Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Here are the comments:
1) The research article does not demonstrate its contribution towards the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting a discrepancy between its actual impact and its intended alignment with the SDG agenda.  
2) The paragraph lacks comprehensive explanation for all the figures presented.
3) Instead of presenting specific results or findings, the paper primary focuses on proposing a methodological approach and conceptual model for leveraging digital tools to enhance heritage. It would greatly enhance the framework's credibility and applicability if some tangible results were provided to support this proposed approach. 
4) Although the paper does not explicitly address any limitations, it would be beneficial to acknowledge and articulate any potential constrains or shortcomings within the research at this point. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your effort in reviewing the paper and for your extremely valuable suggestions.

All corrections and additions are highlighted in blue in the revised paper.

Here below my responses to your comments:

1) “The research article does not demonstrate its contribution towards the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting a discrepancy between its actual impact and its intended alignment with the SDG agenda”.

Sustainable Development Goals have been addressed within the section 1 (Introduction) – lines 107-114; and lines 120-121. This integration makes explicit reference to the ways in which digital technologies and the proposed conceptual framework can contribute to SDGs. An additional mention to the contribution towards SDGs has been added in the section 4 “Possible impact” (lines 515-522).

 

2) “The paragraph lacks comprehensive explanation for all the figures presented”.

Explanations have been added, in order to detail the main conceptualizations schematized through figures (lines 152-157; 304-306; 340-348; 430-435).

 

3) “Instead of presenting specific results or findings, the paper primary focuses on proposing a methodological approach and conceptual model for leveraging digital tools to enhance heritage. It would greatly enhance the framework's credibility and applicability if some tangible results were provided to support this proposed approach”.

The paper stems from a series of studies on the subject aimed at proposing a project to obtain funding and develop pilot tests. The analysis covered a number of possible sites in different Italian regions, but the activities have yet to be conducted. It was therefore preferred to develop the topic from a theoretical point of view. However, a paragraph on these initial analyses has been added in the section 3 “Material and Methods” (lines 287-295), and additional references on concrete examples from the literature have been added under section 2 “Research scenario and related works” (lines 236-271).

 

4) “Although the paper does not explicitly address any limitations, it would be beneficial to acknowledge and articulate any potential constrains or shortcomings within the research at this point.”

Potential shortcomings have been detailed within the “Discussion” paragraph (lines 577-596).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a compilation of various approaches in heritage preservation methodology. As a theoretical paper, it has the potential to open further discussion in the inclusion of `minor heritage sites`. However, how it would be related to a more sustainable heritage preservation is not clearly explained. The paper needs to be restructured/rewritten with the focus on `this inclusion of minor heritage sites, and more concrete examples from the literature should be given. The paper overall is accepted with minor review.

 

The grammar is adequate and the use of 'heritage' terms are clearly stated. However the argument is explained in fragments. The paper needs to be rewritten and restructured. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your effort in reviewing the paper and for your extremely valuable suggestions. All corrections and additions are highlighted in blue in the revised paper.

Here below my responses to your comments:

1) “How it would be related to a more sustainable heritage preservation is not clearly explained”.

The main topic of the paper has been more clearly related to sustainable heritage preservation strategies by adding additional explanations, such as the references to Sustainable Development Goals within the section 1 (Introduction) – lines 107-114. This integration makes explicit reference to the ways in which digital technologies and the proposed conceptual framework can contribute to SDGs. An additional mention to the contribution towards SDGs has been added in the section 4 “Possible impact” (lines 515-522).

 

2)  “The paper needs to be restructured/rewritten with the focus on `this inclusion of minor heritage sites, and more concrete examples from the literature should be given”.

The paper has been restructured by skipping some redundant concepts or statements, and by linking crucial concepts more fluidly.

Additional references on concrete examples from the literature have been added under section 2 “Research scenario and related works” (lines 236-271).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The article repeatedly mentions that small cultural sites "play a key role in social inclusion and territorial cohesion" (e.g., lines 13, 59). This sentence needs to be explained in greater detail. 
2. More studies discussing the issues and challenges faced by "minor, small, or neglected cultural sites" during the digitization process should be included. For instance, since these minor sites have very limited tourist traffic, it would be valuable to determine whether their digital content can actually reach a broader audience and if remote access can translate online traffic into physical visits. Therefore, the author could further examine how the proposed network between major and minor sites could help address issues that digitization efforts by minor sites cannot fully resolve on their own.
3. Leveraging the large online and offline tourist traffic of the major sites to benefit smaller sites that lack resources for digitization and promotion through networking the two types of sites together is an innovative approach. However, the article does not provide enough detail on how the proposed network of major and minor cultural sites would work in practice, either through online or offline means (e.g., financial resources, personnel, copyright issues and the will of local heritage source communities, etc.). The framework lacks clarity around how exactly these two types of sites would be connected and interact, both digitally and physically. For example, in the caption of Figure 2, it is written that “the renowned location can be the driver to create new and unconventional visits facilitating connections between minor sites into larger networks, proposing new approaches for handling visits in heritage sites and their surrounding area”. What are the new and unconventional visits? How to facilitate connection between sites? What are the new approaches?
4. While the figures all have detailed captions, contextualizing the figures within the body text would improve clarity and integration. 
5. The article would benefit from further defining and explaining some of the specific terms used. For instance, "Data space initiative" mentioned in line 358 and "Network of sites" referenced in line 433 could be further described.

Some minor grammatical and formatting errors - 

e.g.,

Line 38: "needs...a continue effort"

Line 310: "Depending"

Line 392-3: "   Nevertheless"

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your effort in reviewing the paper and for your extremely valuable suggestions. All corrections and additions are highlighted in blue in the revised paper.

Here below my responses to your comments:

 

1) “The article repeatedly mentions that small cultural sites "play a key role in social inclusion and territorial cohesion" (e.g., lines 13, 59). This sentence needs to be explained in greater detail”.

 

This comment has been addressed explaining the role of small cultural sites (lines 59-65 and new references 16 and 17).

 

2) “More studies discussing the issues and challenges faced by "minor, small, or neglected cultural sites" during the digitization process should be included. For instance, since these minor sites have very limited tourist traffic, it would be valuable to determine whether their digital content can actually reach a broader audience and if remote access can translate online traffic into physical visits. Therefore, the author could further examine how the proposed network between major and minor sites could help address issues that digitization efforts by minor sites cannot fully resolve on their own”.

 

Inputs on this point has been added under the section 3 “Materials and Methods” (lines 445-455).

 

3) Leveraging the large online and offline tourist traffic of the major sites to benefit smaller sites that lack resources for digitization and promotion through networking the two types of sites together is an innovative approach. However, the article does not provide enough detail on how the proposed network of major and minor cultural sites would work in practice, either through online or offline means (e.g., financial resources, personnel, copyright issues and the will of local heritage source communities, etc.). The framework lacks clarity around how exactly these two types of sites would be connected and interact, both digitally and physically. For example, in the caption of Figure 2, it is written that “the renowned location can be the driver to create new and unconventional visits facilitating connections between minor sites into larger networks, proposing new approaches for handling visits in heritage sites and their surrounding area”. What are the new and unconventional visits? How to facilitate connection between sites? What are the new approaches?

 

Additional details on these points have been added witing the section “3. Material and Methods” (lines 340-348), and in section 2 (lines 236-270), providing specifications about the possible promotion between major and minor sites, and examples of possible impacts of digital applications among a network of sites.

The paragraph “Discussion” provides an overview of limitation concerning the availability of financial resources and personnel.

 

4) “While the figures all have detailed captions, contextualizing the figures within the body text would improve clarity and integration”.

Explanations have been added, in order to detail the main conceptualizations schematized through figures (lines 152-157; 304-306; 340-348; 430-435).

 

5) “The article would benefit from further defining and explaining some of the specific terms used. For instance, "Data space initiative" mentioned in line 358 and "Network of sites" referenced in line 433 could be further described”.

The Data Space has been defined (lines 415-419), as well as the concept of “network of sites” explained in the Introduction (lines 124-127) since this is a central concept of the paper. A more detailed explanation of the concept of “sites’ networking” is included in section 3 “Materials and Methods”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx