Digital Transformation in the Cultural Heritage Sector and Its Impacts on Sustainable Regional Development in Peripheral Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has a high relevance since it focuses on the role of digitalization of cultural heritage on the sustainable peripherical regions. Despite off the soundness of the research, made with a funded project, there are some hypothesis that aren't considered and not entirely explained and discussed. My opinions and comments can be find in the word document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments.
Please find attached our detailed point-by-point response, in which we address all issues raised in the reviews.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the peer-reviewed article focuses on small heritage institutions in peripheral settings and explores the opportunities and limitations of digitalisation and its impact on sustainable regional development. The authors already have series of articles on the use of cultural heritage as an important element of regional development. This article written at a good level, but for now it is presented as an review article and the research is mainly limited to European countries.

The problem solved in the manuscript is relevant. There are a number of suggestions and comments, in connection with which the study should be finalized.

 

1. The article lacks a detailed description of how the authors conducted their research (third stage): how many respondents, what questions were asked, the representativeness of the sample, etc. Furthermore, a single interview is not sufficient to draw conclusions.
2. The authors wrote: 'In the surveys, the experts emphasised that digitalisation could increase the attractiveness and relevance of cultural heritage institutions. In our case study, this link was somewhat denied, as front-end digitalisation was seen as costly, draining financial resources, which are rather invested in non-digital offers, such as on-site pedagogy classes. In general, our case study yielded different results and perspectives than the expert surveys and focus groups.' But this is not clear from the text of the article. Perhaps it would be worth providing a comparison table.
3. Is there a state programme or unified software for all institutions in the country, particularly the smaller ones? This would enable small peripheral institutions to compete with larger ones.
4. The authors write: 'There is also a need to develop new tailor-made business models for small institutions to profit financially from digital tools.' Tailor-made business models are expensive, and small institutions will not be able to afford them. Or do the authors mean a single model to be developed by the state?
5. Table 1, as the final result of the article, is not sufficiently supported by facts (figures) in the text of the article.
6. When describing the negative impact of digital transformation on the environment, it would have been worth using, among other things, the UN report on the digital economy, 2024.
7. The arrangement of references in the journal Sustainability should be in the order of mention in the text and in square brackets with the number.
8. Line 333: what is the source (INT, 2023)?
9. As a rule, references to sources are not included in the Conclusions section; only the authors' own conclusions are presented.
10. It is not customary to create one subsection - 3.1.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments.
Please find attached our detailed point-by-point response, in which we address all issues raised in the reviews.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research focuses on small heritage institutions in peripheral settings and explores

the opportunities and limitations of digitalisation and its impact on sustainable regional

development. It is well known that most activities in the cultural heritage sector are sustainable from the point of view of the classical three pillars: ecological, economic and social.

This article is a very good and original contribution to the definition of the advantages and the challenges related to the introduction of digital systems in the cultural activities at a regional level, but as far as sustainability is concerned, the message is not clear. It looks like the philosophy of the article is: cultural heritage activities are by definition sustainable, so every improvement of these activities contribute to the general sustainability.

In my opinion, the article should concentrate more on the direct impact of digitalisation on the sustainability aspect of cultural activities at regional level. Moreover, the impact of artificial intelligence is not considered.

The list of references is appropriate and useful for the reader.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments.
Please find attached our detailed point-by-point response, in which we address all issues raised in the reviews.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-structured and organized into sections. The literature review is cited accurately, providing solid theoretical grounding. From the methodological point of view the research questions are clearly stated and the discussion offers a view of both opportunities and limitations of digitalization. However, some minor revisions are needed, namely:

a) Pertinency to condense references to digital challenges into one cohesive paragraph to streamline the narrative (please, check Introduction section);

b) Some repetition of earlier points (e.g., funding and capacity limitations are mentioned multiple times) (please, check Results/Discussion section);

c) The phrase “digital transformation does not create a win-win situation in terms of sustainability per se” could be clearer (please, check Conclusion section).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments.
Please find attached our detailed point-by-point response, in which we address all issues raised in the reviews.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is markedly improved. The authors have made all corrections and clarifications in accordance with my comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As far as I am concerned, I find the corrections adequate