Implementation of Urban Solution for New Faculty Facilities within Spatial Historical and Cultural Units—A Case Study of Belgrade, Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled Implementation of Urban Solution for new Faculty Facilities within Spatial Historical and Cultural Units – A Case Study of Belgrade, Serbia is interesting first of all because it addresses a topic of high present interest: urban planning in areas with cultural-historical heritage

The article contains the appropriate structure. It is correctly divided into relevant sections and their content coincides with their titles. Bibliography is correctly formulated.

My main recommendations are the following:

Abstract – The authors should clarify the methods and results of the study. I see the objectives presented extensively, but the methods and results of the paper should also be addressed more thoroughly.

Introduction – Literature review - Has the topic been addressed before? If yes, please expand the literature review. I cannot see the novelty of the present study. I can see plenty of descriptive and bibliographical information put together, but how do you explain the necessity for such a scientific investigation?

Materials and Methods - Please clarify the methodological framework by including information on the programs used to process the data.

Conclusions –The conclusions are very vague, they should get more consistency, underline the added value of the paper.

The study is very informative, the authors did a very good job compiling all the information, but the paper lacks a practical side which would represent precisely its direct contribution.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer 1,

First of all, thank You for your kind words, effort to review our paper and extremely useful comments and remarks. We used Your review and comments of the Reviewer 2 as the basics, because you gave us very clear and detailed inputs how to improve this article and we really appreciate your help. All corrections and additions are implemented in new version of the paper, that we are uploading as an attachment.

The article entitled Implementation of Urban Solution for new Faculty Facilities within Spatial Historical and Cultural Units – A Case Study of Belgrade, Serbia is interesting first of all because it addresses a topic of high present interest: urban planning in areas with cultural-historical heritage. The article contains the appropriate structure. It is correctly divided into relevant sections and their content coincides with their titles. Bibliography is correctly formulated. My main recommendations are the following:

Point 1: Abstract – The authors should clarify the methods and results of the study. I see the objectives presented extensively, but the methods and results of the paper should also be addressed more thoroughly.

Response 1:  Accepted, in Abstract we described research objective, methods used, and the main results.

Point 2: Introduction – Literature review - Has the topic been addressed before? If yes, please expand the literature review. I cannot see the novelty of the present study. I can see plenty of descriptive and bibliographical information put together, but how do you explain the necessity for such a scientific investigation?

Response 2:  Accepted.  Chapter 1. Introduction supplemented with text novelty, added value, necessity for investigation and practical use of the paper, lines 32-40.

We focused on similarity, searching for all available and accessible case studies in the in the range of the last 20 years, that can be compared with the topic of our research - interpolation of the single unit of the specific public building in historical city core. Because designing and building of university/faculty facilities is not too customary and frequent (in comparison with other uses, such as housing or commerce), and we were looking for particular situations connected with the topic of the research, the most of the references are form the Europe. That is a reason that we included in the literature review, beside scientific papers professional and critical reports too.

 

Point 3: Materials and Methods - Please clarify the methodological framework by including information on the programs used to process the data.

Response 3:  Accepted. Chapter 3. Materials and Methods supplemented with text about methodological technics and process the data (lines: 188-192, 200-205). New graphic, illustrating a workflow added as Fig. 2.

Point 4: Conclusions –The conclusions are very vague, they should get more consistency, underline the added value of the paper. The study is very informative, the authors did a very good job compiling all the information, but the paper lacks a practical side which would represent precisely its direct contribution.

Response 4:  Accepted, in Chapter 6. Conclusions Authors added text, lines 771-799, explaining novelty, added value and practical use of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

23.02.2023 review

 

 

Implementation of Urban Solution for new Faculty Facilities within Spatial Historical and Cultural Units – A Case Study of Belgrade, Serbia

 

First, I would like to congratulate the authors for working on such an interesting and important topic, concerning working with the heritage areas of Belgrade. The article's subject corresponds well with the scope of the Buildings journal of MDPI.

 

Regardless of the appropriate level of the paper, there are comments that authors are kindly asked to consider improving and organizing the paper better:

1.    The abstract needs to fully describe the essence of the research and be more specific. I recommend implementing important information such as the research objective, methods used, and a brief summary of the main results.

2.    In the Introduction, the short summary of what we can find in each chapter is missing

3.    Please add in the introduction/methods a graphic workflow to understand the purpose of this paper.

4.    The literature review should be a separate chapter, not a subchapter of the Introduction. Also, an additional table that can organize the topics and their references could improve my understanding of this part.

5.    When using abbreviations for the first time, use full description, e.g. AAPDR appears for the first time at page 6, but the full description appears first at page 10.

6.    Subchapter 3.1. appears twice.

7.    Please work on Figure 2&4 to make them easier to understand.

8.    Also, in general, citing references in the conclusion needs to be avoided (the conclusion is for the outcome or review analysis). 

9.    Can you please add in the table form the comparison between those two case studies areas and chosen project, It would benefit the results to add it for a clearer understanding why both of them were analyzed and what are their similarities and differences

10.  As far as I understand the need for older references, I believe the authors did not present the literature review according to the newest research, mostly based on similar case studies in Europe.

 

Besides those minor comments, I believe the paper is well organized and a valuable contribution to this field. I recommend its publication after minor adjustments.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer 2,

First of all, thank You for your kind words, effort to review our paper and extremely useful comments and remarks. We used Your review and comments of the Reviewer 1 as the basics, because you gave us very clear and detailed inputs how to improve this article and we really appreciate your help. All corrections and additions are implemented in new version of the paper, that we are uploading as an attachment.

 

Implementation of Urban Solution for new Faculty Facilities within Spatial Historical and Cultural Units A Case Study of Belgrade, Serbia First, I would like to congratulate the authors for working on such an interesting and important topic, concerning working with the heritage areas of Belgrade. The article's subject corresponds well with the scope of the Buildings journal of MDPI. Regardless of the appropriate level of the paper, there are comments that authors are kindly asked to consider improving and organizing the paper better:

 

Point 1: The abstract needs to fully describe the essence of the research and be more specific. I recommend implementing important information such as the research objective, methods used, and a brief summary of the main results.

Response 1:  Accepted, in Abstract we described research objective, methods used, and the main results.

Point 2: In the Introduction, the short summary of what we can find in each chapter is missing.

Response 2:  Accepted and added in the chapter 1. Introduction, lines 41-69.

Point 3: Please add in the introduction/methods a graphic workflow to understand the purpose of this paper.

Response 3:  Accepted. New graphic, illustrating a workflow added as Fig. 1, page 5:

1. An observation of two comparable spatially and temporally close cases within the same legal planning system. Noticed ‘’jumping out’’ of the usual and established practice, expressed need to improve something and contribute to better implementation results
2. Forming the idea that a deeper analysis of the circumstances, implemented procedures and achieved results, and the dissemination of this knowledge would be useful for other future cases
3. Searching for similar and comparable foreign examples in scientific and professional literature
4. Collection and of all relevant materials for analysis (urban plans, conditions for the protection of architectural heritage, jury decisions, awarded competitive solutions)
5. Commitment to the scientific method of case study, with possibility to research about procedures and consequences, discuss about advantages & limitation, comparison of similarities & differences
6. Formation of two case studies, detailed processing and analyzing of collected data, description, pointing out particularities, creating graphs in order to illustrate it
7. The formation of conclusions, in what is the novelty and how it can contribute in solving other similar situations, argumentation of results, expectations and influences

 

 

 

 

Point 4: The literature review should be a separate chapter, not a subchapter of the Introduction. Also, an additional table that can organize the topics and their references could improve my understanding of this part.

Response 4:  Accepted, line 133, new chapter 2. Literature Review, consequently changing numbers of following chapters. As we understood, an additional table that follows is auxiliary tool for your understanding of this part of the text. We did not add it in the new version of the text, but if you find it useful, we can incorporate it as a part of the paper or submit it as a supplementary material.

REVIEW OF RESEARCHED LITERATURE BY TYPE AND MAIN TOPICS (Chapter 2. Literature Review)
TYPE OF RESOURSE	MAIN TOPICS REGARDING RESEARCH	CORRESPONDING REFERENCES
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS	Design and implementation of standards for public higher education facilities, especially in relation to campuses.	[2-8] ·      Gaines, Thomas A. The Campus as a Work of Art. Praeger Publishers, One Madison Avenue, New York, 1991, ISBN-0-275-93967-7 ·      Dober, R. Campus Planning. Society for Coll. and Univ. Planning, MI, 1996, ISBN-0-9601608-1-7, https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.11.1.108.1  ·      Coulson, J., Roberts P., Taylor I. University Planning and Architecture: the search for perfection. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. ·      Coulson, J., Roberts P. and Taylor I. University Trends – Contemporary Campus Design. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. ·      Özkan, D. G., Alpak E. M., and Var M. Design and construction process in campus open spaces: A case study of Karadeniz Technical University. Urban Design International, 2017, 22.3, 236-252. ·      Hebbert, M. The Campus and the City: A Design Revolution Explained. Journal or Urban Design, 2018, 23 (6), 883–897. ·      Yaylali-Yildiz, B., Spierings, B. & Çil, E. The spatial configuration and publicness of the university campus: interaction, discovery, and display on De Uithof in Utrecht. Urban Design International, 2022, 27, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-020-00130-w
	The importance of location in the struggle for competitiveness in the field of research.	[9,10] ·      Benneworth, P. and Hospers, G-J. Urban Competitiveness in the Knowledge Economy: universities as new planning animators. Oxford: Elsevier, 2007. ·      Ischinger, B., Puukka, J. Universities for Cities and Regions: Lessons from the OECD Reviews. Change, 2009, 41(3), 8–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20696146
	Interaction between cities and universities, the importance of university city status in the social and economic sense, and social issues relating to the integration of students in a new environment.	[11-18] ·   Bender, T. The University and the City, From Mediaeval Origins to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ·   Chatterton, P. University students and city centers–the formation of exclusive geographies: The case of Bristol, UK. Geoforum, 1999, 30.2, 117-133 ·   Calhoun, C. The University and the Public Good. Thesis Eleven, 2006, 84 (1), 7–43. ·   Benneworth, P., Charles, D., Madanipour, A. Building Localized Interaction Between Universities and Cities Through University Spatial Development. European Planning Studies, 2010, Volume 18, Issue 10, 1611-1629, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2010.5043 ·   Forrant, R. Pulling Together in Lowell: The University and the Regional Development Process. European Planning Studies, 2001, Volume 9, Issue 5, 613-628, https://doi.org/10.1080/713666502 ·   Benneworth, P., Herbst, M. The City as a Focus for Human Capital Migration: Toward a Dynamic Analysis of University Human Capital Contributions. European Planning Studies, 2015, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 454-474, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.868869 ·   Clauson, C., McKnight, J. Welcome to campus: Planning for diversity, inclusion, and equity. Planning for Higher Education, 2018, 47(1), 39. ·   Simoni, H., Georgoudaki, E. The University of Patras, Greece, its city, and international students: insights from multiple cartographic perspectives. European Planning Studies, 2020, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp. 213-233, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1632270
	The theme of the surroundings having an impact on the quality of teaching and academic results achieved.	[19-21] ·   Leather, D. J., Marinho, R. D. Designing an Academic Building for 21st-Century Learning: A Dean’s Guide. Change, 2009, 41(3), 42–49.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20696151 ·   Muhammad, S., Sapri, M., Sipan, I. Academic Buildings and Their Influence on Students’ Wellbeing in Higher Education Institutions. Soc Indic Res 2014, 115, 1159–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0262-6 ·   Hoque, S., Weil, B. The Relationship Between Comfort Perceptions and Academic Performance in University Classroom Buildings. Journal of Green Building, 2016, 11 (1), 1 Campus Planning.
	The techniques for reconstructing and preserving historical buildings in which faculties are located.	[22-24] Costanzo, S., Cusumano, A., Giaconia, C., Giaconia, G. Preservation of the artistic heritage within the seat of the Chancellorship of the University of Palermo: A proposal on a methodology regarding an environmental investigation according to Italian Standards, Building and Environment, 2006, Volume 41, Issue 12, 1847-1859, ISSN 0360-1323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.06.010 Murzyn‐Kupisz, M., Działek, J. Cultural heritage in building and enhancing social capital. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2013, Vol. 3 No. 1, 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/20441261311317392    Philokyprou, M. Adaptation of New University Uses in Old Buildings: The Case of Rehabilitation of Listed Buildings in Limassol Cyprus for University Purposes. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2014, Vol. 8, Issue 5, 758- 782.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2012.738282
	The issue of new technologies, and requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency.	[25] ·   Cabeza, L. F. Gracia, A., Pisello A. L. Integration of renewable technologies in historical and heritage buildings: A review. Energy and Buildings, 2018, Volume 177, 96-111, ISSN 0378-7788, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.07.058
	The urban renewal and the topic of constructing a new building for the university in the very center of the city.	[26,27,41] ·   Danilović Hristić, N., Gligorijević, Ž., Stefanović, N. Rekonstrukcija centralnih gradskih zona, na primeru gradova Lajpciga i Drezdena. Arhitektura i urbanizam, 2018, br. 46, 52-63. https://doi.org/10.5937/a-u0-16984 (in Serbian) Reconstruction of central city areas, using the example of the cities of Leipzig and Dresden ·   Danilović Hristić, N., Stefanović N. The results of urban renewal and reconstruction in cities which are in process of rehabilitation of identity, Case studies: Leipzig and Dresden. Journal of Urban Culture Research (JUCR), 2020, Volume 20, January - June 2020, 97-111. ·   Lalošević, M. Modeli sprovodjenja planskih rešenja objekata visokog obrazovanja na područjima prostorno kulturno-istorijskih celina – nova iskustva Beograda. Naučno-stručna konferencija sa medjunarodnim učešćem Udruženja urbanista Srbije “Letnja škola urbanizma i održivog razvoja”, zbornik radova, 2022, 79-90, ISBN 978-86-84275-45-7. (in Serbian) Models of implementation of planning solutions for higher education facilities in areas of spatial cultural-historical units – new experiences of Belgrade. Scientific conference with international participation of the Association of Urban Planners of Serbia “Summer School of Urbanism and Sustainable Development”, proceedings, 2022, 79-90, ISBN 978-86-84275-45-7
	Architectural heritage, and the methodology for producing planning documents for revitalization, study of interpolating public educational facilities.	[28-30, 42] ·   Kilic, S. E. Preservation Plan Application for the Historical City Centre, Kemeralti (Izmir, Turkey) European Planning Studies, 2008, Volume 16, Issue 2, 253-276, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701814595 ·   Doratli, N. Revitalizing historic urban quarters: A model for determining the most relevant strategic approach. European Planning Studies, 2005, Volume 13, Issue 5, 749-772, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500139558 ·   Janssen, J., Luiten, E., Renes, H., Stegmeijer, E. Heritage as a sector, factor and vector: conceptualizing the shifting relationshion between heritage management and spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 2017, Volume 25, Issue 9, 1654-1672, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1329410 ·   Vukotić Lazar, M. and Danilović Hristić N. The Growth and Development of Belgrade in the Period from 1815 to 1910, Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Prištini (sa sedištem u Kosovskoj Mitrovici), 2015, Vol. XLV (3), 51-80, ISSN 0354-3293
	Importance of competitions for shap-ing cities, as a key method.	[31] ·   Djerić, J., Lalošević, M., Konkursi i graditeljsko nasledje: odnos konkursa i urbanističkog plana. “Graditeljsko nasledje i urbanizam” - XI naučnostručna konferencija sa medjunarodnim učešćem Zavoda za zaštitu spomenika kulture grada Beograda, zbornik radova, 2021, 360-373, ISBN 978-86-6100-000-3 (in Serbian) Competitions and architectural heritage: the relationship between the competition and the urban plan. “Building heritage and urbanism” – 11th scientific professional conference with the international participation of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of the City of Belgrade, proceedings, 2021, 360-373, ISBN 978-86-6100-000-3.
PROFESSIONAL AND CRITICAL REPORTS	designing buildings for educational purposes or interpolating new university buildings within protected cultural-historical environments, highlighting the quality of the dialogue between the old and the new.	[32] ·     A&U ‘Special Issue: New University Environments’ (A&U, Tokyo, February), 2021, 413, 7-119.
	Current, different examples from university cities	[33-38] ·      New Collеdge Oxford. Our New Heritage https://www.new.ox.ac.uk/our-new-heritage, accessed 28 Jun 2022 ·      e-architect. Catherine Hughes Building Somerville College, Oxford, 25 May 2022, https://www.e-architect.com/oxford/catherine-hughes-building-somerville-college-oxford, (accessed on 28 Jun 2022) ·      University of Cambrigde. Sidgwick Site, https://www.sidgwick.sitedevelopments.cam.ac.uk/, accessed 28 Jun 2022 ·      ArchDaily. Sabrina Santos. “Danish Firms Unveil New University of Bergen Energy and Technology Building” 26 Oct 2016, https://www.archdaily.com/798070/arkitema-architects-unveils-new-university-of-bergen-energy-and-technology-building, ISSN 0719-8884, (accessed on 29 Jun 2022) ·      Stir World. Mehta M.: University of Toronto’s Daniels Building creates a dialogue between old and new, Oct 05, 2019, https://www.stirworld.com/see-features-university-of-torontos-daniels-building-creates-a-dialogue-between-old-and-new, (accessed on 29 Jun 2022) ·      Designboom. Stevens, P. Aires Mateus renovates 16th century church building for Portugal's University of Coimbra. Designboom, Jul 30, 2017, https://www.designboom.com/architecture/aires-mateus-trinity-college-renovation-university-of-coimbra-portugal-07-29-2017/, (accessed on 29 Jun 2022)
	Reasons for locating faculty facilities and student accommodation outside the historical core.	[39-40] ·  ArchDaily. Hall of Residence for Students – Coimbra University / Paula Santos Arquitectura [Residência de Estudantes da Universidade de Coimbra / Paula Santos Arquitectura] 20 Sep 2017, https://www.archdaily.com/874928/hall-of-residence-for-students-coimbra-university-paula-santos-arquitectura> ISSN 0719-8884, (accessed on 29 Jun 2022) ·  AV Monografías. Aires M.: Student Dormitory, Coimbra, Nº 83, 20 para el XXI, Young European Architects (digital edition) https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/residencia-de-estudiantes-coimbra (accessed on 29 Jun 2022)
OTHER USED MATERIALS (Chapters 3 and 4)	Legal framework (laws rulebooks, official decisions), urban plans, Jury reports, competition results.	[43-62]

 

Point 5: When using abbreviations for the first time, use full description, e.g. AAPDR appears for the first time at page 6, but the full description appears first at page 10.

Response 5:  Accepted and corrected mistake made during translation process, mixing abbreviations for different plans, all abbreviations added after the first appearance of the full description, throughout the text:

• Amendments and additions to the detailed regulation plan (AAPDR) of the Kosančićev Venac spatial unit for the part of the block between Karađorđeva, Velike stepenice and Kosančićev Venac streets, Municipality of Stari Grad
• Plan of detailed regulation for Kosančićev Venac (PDR)
• Amendments and Additions of the General Regulation Plan of Belgrade (AAGRPB)

Point 6: Subchapter 3.1. appears twice.

Response 6:  Accepted and corrected

Point 7: Please work on Figure 2&4 to make them easier to understand.

Response 7:  Accepted, we redesigned and replaced timelines for the FAA and FEE + case studies (now Figures 3. & 5.).

Point 8: Also, in general, citing references in the conclusion needs to be avoided (the conclusion is for the outcome or review analysis).

Response 8:  Accepted and corrected, citation deleted and moved in text as [47], consequently changing numbers of references.

Point 9: Can you please add in the table form the comparison between those two case studies areas and chosen project, It would benefit the results to add it for a clearer understanding why both of them were analyzed and what are their similarities and differences.

Response 9:  Accepted. We created new table (Table 1) and added to the text, chapter 5. Discussion, page 17/18.

Comparison between two case studies areas and awarded projects (FAA & FEE+)
Similarities	Differences
Both locations are located in sensitive zones under a high degree of architectural heritage protection and historically significant areas in the mental map of the city of Belgrade	FAA is part of the historical centre of Belgrade, in the contact zone of the Belgrade Fortress, with more strict conditions of protection than location of FEE+
Interpolation of the new faculty building into the protected city zone	FAA - Independent Facility structure in the mixed-use area FEE+ - Creating a functional link and complex with other existing objects in the block belonging to the University
Procedure of the implementation of the urban plan conditions with urban & architectural competition as mandatory step	Different urban plans as a starting point FAA - Amendments and Additions to the Detailed Regulation Plan of Kosančićev Venac (AAPDR)  FEE+ - Amendments and Additions to the General Regulation Plan of Belgrade (AAGRPB)
	FAA - public, open, single-stage, architectural competition for the conceptual design of the new building, 25 competition entries had been submitted. FEE+ - competition was organised by invitation of eight respectable designing teams
Specific requirements related to the purpose of the higher education facilities	The difference in the sizes of the locations and the square footage of the buildings, program conditions related to teaching technics FAA – plot area of 0.25 ha, gross building area of 11,000 m2, ; need for  art studios, exhibition space, … FEE+ - plot area 5.3 ha, gross building area of 22,000 m2 with 7,000 m2 for garage; need for scientific research centre with laboratories, student’s canteen, …
Relation to the public space in surrounding	FAA - parts of the building accessible to the public (exhibition space, atrium and street connection on different levels) FEE+ - public space within the block accessible to the citizens, connection with square and streets
Requirements for renewable energy and energy efficiency, usage of vegetative roofs	/
Interaction between protection services, planning, citizens (through the public insight procedure), decision makers	/
Investment of the Government of the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development	FAA - support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

 

Point 10: As far as I understand the need for older references, I believe the authors did not present the literature review according to the newest research, mostly based on similar case studies in Europe.

Response 10:  Yes, exactly, we focused on similarity, searching for all available and accessible case studies in the in the range of the last 20 years, that can be compared with the topic of our research. Because designing and building of university/faculty facilities is not too customary and frequent (in comparison with other uses, such as housing or commerce), and we were looking for particular situations of interpolation of the single unit of the specific public building in historical city core, the most of the references are form the Europe. That is a reason that we included in the literature review, beside scientific papers professional and critical reports too.

Besides those minor comments, I believe the paper is well organized and a valuable contribution to this field. I recommend its publication after minor adjustments. Thank you, once more.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the Journal of Sustainability. 

Your paper has been reviewed in order to assess its suitability in Sustainability. 

The paper presents some interesting contextual data but reconfirms existing knowledge and relations in a new context. 

Apologies, given its limited unique contribution to the field in a scientific paper, I have to reject it from Sustainability. 

The authors can resubmit it to the journal of Designs in MDPI, which will be more suitable.

GOOD LUCK.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer 3,

First of all, thank You for your effort to review our paper. We used comments of the Reviewer 1 and 2 as the basics, because they gave us a positive opinion and very clear and detailed inputs how to improve this article. All corrections and additions are implemented in new version of the paper, that we are uploading as an attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the efforts made to to improve the value of the article and I agree to its publishing in present form.

Author Response

Thank you, sincerely.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is not a scientific paper,  just a design process show.

I have rejected it in R1.

And I reject it again during R2.

 

Author Response

Because of the submission procedure you are receiving new version of the paper.