Restoration of the City Walls of Monopoli in Puglia (Italy)—The 16th Century House within the Walls: From the Discovery of the Gunboat to the Recovery of the Basement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article describes interestingly and comprehensively the stratigraphic and archaeological study of a small building with a great history. The results of the morphological analysis and the identification of the various phases of reconstruction are meticulously described. It meets the line of invitation to the special issue, especially regarding keywords: practices in field research, protection of cultural heritage, and historiography of urban construction. Any of these terms should also appear in the keywords included in the article (line 23).
However, the author(s) focused primarily on a detailed report of in situ research. A deficiency is left by the methodological part, which is very brief (lines 69-77). There are no references to the state of research or critique of the literature, a more detailed description of the research methods and strategies would have been welcome. The elaboration of this part of the article appears crucial to its scientific value.
It is also advisable to at least present the different parts of the study and briefly describe the research techniques used and the research plan - to organize and shortly announce to the reader what was applied one by one (e.g., main parts: literature review; archival research; site survey; data analysis; proposal).
While I do not attempt to evaluate the English translation, it seems that there has been a significant misrepresentation of the term "cannoniera," translated from Italian as "gunboat." (lines 4, 190, 229, 264, 277, 280, 325, 406). From the context and the accompanying photographs (fig. 11), it seems that what is meant is a gun emplacement (cannon position) in the fortress wall - so "gunport" or "embrasure" would be appropriate.
Author Response
please see the attachment
thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
This research paper describes the actual topic – Restoration of the city walls of Monopoli in Puglia (Italy) The 16th century house within the walls: from the discovery of the gunboat to the recovery of the basement. In their article authors notice, that their aim is to propose a methodological approach for the conservation of the minor assets of ancient centres. Thus, authors point out, that the house, adjacent to the Castle of Charles V, was the subject of preliminary investigations which established the building's construction phases (3rd century BC - 19th century). The investigations have highlighted the presence of a gun-boat walled up on the main facade and a basement room. Authors conclude, that the intervention proposes the conservative reuse of the house built within the city walls in order to support the recovery of one of the essential elements of the Italian urban landscape that since ancient times surrounded the hut villages of our coasts.
And I would like to share with authors some doubts and remarks too: it seems important to notice, that it would be needed to concentrate on the abstract of the study, as more clear description could make better article readability. As well, it seems important to notice, that more detailed description of methodology would be needed. And, it it would be needed to concentrate on the discussion and conclusions of the study. Thus, when developing seperate sections of "Discussion" and "Conclusions" it would be needed to include to the debate more future oriented theoretical implications, thus accessing deeper discussion and concluding insights.
Author Response
please see the attachment
thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
An investigational report was created by authors after they completed a survey regarding the restoration of Monopoli's city walls in Puglia. It is not clear from reading the entire text that the authors propose a methodological approach for the conservation of the minor assets of ancient centers. This article's writing is less readable and more challenging to understand. Many details in the article (such as sentence logic, picture name, references, etc.) are not well written and need further correction and improvement. My personal opinion is that the article should not be accepted.
Author Response
please see the attachment
thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the interesting, informative, and valuable work that points to the sustainable management of heritage.
I have some recommendations for improving the content.
1. Authors should clearly state the goal of this research in the introduction section. Also, there should be some general issues about the topic.
2. The methodology chapter needs to be explained in more detail
3. In the version of the manuscript that I received for reading, there is a discrepancy between the photos and the text, as well as the labels of the photos themselves. However, the authors should standardize the size of the photos. It appears to be less transparent because there are more photos in the sequence.
4. In the Discussion section, it is also necessary to briefly consider how your recommendations look against the background of solving the problems of sustainable management of the heritage of similar historical heritage in Europe. What is common, and what is the difference? What new ideas can you bring to this development? In other words, you need more international context for your research.
Author Response
please see the attachment
thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering my recommendations.
Regarding the term "gunboat", which introduces complete misinformation about the article's content, I forward my statement to the editors. It must be translated to "embrasure" or "gun port."
Author Response
please see the attachment
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations for your efforts to review the article. It's seems better now. But still more theoretical insights are needed.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please revise the conclusion again.
Author Response
si prega di consultare l'allegato
Grazie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
