The Pagodas of the Mireuksa Temple Site: Interpretations and Presentations of Three Memories of Cultural Heritage in a Single Site

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses critical contemporary issues in heritage conservation. The core argument that authenticity in heritage extends beyond material preservation to encompass ethics of memory is valuable. However, there are some revisions to address:

lines 101-106 contain what appears to be template text ("The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details...") - this definitely needs to be removed.

More broadly, I'm finding the methods section a bit difficult to follow. Right now, Section 2.2 mixes general background information with actual methodology, which makes it hard to understand your specific approach. For instance, lines 167-171 read more like introductory context than methodology - perhaps these could be moved to the introduction?

What I'm really looking for is a clearer picture of how you actually conducted this research. A few specific questions:

• Line 184: You mention identifying "key issues and success factors" and understanding how restoration connects to "social and political implications" - but what were your criteria for identifying these? How did you analyze this?
• Line 198: You describe participating in "research outcome presentations by heritage management experts" - could you tell us more about how these observations were conducted? How many presentations? Over what time period? How did you record and analyze what you observed?
• Line 204: You mention "a comparative analysis of similar domestic and international cases" - but I'm not seeing this systematic comparison in the paper. Which cases specifically? What framework did you use for comparison?

Your critique of the East Pagoda raises important concerns, but I think the argument would be stronger with more specific documentation. For example:

• Line 328: "Recent reports on the East Pagoda..." - which reports specifically? Can you cite them?
• What's the actual percentage of original materials that were reused, versus the 80% for the West Pagoda?
• When you discuss institutional reluctance to acknowledge problems, what evidence supports this claim?

I also wonder about the comparison to the Spanish restoration failures (Potato Head, Ecce Homo). Those were obviously botched jobs that became public embarrassments, whereas the East Pagoda appears to have been professionally executed, even if the approach was problematic. The comparison feels a bit unfair - might there be a more apt parallel? I'm not suggesting you soften your critique, but rather that grounding it in more specific evidence and perhaps acknowledging the 1990s context more fully would make it more persuasive.

This section introduces fascinating material about the drone displays and media facades, but it feels somewhat descriptive. I'd love to see you push deeper into critical questions like:

• How do visitors actually experience and interpret these digital representations? Do we have any data on this?
• What are the specific limitations of this approach? (You mention Baudrillard's warnings, but then don't fully develop what the risks might be in this particular case)
• The displays only exist during special events - how does this temporality affect their role in heritage preservation?

You introduce "memory authenticity" as a key contribution (which I think it could be!), but the concept needs more development:

• How exactly does it differ from existing authenticity frameworks like those in the Nara Document?
• What are its specific criteria or dimensions?
• How would heritage managers actually operationalize this in practice?

This feels like the conceptual heart of your argument, so it deserves fuller elaboration.

I'm wondering if a separate Discussion section before the Conclusion might help. Right now, the Conclusion tries to do a lot of work synthesizing the cases and advancing your conceptual argument. A Discussion section could:

• Bring the three cases together more explicitly
• Develop the "memory authenticity" framework
• Address limitations and implications
• Then let the Conclusion be more focused and punchy

Lines 372-378: Your connection to Loftus's work on "false memory" is really interesting, but it needs more careful development. How exactly does the psychological concept of false memory translate to collective/cultural memory? This is a creative link, but it needs more explicit bridging.

You're addressing questions that matter - how we balance physical authenticity with ethical remembering, how we handle irretrievably lost heritage, what role technology should play. These are exactly the conversations the field needs to be having.

The theoretical framework is solid, and the three-pagoda structure gives you a powerful way to explore these tensions. What the paper needs now is more methodological transparency, deeper engagement with the evidence (especially for the East Pagoda), and fuller development of your key conceptual contributions.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Please feel free to reach out if you'd like to discuss any of these points further. I'm genuinely interested in seeing where you take this work.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all feedback. A detailed point-by-point response document is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers an original comparative analysis of three pagodas at the Mireuksa Temple Site, introducing a “memory authenticity” framework that provides a novel lens for addressing the paradox of authenticity in heritage conservation. The comparison of three pagodas is well-conceived and the discussion on digital heritage is timely. However, several critical issues prevent it from reaching its full potential. As currently written, the paper reads more as a descriptive account than a theoretically grounded study, with insufficient empirical evidence to support its central claims.

Although the paper draws on theories from memory studies, it presents the three conservation strategies—authentic restoration, false reconstruction, and digital mediation—at a descriptive level without synthesizing them into an explanatory theoretical model. The analysis lacks a systematic distillation of each approach's internal logic, ethical boundaries, and conditions of applicability. The manuscript would benefit from the development of a tripartite evaluative framework to define the thresholds of advantage and tipping points of risk for each pathway.

The characterization of the East Pagoda as a failure case is undermined by insufficient evidential support. The paper fails to provide: (a) archaeological and documentary evidence demonstrating the absence of data on its original form; (b) primary materials showing how state intervention shaped reconstruction decisions; and (c) quantitative comparative analysis between the West and East Pagodas regarding structural basis, material replacement rates, and craft verification. Without invalidating the accuracy of the current restoration, the East Pagoda might be better framed as a legitimate practice of modern interpretation rather than a failure.

The paper lacks a comprehensive overview of historical trajectory, the process by which it was designated as heritage, and the spatial-functional relationships among its three pagodas. Significant omissions include conservation records from various historical periods, the socio-political and economic context surrounding restoration efforts in the 1990s, and evaluation documents from international perspectives. The inclusion of a dedicated "Case Site Profile" section, complete with timelines and diagrams detailing the site's conservation history, is necessary.

Figures 2–6 lack proper source attribution. The restoration failure cases presented in Figure 5 create a visual-logical dissonance with the solemn appearance of the East Pagoda. These examples would be more effective if substituted with analogous controversies within Asian heritage contexts to enhance comparative analysis.

The conclusion omits an essential section addressing "Implications for Other Heritage Sites." The paper's scholarly impact could be significantly enhanced through incorporation of decision-making frameworks, institutional design recommendations to prevent state overreach, and digital ethics guidelines tailored for heritage applications. Currently, the concluding remarks remain confined to value advocacy rather than evolving into actionable management tools.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all feedback. A detailed point-by-point response document is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the research interesting and generally successful. Please review the points I mentioned in the report.

Congratulations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all feedback. A detailed point-by-point response document is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

• The results are unclear in the abstract

Introduction:

• The research gap is unclear
• The contributions of this study is not clear

Theoretical Framework and Research Methods

• The part of research methods should be under the methodology section

Results:

• The results section is not presented in this study
• The theoretical and practical implications are not presented in this study

References:

• A lot of references are before 2020

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all feedback. A detailed point-by-point response document is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions show significant improvement. The author has taken the feedback seriously and made substantive changes that strengthen both the methodological rigor and conceptual clarity of the paper. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging feedback. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading of the manuscript and your recognition that the revisions have strengthened its methodological rigor and conceptual clarity. Your earlier comments were invaluable in improving the structure, coherence, and analytical depth of the paper.

I am grateful for your supportive evaluation and for acknowledging the substantial revisions made in response to the first review round.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The gradual disappearance of material heritage over time is always regrettable, making the methods for preserving such heritage and memory a subject worthy of serious consideration and research. The merit of this paper lies in its identification of three restoration approaches at a single heritage site and its comparative analysis of their respective strengths and weaknesses. Although the author’s argumentation seems to be loaded with certain preconceptions, I believe that a more refined comparative framework of these three methods would be valuable. What are the specific advantages and disadvantages of traditional restoration, imaginative reconstruction, and digital representation? Several aspects could be augmented in future research, such as investigating visitors’ perceptions of these three restoration techniques from a tourist perspective. I recommend adding a comparison table summarizing the three restoration approaches to strengthen this version. 

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your constructive and insightful review. Your comments greatly contributed to improving the quality of this manuscript. A detailed response to all remarks, along with the revised manuscript, is attached for your kind consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors do all modifications

Author Response

Thank you for your review and for confirming that all required modifications have been completed satisfactorily. I appreciate your time and consideration throughout the revision process.