130 to introduce the case study and underline the early application of technology for PC.

Conclusion:

It should demonstrate the implication of your research findings in the general field, not just talking about the impact of this method in your case study.

The authors added lines 306-310 to emphasize on future developments and limitations.

Reference:

The amount of self citation must be less than 10%. when you have 26 references on the whole, it is better to cite 2 or 3 articles of your previous studies not more.

The cited papers by DAGRI research group are the ones focusing on the previous research on the case study. They are here presented as a summary of the previous work on the Cannone violin.

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution of IoT to the implementation of Preventive Conservation according to European Standards: the case study of the “Cannone” violin and its historical copy

Very interesting manuscript and findings, it needs to lift up the significance and new knowledge added by conducting this research.

Also, highlighting the link between violin and intangible heritage (oral tradition and performing arts) might add another layer, but this could be acknowledged as out of this manuscript’s scope. However, again, there is no harm from such indication.

Introduction

The introduction is good and includes strong references to literature review, but the introduction would be stronger if the researchers highlighted (in a clearer way) the significance of this manuscript and how it differs and contributes to the Literature.

1.2. EN15757:2010 and IoT system

“However, it is important to remark how crucial is for PC the decision-making process and the

110 application of modification on the environmental conditions”. I recommend that why it is important to be clarified and how this might affect the decision making process?

Conclusions

The conclusion needs to emphasis how this experiments and the data might be developed in the future. Also, the limitations of this research should be underlined.

Author Response

First at all the Authors want to thank all the Reviewers for the time spent examining the paper and for their positive comments that have allowed the improving of the paper.

Here in the following our answers to each comment received.

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

English language was reviewed by one of the Authors for which English is mother tongue.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Very interesting manuscript and findings, it needs to lift up the significance and new knowledge added by conducting this research. Also, highlighting the link between violin and intangible heritage (oral tradition and performing arts) might add another layer, but this could be acknowledged as out of this manuscript’s scope. However, again, there is no harm from such indication.

The authors added a focus on the value of the violins (lines 20-21 and 153-156) and the context of the project by Genoa Municipality (lines 140-41).

Introduction

The introduction is good and includes strong references to literature review, but the introduction would be stronger if the researchers highlighted (in a clearer way) the significance of this manuscript and how it differs and contributes to the Literature.

We added lines 128-130 to introduce the case study and underline the early application of technology for PC.

1.2. EN15757:2010 and IoT system

“However, it is important to remark how crucial is for PC the decision-making process and the application of modification on the environmental conditions”. I recommend that why it is important to be clarified and how this might affect the decision making process?

We added an explanation of the importance of the decision-making process in the lines 125-128.

Conclusions

The conclusion needs to emphasis how this experiments and the data might be developed in the future. Also, the limitations of this research should be underlined.

The authors added lines 306-310 to emphasize on future developments and limitations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for the AUTHORS

Article: “The contribution of IoT to the implementation of Preventive Conservation according to European Standards: the case study of the “Cannone” violin and its historical copy”

General comments

This article is very interesting and is well written. The authors use an active climate control for the conservation/display cases was introduced and successfully validated. Alarms and emergency escapes were planned; real-time remote access to the data were given to the Museum staff and conservators.

The authors claim that the intervention resulted in a cost-effective improvement of the conservation conditions of the two objects. I consider it very important for the readers that the authors indicate the cost of each element added to the system. The article should be accepted with this small change.

Author Response

First at all the Authors want to thank all the Reviewers for the time spent examining the paper and for their positive comments that have allowed the improving of the paper.

Here in the following our answers to each comment received.

General comments

This article is very interesting and is well written. The authors use an active climate control for the conservation/display cases was introduced and successfully validated. Alarms and emergency escapes were planned; real-time remote access to the data were given to the Museum staff and conservators.

The authors claim that the intervention resulted in a cost-effective improvement of the conservation conditions of the two objects. I consider it very important for the readers that the authors indicate the cost of each element added to the system. The article should be accepted with this small change.

A detailed explanation of costs and effectiveness of the implemented system has been added in lines 184 and 302-305.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

thanks to authors who have modified the paper. it is way better than the previous version, especially the way to introduce the topic and I can accept it now.