Enhancement of Geoheritage and Development of Geotourism: Comparison and Inferences from Different Experiences of Communication through Art

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I really appreciated reading your paper; I totally share your vision that field geologists should do their best to involve the lay public in their research. The use of music and poetry is a major added value, and so are the questionnaires you handed out to the participants. I attached a word file with some suggestions (most of all, two references which may be really worth including). I look forward to seeing the paper published on GEOSCIENCES. Best regards. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The focus of the article is to communicate science (in this case geology) with different languages: music, theater and poetry. In museums these methodologies are already proven and work very well. In the field, however, they are less applied and the authors have the merit of having done so. The effort to approach different audiences than usual in museums is now also a practice. I would suggest inserting the questionnaire referred to in line 380, for greater clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, please find my comments to your paper. Best wishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Although it is still a preliminar paper you made great improvements to clarify the text and your approaches, and especially you are honest with the data you have. Therefore I consider the paper should be published in the condition that you follow scientific protocols that can be compared among the different activities you have developed and replicated by others. Keep the good work!