Evaluating the Cultural Sustainability of the Adaptive Reuse of Al-Nabulsi Traditional House into a Cultural Center in Irbid, Jordan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic addressed by the proposed manuscript is fascinating, relevant and valuable. However, the reviewer believes the issue addressed can be presented more adequately from the present form of the manuscript.
Aside from other and more technical comments about the manuscript's contents, it should be stressed that it is not critically organized. Sections 3. (Materials and Methods) and 4 (Findings and Discussion) should be shortened and rewritten about the specific aim of the paper, at least to avoid repetition in the different paper sections. The authors go into general information without any hierarchy and classification of the data according to the specific aim and objectives of the paper when presenting these sections. The authors should improve these parts. Organization of the manuscript and synthesis in writing are needed to clarify the results more professionally.
The authors have to retrain back to The ICOMOS Burra Charter regarding the definition of cultural significance, and then to clarify its relation to cultural sustainability as discussed in the paper, the issue of some terminologies has to be defined.
The second thing is the conclusions, as there are very general. Recommendations Some suggestion for re-improving methodology in future is needed. It should indicate what could be done to augment the findings. Still, early user feedback can help direct other researchers on what to use and avoid.
In conclusion, this is a promising work, but too preliminary. I hope the authors consider these comments and develop the study further since the material that has been collected appears to be very promising. This paper needs to be revised in depth before to submit again. A major revision is required for the article to be published.
Moderate editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
From a formal point of view, the text is presented correctly, although it is necessary to review some formal aspects such as the use of different fonts and sizes. The introduction is correct. It clearly states the objectives of the work, as well as its real scope, objectives, methodology and theoretical framework. The case study is also well presented, as well as the different phases of the project executed.
It highlights the solid work on the state of the art, with updated contributions from recent literature on the concept of cultural sustainability, as well as its specific approach. Likewise, the adpatative reuse appears perfectly delimited and a knowledge of Unesco's frameworks and regulations regarding cultural heritage is demonstrated, in which Alhojaly is methodologically followed.
With respect to the project, its planning and execution, it is well thought out, described and defined.
The article itself is interesting, as it is not a theoretical essay but the result of a concrete work carried out for the recovery of cultural heritage and its reuse.
With regard to stakeholders and key players, the use of the quintuple helix methodology, which current studies define as necessary, is lacking. In this sense, it would be appreciated to include this perspective in the analysis.
Regarding the development of the work, the qualitative method is mentioned, although it is not sufficiently described.
Interviews with project supervisors, staff, visitors and neighbors are mentioned, but there are only two interviews with them.
Therefore, this part is the weakest part of the work. Beyond the tourist use, the benefits of the project for the community are not well defined or explained. In the current field of cultural heritage, Unesco gives a relevant role to the communities, which is related to the aspects also included in the SDGs.
Therefore, an important part to define is the contribution of the communities to the project, as well as their real participation and benefits in local development, beyond tourism.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the article is interesting, the paper presents some serious limitations, which should be addressed by the authors. The introduction provides a good overview of the topic and the significance of cultural sustainability and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. However, it lacks a clear research question or hypothesis that would guide the study. It should clearly state what the authors aim to achieve with their evaluation and why it is important. Presented article is well written and presents relevant research findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the paper in its form is developed and fine
