Fighting Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods—The ENIGMA Project
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well structured and exhaustive, the topic of the project is very contemporary and remarkable.
Neverthless, some revisions are needed:
- the abstract is too long, consider moving the bullet points with the list of partners in the introduction.
-page 2 line 75, "on the other hand"...which and where is the "on one hand"?I lost the contrapposition.
- bold and underlined features are not necessary. Check also the use of commas
- insert the acronyms the first time they appear (es. CH and CG)
- par.3 page 3, provide references each technology category, for example:
Agugiaro, G., Poli, D., and Remondino, F.: TESTFIELD TRENTO: GEOMETRIC EVALUATION OF VERY HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE IMAGERY, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XXXIX-B1, 191–196, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXIX-B1-191-2012, 2012. (for satellite etc)
Ceccarelli, S.; Guarneri, M.; Ferri de Collibus, M.; Francucci, M.; Ciaffi, M.; Danielis, A., Laser Scanners for High-Quality 3D and IR Imaging in Cultural Heritage Monitoring and Documentation. J. Imaging 2018, 4, 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging4110130 (for 3D scanning)
- par. 4: tha authors should consider to summarise in a shorter text all the objectives and sub-objectives of the project. this is an article, not a project deliverable.
- fig.5 has too little letters and it has very low legibility
- i suggest some sentences as recap and conclusion before the "fundung" section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1, thank you for your comments:
Point 1: The abstract was shortened and the bullet points along with the list of partners was moved in the introduction.
Point 2: The inconsistency was corrected.
Point 3: The bold and underlined features were corrected. The use of commas was checked.
Point 4: The acronyms were inserted the first time they appeared.
Point 5: References for each technology category are provided in section 5 were a detailed analysis of each technology is presented.
Point 6: Section 4 was summarized.
Point 7: The figure was adjusted.
Point 8: A summarization was added in the end of section 7.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors describe an articulated system with a solid framework to fight the illicit market of cultural goods. Here the ENIGMA project is described, funded by the European community and supported by a strong synergy between institutional partners. Among the scientific objectives, the integration of multidisciplinary information relating to cultural goods is considered, the preservation of archaeological sites, the creation of warning systems using innovative decision-making methods, tools for object authenticity identification, and so on. The ENIGMA project is very ambitious and there will probably be many difficulties to overcome in its implementation, due to the huge quantity of rare and ancient objects and above all their heterogeneity.
For this reason, by accepting the work in minor revision, I wish the authors to achieve their goals.
The only things to change for a better reading of the text concern the captions of the figures: please insert a brief description so that they can be read and interpreted better.
Kind regards
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2, thank you for your comments:
The captions of the figures were enriched.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This article is a synthesis of the authors' proposal to apply for a European call for proposals to fund research projects. Despite the interest in the proposal and the topic, the article is limited to the presentation of the proposal and as such has little interest as an article for an academic journal. It could have been more comprehensive. For example, the state of the art in the fight against illicit trafficking of cultural heritage is too short because the proposal has a limited number of words for this section. Surely the authors have more extensive knowledge on this subject.
The paper does not present the results of the research because it is too early, so I would recommend waiting for some objectives to be achieved before publishing about this interesting project.
Author Response
The authors feel that this publication will be beneficial for researchers and the potential end users of ENIGMA by informing them of the new research pathways that can help them fight the illicit trafficking of cultural goods.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I still have doubts about how interesting it can be for the scientific community to publish a funding proposal for a project. This is certainly not what we usually do. If the authors want to raise awareness of the existence of the project, there are other more effective means such as creating their own website or using social media to build a community of interested people.
Unfortunately, the authors' response does not change my opinion about their article.
Author Response
There are two reasons in favor of this publ;ication:
- This is a special themed issue not a regular one. The focal point and the emphasis of the issue is the new horizons in precise measurements from images.
- The specific research project deals exactly with opening new scientific challenges, new technical issues and new colaborations between the disciplines of 3D Image Analysis and Security and Crime prevention.
