Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Digital Kunstkamera. 18th century: A Virtual Documentary and             

Artistic Reconstruction Experience” – Reviewer’s Comments

 

Authors should be consistent in use of double quotation marks throughout the text.

 

Keywords – should also include virtual museums

 

It would be appropriate to have Mattarnovi’s blueprint as an illustration as well as the 1924 drawing by Marselius

 

Authors should include bibliography that treats digital recording of museum exhibitions; there is a robust bibliography available through Google Scholar

 

It is not clear from the redacted bibliography contained in the article whether the authors included all pertinent bibliography regarding the historicity of the Kunstkamera of Peter the Great.

 

Are the authors available to report frankly on the budget limitations of the project?  If so, this might be included in the text with discussion of how financial considerations may have limited the details of virtual reconstruction.

 

It would be helpful if the author’s provided more information about the square footage of the interior and whether all internal rooms were treated to virtual reconstruction.

 

The authors admit that over time, there had been significant alterations to the interior space of the museum as well as to the display of objects.  There might be a discussion of why comparing the present exhibition space with the original was deemed important and were subsequent alterations of the interior space considered in the virtual exhibition.

 

Were specific objects selected for detailed viewing and, if so, what criteria were used?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review, recommendations on formatting, and detailed questions. Below are our answers to the questions that we found debatable. We have incorporated the remaining edits into the text. We provided more information about the square footage of the interior and whether all internal rooms were treated to virtual reconstruction. Also we provided criteria of objects' selection for detailed viewing.

Unfortunately, at this stage of the research and its publication, we are unable to obtain permission to publish the drawings. Nevertheless, for clarity, we have added a modern view of the Kunstkammer facade to the text to demonstrate how much it has changed since the first project.

The project was carried out with sponsorship money. The museum administration did not discuss the budget for all the work with us, partly because we carried out the reconstruction as full-time museum employees.

This project is an illustration of a historical cross-section. We are not comparing today's museum with its 18th-century version. The thesis about changes in the interior space and exhibits was intended to emphasize the importance of restoring the appearance of the 18th-century museum in a digital environment. This is important, among other things, because of the loss of architectural details and some items over time.

The updated text also contains amendments based on the second reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is interesting and valuable but it is not a research project. It is more an operational plan to carry out digitisation. 

What is missing:

1. Why is an artistic and documentary reconstruction important and who to? Is it only important to this museum or is it important to all museums? Is it important to people, if so, what people? And if so, is it then important to recognise and incorporate all the contested and parallel legacies of museums, not just the cabinet of curiosity version?
2. Related, I would also like to know if this is a digital twin project. Exploring the literature on digital twins and the reasons behind their development could help to situate this research within a more theoretical framework.
3. Why was the digitisation project designed the way it was? e.g. what was the theoretical framework that guided the development of the digitisation processes? It would be good to know more about how it was decided that archival documentation was important and the role it played. It was hinted at but needs more explication. I also want to know more about how all sources chosen contribute to a "coherent strategy" and what role the digital archive constructed from this work has in the ongoing storytelling and legacy of museums.
4. A complete discussion section and a separate conclusion. Once the paper has some context around why this project was important and its theoretical basis, it will support a rich discussion on the value and contribution of this project. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review, recommendations on formatting, and detailed questions. Below are our answers to the questions that we found debatable. We have incorporated the remaining edits into the text. 

In our project, we did not set ourselves the task of creating digital twins. The information available to us about the earliest period of the Kunstkammer's existence, concerning both its architecture and the composition and principles of exhibiting its collections, cannot be considered exhaustive from the point of view of creating a complete digital copy of the museum. When working with an object that has a long and fragmented archival history, there is always a gap between what can be considered a documented fact and the realm of speculation. 

The updated text also contains amendments based on the second reviewer's comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for updating the paper. Unfortunately, the research is still not adequately supported by scholarly inquiry, such as a literature review or a theoretical framework. The research questions provided are not grounded in scholarly inquiry but rather present technical operational project objectives. e.g. "accurately reconstruct a museum's appearance and exhibitions with limited source materials" lines 122 -123 while ensuring "consisten[cy]with the historical image of the museum and its digital strategy" lines 124 - 125 are operational goals, not scholarly questions that support research. 

As a result, I believe this paper is not suitable for the journal. 

It is possible to undertake a technical project that also explores scholarly inquiry. I encourage you to consider my feedback and:
1. Undertake a literature review to understand the scholarly discourse better and position your project within it. 

2. Identify and build your theoretical framework relevant to the project. 

3. Rewrite the research questions so that they represent scholarly inquiry reflecting your theoretical framework and project objectives. 

4. Include a discussion section in your paper that discusses how your research questions were answered and whether it extended the theoretical framework and literature that informed your research design and methodology. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English expression is generally good, but could be improved. Some sentences include more informal words or have unclear meanings. I encourage you to review each sentence and assess its clarity and value in your paper. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments on the text! We have attempted to correct text. We have consulted recent publications to answer the questions previously posted.