“Świdermajer”, the Architecture of Historic Wooden Summer Villas in the Polish Landscape: A Study of Distinctive Features

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article still needs some restructuring and/or additional information. Do not start with historical context of your locality, but first describe and justify your research goal, provide research questions and most importantly introduce your study within a wider context of related research topics (for example, vernacular architecture, recreational landscape, second housing, built environment, housing, built heritage). Only than turn the attention to the detailed description of the research site. Similarly, the conclusion should again put your topic within a wider research context. In the conclusion use actively references to related or similar research topics and studies. Try to generalize and describe, what can a reader not particurarly interested in your case study locality, learn from your research to apply within his or her own experience.

Author Response

The article still needs some restructuring and/or additional information. Do not start with historical context of your locality, but first describe and justify your research goal, provide research questions and most importantly introduce your study within a wider context of related research topics (for example, vernacular architecture, recreational landscape, second housing, built environment, housing, built heritage).

The text has been supplemented by an introduction

Only than turn the attention to the detailed description of the research site. Similarly, the conclusion should again put your topic within a wider research context. In the conclusion use actively references to related or similar research topics and studies. Try to generalize and describe, what can a reader not particurarly interested in your case study locality, learn from your research to apply within his or her own experience.

In relation to the new proposals added after the previous revision, modifications have been made to address the issue more generally.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has much improved in clarity.

• Please translate the object card example in english (Figure 5);
• Some informations concerning the style and the building techniques are repeated in the introduction and in the results 3.1. Please move to the introduction any information that is already state of the art.
• The results should highlight what are YOUR findings. The discussion should be about how your findings are supported or not supported by previous research. Right now it is not clear to me what is new and what is previous research.
• I would suggest including, before the conclusions, a "limits" section where you systematically address all the existing limits to your research (and the difficulties of researching this topic in general). If so, please remove repetitions concerning the limits in the text.
• At the beginning of the conclusions, briefly remind the readers of the reasons and the importance of your research (1-2 sentences max).

Author Response

• Please translate the object card example in english (Figure 5);

the card has been translated in the description under the graphic

• Some informations concerning the style and the building techniques are repeated in the introduction and in the results 3.1. Please move to the introduction any information that is already state of the art.

part of the information in point 3.1 has been deleted or moved to the historical description.

• The results should highlight what are YOUR findings. The discussion should be about how your findings are supported or not supported by previous research. Right now it is not clear to me what is new and what is previous research.

The scope of previous research is described in Section 1.3 A State of the Research and further highlighted in the supplement regarding research limitations.

• I would suggest including, before the conclusions, a "limits" section where you systematically address all the existing limits to your research (and the difficulties of researching this topic in general). If so, please remove repetitions concerning the limits in the text.

Due to the volume of the text, basic information on the limitations of the study has been added in section 2 Materials and Methods

• At the beginning of the conclusions, briefly remind the readers of the reasons and the importance of your research (1-2 sentences max).

Minor modifications have been made to the proposals as recommended.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations for an interesting piece of work!  

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although I would appreciate, if the research aim and results would be presented with stronger connection to more general research topics (e.g. protection of built heritage, cultural values of architecture, recreational use of landscape), the article is acceptable. But  minor retructuring is needed as part 1.2 should precede part 1.1 so the aim of the study is described at the beginning of the text and reader does not have to search for the reasons deeper in the text of the article. It might also be possible to combine parts 1.2 and 1.3 in one part of the text. Please, provide support for your arguments in the conclusion (part 4) by mentioning references to related publications. For example, you mention the need for comparative research of the Swiss-style architecture, but provide no references to similar studies outside the area of your interest. Abstract of the article also needs some improvements. Do not use any numbered points in the abstract. Structure the abstract so that it provides information on the following in the suggested order: aims and general context, methods, major results, general conclusions.

Author Response

Thank You for Your comments,

chapters 1.2 and 1.3 were moved before 1.1. 

however, the need for a deeper appreciation of alpine architecture in juxtaposition with the architecture of swidermayer is another phase of the planned research. its importance has become even more apparent during the development of the article and the reviewers' comments. This is why I have humbly included two interesting publications on this subject yet.

The abstract has been re-modelled in line with the guidelines.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The caption of figure 5 is very long and too detailed. I would recommend inserting the description within the text at an appropriate place.

In my opinion, part 3.1. "Analysis of the resource value" should not be part of the results section but could be inserted in an "analysis" section before the results. 

Author Response

The caption of figure 5 is very long and too detailed. I would recommend inserting the description within the text at an appropriate place.

The cards have been adapted to the comments and new english version cards are added

In my opinion, part 3.1. "Analysis of the resource value" should not be part of the results section but could be inserted in an "analysis" section before the results

A new 'analyses' chapter has been created

Thank You for Your comments

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Detailed comments are in the paper.

The topic seems interesting but the paper needs major restructuring and rewriting. Contents should be presented in a more straightforward and structured manner. Main clarifications needed concern the research gap, the methods and the results seem incomplete.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a very interesting study on a traditional wooden architecture typology, with an amazing research on historical notes, technological solutions and representation systems.

It is suggested to integrate the references also with similar international study cases that can support the method of the research. It is also suggested to extend the conclusions, with more details regarding the future perspectives of the research, also considering the correlation with other similar architectural typologies, or the cultural impact in the context.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article focuses on an interesting topic that might fit well within the journal, however it needs some improvements.

Please, rewrite the abstract according to the following suggestions. Do not use bold letters in the body of the abstract. The abstract should present following information consecutively: the goal of your study (one or two sentences, do not give extensive list of research questions), prerequisities and research context, methods used, major findings, conclusions (i.e. what a reader may take from your study on a general level).

For the article itself, to give a clear message and be understandable, it also needs major restructuring. Do not start with historical context of your locality. The second part should not be "Results and discussion", then only followed by "Materials and methods". Please start with the introduction where you describe and justify your research goal, provide research questions and most importantly introduce your study within a wider context of related research topics (for example, vernacular architecture, recreational landscape, second housing, built environment, housing, built heritage). Only then follow with the description and discussion of your material, methods and findings. Provide proper conclusions, the conclusions should not just summarize your study and its outcomes, but should again put your topic within a wider research context. In the conclusion use actively references to related or similar research topics and studies. Try to generalize and describe, what can a reader not particurarly interested in your case study locality, learn from your research to apply within his or her own experience.