The Communication Mechanism in the Workshop and Its Implications for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Crafts: A Case Study of Lacquer Culture in Taomi Eco-Village
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The language and coherence of the article has been improved over the first version. The article is original, but I still have doubts about its methodology. It should not be named as an original article and I think it would be more appropriate to publish it as a review article.
Author Response
Response
Dear reviewer, your affirmation is greatly appreciated! It was thanks to your comments and suggestions that we were able to refine the article further in the last round. The methodology is really the weak link of the article, and we have revised it accordingly. The conclusions of the study have also been supplemented. Hopefully, this will meet your needs more effectively.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
I strongly recomend that all corrections done by a previous reviewer be gratefully accepted by the authors.
Author Response
Response
Dear reviewer, our sincere gratitude goes out to all reviewers who contributed comments and suggestions to the last round of the review. What’s more, we would also like to thank you for your recognition and encouragement of the revised version. In addition, during this review process, other reviewers have expressed new comments, and we have also revised and improved them one by one.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response
Dear reviewer, we would like to thank you very much for your meticulous and professional review of our article. It is encouraging to receive your affirmation regarding our series of articles on Taiwanese craftsmanship. The following is our response, which has been revised and improved as a result of your comments and suggestions.
(1) Your advice is greatly appreciated! Our research team has been conducting several studies on Taiwanese handicrafts in order to develop this article. The literature review supplements the sustainable development of Taiwanese handicrafts and their relationship with culture and creativity to enhance their sustainability relevance.
(2) Thanks for your comments! In fact, there are omissions in the research methodology. This has been revised significantly.
(3) Thank you very much for the reminder! As a matter of fact, this information is essential for readers who are unfamiliar with the Taiwan region. It is listed in the upper left corner of Figure 3. However, we consider presenting it separately.
(4) Thanks for your opinion! We reviewed the article and found that they are different. Consequently, we are concerned that the two images you see may represent the same content as a result of a system error. Figure 3 illustrates the eco-village and two landmark buildings. Figure 4 shows the poster of the lacquer art workshop and some of its works. Based on your opinion, we have redrawn Figures 3 and Figure 4. Since we added new figure, the numbering of the figure has also been adjusted.
(5) Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions! This section has been augmented and improved since we revised the article.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
in my report
Title: From Workshop to Sustainability: A Case Study of Lacquer Culture from Taomi Eco-Village
The title is clear - short - enough – understandable
The summary: is good – but, it should be clarified, The aim of this study is---------
Keywords: Sufficient and covers the general research and includes all the meanings of the research
The introduction: from line 28 to line 61 is written without references
Also what is the different between introduction- and Literature Review?
Literature Review : In line number 64 - the author used two references?
3. Methodology: Clear, visible and serve the search.
In line 260 the author used the numbering 4, Also, in line 270, the author used the number 5
Where are the numbers 1, 2, and 3?
Results/ Discussion
In line number 293, which follows the results, the author used the phrase (The goal of this workshop is to make the quality of the works more refined)
This phrase or meaning is not in the results, but in the introduction to the research or the summary, Not in reviewing the results
Results and Discussion:
The results are not visible - in other words - the author used too many phrases and dividing the results into sub-headings - this led to the loss or lack of clarity of the results
Benefits: ok
References: good
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well structured article and it makes a contribution to ICH and the creative and cultural industries. The main issue I have encountered is the language, in points does not sound right. However, this has not affected the communication
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is original but unfortunately does not have scientific qualities.
The research objectives were like wishes. It should be written in a more formal language and it would be good to have a question sentence.
In the literature part, the basic concepts of the research are not explained. For example, basic explanations such as what is eco-village and how it works are missing.
Figure 1 is presented but not explained adequately. Each title should have been explained in detail.
The method lacks essential parts. Has it been observed? How did researchers form their views? How was the obtained data analyzed? What is the validity and reliability of the research?
The discussion did not establish a relationship with previous studies on the subject. Are there any similar studies to this study?
The conclusion part is like the sharing of feelings and thoughts. This situation makes us think that the research is far from being scientific.
The most important problem in this study is that certain research questions were not formed and the findings were not associated with the research questions.
