Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and unusually transparent qualitative study that makes a genuine conceptual contribution: distinguishing engagement from perceived historical authenticity as separable, sometimes conflicting evaluative dimensions when viewers compare differently processed versions of an archival film. The literature synthesis (media psychology, film-restoration theory, memory studies) is well integrated rather than merely listed, and the reflexivity/limitations section already anticipates several of the concerns below. This is commendable and rare.

However, several issues should be addressed:

1. The same researcher (a) produced V2 and V3, (b) conducted the CVA, (c) coded all 60 ARA transcripts alone using a fixed framework, and (d) translated the Turkish responses into English for reporting. No second coder, inter-rater reliability check, or independent back-translation is reported. The manuscript cites Tracy (2010) on reflexive transparency, but transparency about a conflict is not the same as mitigating it. Please clarify whether any of the following were done, and if not, add this explicitly as a named limitation (not just implied by "the researcher's involvement... required attention"): (a) a second coder for even a subsample of transcripts, (b) a check of translated quotations by an independent bilingual reader, (c) any audit trail or peer debriefing process.
2. Section 2.4 states that "Participant information described the study's concern with restoration and colorization, so evaluations were made with awareness of that research context." This is a non-trivial validity threat specific to the paper's central dependent variable (perceived authenticity), knowing the study is about restoration/colorization could itself prime skepticism toward V2/V3 or inflate scrutiny of "artificiality." This deserves explicit discussion as a limitation, not just a procedural note.
3. This is already acknowledged as a limitation, but it should be foregrounded earlier and more forcefully, currently the Abstract and Results (Section 3) sometimes speak of "V3" and "colorization" almost interchangeably (e.g., Table 4 labels: "Gain C / Loss C" attributed to colorization specifically), when V3 also includes retiming and audio treatment. Please ensure that every claim attributing a specific audience reaction to "colorization" per se is scoped correctly, since the coding scheme (Gain C/Loss C) risks implying more precision than the confounded design supports.
4. Table 3's participant counts (e.g., "38/60 chose V1 for authenticity") function almost as quantitative findings, and Sandelowski (2001) is cited to justify this. This is a defensible qualitative practice, but the manuscript should state more explicitly, near Table 3 itself (not only in Section 2.5), that these are not inferential statistics and carry no claim to distributional generalizability, the current framing is careful but a reader skimming Table 3 alone could over-interpret it.
5. The three viewing phases use different question sets (5 items after V1, 5 comparative after V2, 8 comparative after V3), which the Limitations section acknowledges reduces cross-phase comparability. Given this is central to how RQ1/RQ2 are answered, I would recommend moving this point up from Section 4.5 into the main Discussion (4.1–4.2), since it directly qualifies the headline authenticity result (V1 dominance could partly reflect that the final, most authoritative-sounding comparative question was only asked once, at the end, after fatigue/order effects had accumulated).
6. The manuscript is essentially a film/media-reception study using qualitative methods; its connection to Behavioral Sciences' core scope rests mainly on the "media psychology" framing (Detenber, Reber, Yamashiro). This is defensible but the authors could strengthen fit by foregrounding the psychological mechanisms (processing fluency, temporal-distance perception) slightly more in the framing of the Discussion's implications, rather than ending on curatorial/archival-practice recommendations (Section 4.4), which read more like a film-studies or heritage-studies conclusion than a behavioral-science one.
7. Table 4's "Aspect of reception" column is a useful addition; consider adding one qualifying phrase per quote noting whether the participant expressed any reservation elsewhere in their responses (a few already do this in text, e.g., A2-02, but the table itself doesn't flag it).
8. Please confirm whether "9 out of 10 reviewers fill in all questions" boilerplate (this appears to be system text, ignore).
9. Consider explicitly stating in the Method whether questionnaire order (V1→V2→V3, etc.) was randomly assigned to subgroups or assigned by convenience, the manuscript states three cyclic sequences but not the allocation method to individuals within a cohort.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I hope the comments and suggestions provided above will assist the authors in further developing and strengthening the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The manuscript examines how viewers evaluate different digital versions of archival films, focusing on the relationship between engagement and perceived historical authenticity. I consider the clarity of the research questions, the attention given to participants’ accounts, and the explicit discussion of the study’s limitations to be strengths. Nevertheless, I believe that the original contribution needs to be articulated more clearly and that certain analytical decisions require fuller justification.

1. The study’s contribution to the literature should be articulated more clearly. The differences between viewers’ viewing preferences, judgments of historical authenticity, and assessments of what should be passed on to future generations constitute a noteworthy finding. However, how this finding advances existing knowledge is not yet sufficiently clear. I recommend explaining the contribution in terms of the evaluative criteria that viewers prioritize for different purposes.
2. I consider it necessary to distinguish the central concepts more carefully in the analysis. Combining authenticity with realism, and visual engagement with entertainment, within the questions may have led participants to respond to different meanings. It would be useful to re-examine the reasoning in the existing responses in light of these distinctions. However, distinctions unsupported by the responses should not be imposed, and ambiguous and conditional evaluations should be retained.
3. Participant-level comparisons should be strengthened. Although Table 3 presents the overall distribution of preferences, it does not systematically show how the same participant’s viewing, authenticity, and preservation preferences differ. I recommend including a cross-tabulation illustrating these relationships, accompanied by a brief analysis of the reasons given. This would make it clearer how the principal finding rests on the dataset as a whole rather than solely on selected quotations.
4. The influence of viewing order and repeated exposure on interpretations should be made more explicit. I regard the balancing of presentation positions across versions positively; however, this arrangement does not fully eliminate the influence of the preceding version on subsequent evaluations. Furthermore, the questions differ across phases. I recommend presenting final preferences by viewing sequence and avoiding attributing changes in evaluations solely to the characteristics of the versions.
5. The traceability of the technical comparison and coding decisions should be improved. Some criticisms of V3 may relate to processing artifacts in this particular version rather than to modernization itself. I recommend presenting the characteristics of the source copy, scene-level interventions, and connections between the CVA and participants’ responses in a supplementary table. Explaining, with examples, the rules used to classify primary, mixed, and conditional preferences would also strengthen confidence in the analysis.
6. Additional information about the sample and study procedures should be provided. How participants were recruited, the general characteristics of the sample, and the comprehensibility of the English narration are important for assessing the context of the findings. I recommend reporting this information in aggregate form to the extent permitted by the available records. Characteristics that were not recorded should be explicitly acknowledged as limitations.
7. The discussion’s engagement with the relevant literature could be deepened. In particular, it would be useful to connect interpretations concerning family narratives and the cultural significance of handicraft practices with more specific studies. In this regard, Lace as a Cultural Element in Turkish Home Decoration (2025; DOI: 10.1080/14759756.2025.2450116) could be considered for the discussion of intergenerational transmission in Section 4.3.

Overall, I believe that the study has meaningful publication potential. To realize this potential, I recommend prioritizing a more systematic examination of the existing data, clarifying the conceptual distinctions, and reformulating the contribution on the basis of this analysis. Practical recommendations, such as providing access to multiple versions and labeling interventions, should also be presented separately from findings that have been directly tested.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes a valuable contribution to the special issue by bringing together archival film, audience reception, media psychology, perceived historical authenticity, nostalgia and cultural memory. The central problem is clearly stated from the beginning: digital treatments of archival film can make historical images more accessible, but they can also change how viewers judge the authenticity of what they are seeing. This is a timely and important question, especially given the increasing use of restoration, enhancement, colorization and AI-assisted image treatment in the public presentation of archival material.

The title and abstract on page 1 are effective. The phrase “When the Past Looks Present” captures the central tension of the article very well. The abstract also clearly identifies the three versions of Almost Arcady: V1 as the source black-and-white baseline, V2 as the restored and enhanced black-and-white version, and V3 as the modernized version with colorization, selected-scene retiming and limited audio treatment. It also summarizes the main finding well: engagement preferences were distributed across the versions, while perceived historical authenticity mainly favored V1. This is one of the article’s strongest contributions.

The introduction is well contextualized. On pages 1–3, the article brings together film restoration scholarship, media psychology, processing fluency, perceived authenticity, temporal proximity, cultural memory and nostalgia. The distinction between “engagement” and “perceived historical authenticity” is especially useful. The manuscript makes clear that viewers may find a version easier, clearer or more engaging, while still regarding another version as more historically credible. This is a strong conceptual foundation for the study.

The research questions on pages 4–5 are clear and appropriate. RQ1 asks how Turkish Cypriot viewers negotiate engagement and perceived historical authenticity across the source baseline, restored version and modernized version. RQ2 asks how audiovisual characteristics such as clarity, monochrome or color presentation, motion and culturally situated memories enter viewers’ explanations. These questions match the study design well.

The methods section on pages 5–9 is detailed and transparent. The combination of Comparative Version Analysis and Audience Reception Analysis works well. The manuscript gives useful information about the 60 Turkish Cypriot participants, the two age cohorts, the three cyclic viewing sequences, the open-ended written questionnaires, and the Framework Analysis approach. The description of the three versions on pages 6–7 is particularly important because it makes clear that V3 is not a simple color-only comparison. It combines colorization, selected-scene retiming, limited audio treatment, grading and added grain. This transparency is a strength.

I also appreciated the ethical and reflexive detail in the method section. The study states that participants completed the questionnaires in Turkish, that coding was conducted from the original Turkish responses, and that English renderings were prepared for reporting. The article also acknowledges that the same researcher produced the processed versions and conducted the analysis. This is important and should be retained, because it shows awareness of the researcher’s role in both the production and interpretation of the materials.

The results are clearly presented. Table 3 on page 10 is one of the most useful parts of the article. It shows that visual engagement or entertainment was distributed across V1, V2 and V3, while historical authenticity and preservation preferences strongly favored V1. This table gives the article a clear empirical centre. The distinction between engagement, authenticity and preservation is also well supported by the participant quotations in Table 4.

The analysis around page 10 is especially strong when it shows that individual participants could separate different kinds of value. For example, some participants preferred V3 because it helped them notice details or made the material feel more visually engaging, while still selecting V1 as the most authentic version. Others preferred V2 because it made viewing more comfortable while retaining a historical black-and-white appearance. These examples show that viewers were not simply choosing “old” or “new,” but making more nuanced judgments.

The discussion of clarity, motion and historical distance on pages 12–15 is also useful. The manuscript explains that V2’s cleaner image could support attention and comfort, while V3’s color and smoother presentation could make the past feel closer or more contemporary. At the same time, some participants found V3 artificial or historically distancing. This is an important finding and could perhaps be foregrounded even more clearly in the discussion: modernization may increase accessibility, but it may also make the archival image feel less historically grounded.

The section on “Cultural Familiarity, Nostalgia, and Critical Distance” on pages 12–13 and again in the discussion on pages 16–17 is one of the article’s most interesting contributions. The examples of bread making, textile work, family stories, grandparents, familiar places and remembered practices give the article cultural depth. I particularly appreciated that the manuscript does not treat nostalgia as automatic or uniform. Some participants felt nostalgic, while others were critical, bored, uncomfortable or attentive to the colonial framing. This is a strong and balanced interpretation.

The discussion of the colonial travelogue context is also important. On page 4, the manuscript explains that Almost Arcady is a British colonial travelogue that presents Cyprus through an exoticizing and pastoral gaze. Later, on pages 12–13 and 16, participants’ comments about English narration, British framing and the absence or underrepresentation of some communities are used carefully. The article shows that viewers can feel connection to familiar cultural practices while also criticizing the viewpoint through which those practices are presented. This is an important strength of the article.

The conclusion on pages 17–18 is well supported by the results. The article does not claim that one digital treatment is universally better than another. Instead, it argues for a version-plural approach: retaining the source baseline, identifying restored and modernized derivatives clearly, and explaining the interventions made. This is a practical and valuable conclusion for archives, museums, educators and public-facing heritage platforms.

The bibliography is already strong, but the article could be made even stronger by adding a few references that would support its archival, historical and memory-based framing. Jaimie Baron’s The Archive Effect: Found Footage and the Audiovisual Experience of History would be especially useful for the article’s discussion of archival footage as an experience of historical evidence, mediated pastness and viewer perception. Annette Kuhn’s “Memory texts and memory work: Performances of memory in and with visual media” would also support the sections on family narratives, remembered practices, grandparents’ stories and the relationship between private memory and visual media. I would also suggest Akser, Murat. “Towards a new historiography of Turkish cinema.” In New Cinema, New Media: Reinventing Turkish Cinema, pp. 43–66. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. This reference could help frame the study as part of a wider move toward new archival and historical approaches in film studies, especially where the article connects old film material, historical representation, local memory and renewed digital access. These references do not need to be added at length, but they would help position the article more clearly within scholarship on archival reception, visual memory and historical film research.

The article is strong but quite dense in places. The literature review and method sections are intellectually careful, but some paragraphs carry many concepts at once: engagement, appreciation, temporal proximity, processing fluency, perceived authenticity, cultural memory and nostalgia. The authors may wish to add a few short signposting sentences at the end of pages 3 and 4, briefly reminding readers how these concepts lead into the two research questions. This would make the article easier to follow for readers outside archival film studies or media psychology.

The term “perceived historical authenticity” is well defined on page 3, but the questionnaire wording later combines “authenticity,” “truthfulness” and “realism.” The article already notes that participants sometimes distinguished these terms, for example when one participant described V1 as authentic and V3 as realistic. A brief clarification in the method section, around pages 7–8, would help. The authors could explain that the study treats these terms as participant-interpreted categories rather than as fixed psychological measures. This point is already present, but it could be made slightly more visible earlier.

The results section would benefit from a short preview at the beginning of page 10. Before moving into Table 3, the authors might add two or three sentences explaining the overall structure of the results: engagement and authenticity are compared, then clarity, motion and historical distance are examined, then cultural familiarity, nostalgia and critical distance are discussed, and finally preservation preferences are considered. This would help readers navigate the results.

The practical recommendation about labels and version transparency is one of the article’s most useful contributions. On pages 16–17, the article suggests concise labels identifying the source baseline, restored monochrome version and interpretive colorized/retimed version. This recommendation could be made more concrete by giving one example of what such labels might look like, for example: “Source black-and-white digital baseline,” “Restored black-and-white version: stabilized and cleaned,” and “Modernized interpretive version: colorized, retimed and audio-treated.” This would make the article’s archival implications more practical.

The limitations section on page 17 is honest and well written. It notes the short excerpt, purposive sample, combined interventions in V3, repeated viewing design, lack of follow-up probing, researcher involvement and absence of long-term memory or well-being measures. The point about V3 combining several interventions is especially important. It may be useful to mention this earlier in the method section as well, so readers remember throughout the results that responses to V3 cannot be attributed to colorization alone.

The English is good overall, but a light copyedit would improve readability. Some sentences could be shortened, especially in the introduction and methodology. The manuscript is not unclear, but it is sometimes densely phrased. A copyedit should focus on flow rather than substance.

Please also check tables and appendices for formatting before publication. In the PDF version, some table entries appear split by line breaks or hyphenation, for example in Table 1, Table A2, Table A3 and the codebook in Appendix B. This is not a conceptual problem, but final formatting should ensure that the version definitions, questionnaire items and codebook categories are easy to read.

Overall, this is a high-quality article. It is original, methodologically careful, theoretically well grounded and clearly relevant to the special issue. Its strongest contribution is the distinction between visual engagement, perceived historical authenticity and preservation value in the reception of digitally treated archival film. With minor revisions to improve signposting, clarify terminology, add a few relevant references, make the practical recommendations more concrete, and polish the language and formatting, the article will be ready for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has a clear research question, a complete methodology, and good qualitative materials; the research design is also distinctive. However, the biggest problem is not the English or format, but rather that “the behavioral/psychological contribution to Behavioral Sciences is not prominent enough” and that “the analytical credibility and theoretical contribution of the qualitative research can be further strengthened.”

Major Revision

1. Introduction & Literature Review — Repositioning the Research Question and Theoretical Contributions

The current paper leans towards the discussion of "archival film restoration/film studies." Please refocus on audience psychology/behavioral response. Integrate concepts such as engagement, perceived authenticity, and cultural memory to clearly establish the research gap and theoretical framework between psychology and behavior.

 

2. Methods — Strengthening Qualitative Research Design and Research Credibility

Integrate issues related to sample selection, viewing order, coding, translation, researcher positionality, and single-researcher execution. Supplement explanations of credibility, dependency, confirmability, and transferability; avoid interpreting a research design with 60 participants as achieving theoretical saturation.

 

3. Stimulus Design — Clarifying the Manipulation and Inference Scope of the Three Digital Versions

Especially V3, please specifically state that it is a composite version of colorization + retiming + audio treatment; therefore, the study cannot infer the "colorization effect" alone. It is recommended to add a version difference table and avoid overly causal statements in the Results/Discussion sections.

 

4. Results — Elevating from Descriptive Data to Comparative Analysis

Reduce individual quotation and focus on cross-version comparisons, integrating three main findings: engagement, historical authenticity, and preservation preference. Incorporate exceptions/counter examples to give the analysis greater qualitative depth.

 

5. Discussion — Strengthening Core Theoretical Findings and Behavioral Sciences Implications

Focus the Discussion on three core propositions:

Engagement ≠ perceived historical authenticity;

Audiovisual transformation influences viewers' judgments of "historical feel";

Cultural familiarity/personal memory can increase engagement, but not necessarily authenticity judgment.

Further explain the contributions of these findings to digital heritage, media psychology, and audience research.

 

6. Conclusion — Converging Research Contributions and Avoiding Over-extension

Reorganize theoretical contributions, practical implications, and limitations. Retain the "version-plural approach" as a practical suggestion, but avoid extending to long-term memory, identity, well-being, or behavioral change, which were not measured in this study.

 

Minor Revision

7. Abstract & Keywords — Enhancing Journal's Consistency: The abstract directly presents the research objective, methods, main findings, and theoretical implications, and includes keywords such as audience engagement, perceived authenticity, and digital transformation.

 

8. References & Formatting — Completing Technical Corrections for Submission: Standardize MDPI format, supplement relevant literature from 2021–2026, and check submission information such as DOI/reference consistency, figure/table, ethical review, AI disclosure, and data availability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made improvements that go beyond the previous version. In terms of its current quality, I believe the article is ready for publication and meets the journal's quality standards.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the encouraging assessment and for recognizing the improvements made in the previous revision. We appreciate the recommendation that the manuscript is ready for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments. I have no further substantive comments and support the publication of the manuscript in its present form.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for confirming that the previous comments were satisfactorily addressed and for supporting publication of the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The second draft submitted by the authors has been reviewed. It's not merely a matter of textual polishing; it represents a substantial revision in terms of research focus, methodological transparency, results interpretation, and theoretical contributions. In particular, the authors now clearly acknowledge that V3 is a composite version comprised of various digital processing techniques and are more cautious in addressing limitations such as qualitative sampling, viewing order, and the researcher's role.

However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed before submission. The relevant suggestions are as follows:

1. Introduction: Clearer Research Focus, but Still Can Be Further Concise

The second draft no longer simply introduces digital restoration techniques but focuses on "how the way images are presented influences viewers' judgments of engagement and historical credibility." The authors also clearly distinguish between the historical authenticity perceived by viewers and the actual historical source of the film, avoiding treating viewers' subjective judgments as historical verification.

This aligns with the previous suggestion to "strengthen the psychological/behavioral research focus of Behavioral Sciences."

 

2. Areas for Improvement in Literature Review

• The literature review still covers multiple concepts such as engagement, processing fluency, temporal proximity, authenticity, cultural memory, and nostalgia.
• While the concepts are relatively clearly defined, their hierarchical relationships still need to be presented more explicitly.

It is recommended to avoid adding a large amount of new literature and instead use a concise conceptual summary to explain:

• Core evaluation: engagement, perceived historical authenticity.
• Important context: cultural familiarity, personal/family memory.
• Supporting explanations: processing fluency, temporal proximity, nostalgia.

This can reduce the risk of theoretical fragmentation.

 

3. Methods: The limitations of version manipulation have been handled quite comprehensively.

This is one of the most important advancements in the second edition.

The authors have clearly stated that V3 combines colorization, selective adjustment of dynamic range, audio processing, image texture, and other visual adjustments, and directly point out that audience reactions cannot be attributed solely to colorization.

This effectively addresses the previous round of questions regarding composite manipulation and causal inference.

One detail still needs attention: the coding table in Appendix B still uses labels such as Gain C and Loss C, which are linked to colorization. Although the text states that these labels record participants' perceived gains or losses from colorization, rather than experimentally isolated technical effects, readers may still be misled into believing that the study has identified independent effects of colorization.

It is recommended to use consistent terminology in the coding tables and related descriptions to clearly distinguish:

• Participants' subjective feelings attributed to colorization;
• Differences actually observed between versions V2 and V3 by the researchers;
• Individual technical effects that this study could not independently verify.

 

4. Methods: The descriptions of sample size and viewing order have been improved.

The second edition explains that the sample planning was to balance the two age groups and three viewing orders, rather than deciding to stop recruitment based on saturation assessment; age group comparisons have also been limited to descriptive analysis.

Regarding viewing order, the authors also explicitly acknowledge that a balanced arrangement was used rather than randomization, and that the effects of repeated viewing and previous versions could not be excluded.

These approaches are correct, and there is no need to force inferential statistics to respond to reviewer comments.

However, if the original data is still available, it is recommended to add a simple descriptive sensitivity test: compare whether the main preferences under the three viewing orders show significantly different patterns. If the data is insufficient to support this analysis, the current limitations should be retained, and it is inappropriate to claim that order effects have been ruled out.

 

5. Methods: The credibility of qualitative research has improved, but not completely resolved.

The second edition has added the following information:

• Coding in the original Turkish language.
• Colleagues have checked the semantics of some English citations against the original text.
• Original responses, coding matrices, and scenario analysis records are retained.
• It states that the researcher was responsible for version creation, comparative analysis, coding, and theoretical labeling.
• It explicitly acknowledges the absence of a second coder, inter-coder consistency assessment, or formal peer debriefing.

This is more transparent and more in line with the reporting principles of qualitative research than simply claiming the research is credible.

It is recommended to reconfirm: Did the authors actually conduct discussions with their advisors, review of research records, or other peer reviews? If so, the actual procedures should be described in detail; if not, it is not necessary to add procedures that were not performed. With the existing data, the most important thing is to truthfully state the possibility of researcher bias and the degree of traceability provided by the audit records.

 

6. Results: Comparative analysis is more powerful, but consistency of concepts still needs to be checked.

The second edition integrates three important results in Table 3:

Criterion	V1	V2	V3	Mixed or no single choice
Engagement／entertainment (Q3.3)	17	18	20	5
Historical authenticity／realism (Q3.2)	38	15	0	7
Preservation preference (Q3.8)	38	12	5	5

 

Furthermore, Table 5 shows that among the 50 people who could identify a single version preference for both engagement and authenticity, 27 people chose different versions for each aspect. This is more analytically valuable than simply listing the number of people who preferred each version.

Two points still need attention:

1). The questionnaire questions grouped authenticity and realism, engagement and entertainment into the same question. The author acknowledges that these concepts were not used as independent psychometric indicators and cannot be suddenly presented as separately validated constructs in the Discussion section.

2). The citations in Table 4 and the participants' background information help explain exceptions, but the Results section could still be streamlined with a few repetitions.

 

7. Discussion: Theoretical contributions have begun to emerge, representing another important advancement.

The second edition no longer merely states which version is more popular, but further discusses:

• Image clarity may improve viewing comfort, but does not necessarily enhance historical credibility.
• Color and other audiovisual processing may make images more relatable to viewers' familiar contemporary viewing experiences, but may also evoke a sense of artificiality or distrust.
• Personal memory and cultural familiarity can increase the personal meaning of images, but do not necessarily determine viewers' judgments of the authenticity of a version.
• Viewers' cultural identification with the content of images may still coexist with critiques of colonial narratives.

Most importantly, the author points out that processing fluency, temporal distance, and nostalgia were not measured independently; therefore, the related discussions are explanations of participants' responses, rather than validated psychological causal mechanisms. This helps the article connect with readers of *Behavioral Sciences*.

A suggestion for further improvement: The Discussion should ideally use a single paragraph to clearly state the incremental contribution of this study compared to existing research, rather than simply linking the results to different theories one by one. Consider the following three points as a structural framework:

1). Conceptual contribution: Engagement and perceived historical authenticity are partially independent evaluative dimensions.

2). Interpretive contribution: Historical perception comes not only from content but is also influenced by viewers' existing perceptions of black-and-white images, image wear and tear, and contemporary audiovisual styles.

3). Cultural contribution: Cultural familiarity and personal memory can form emotional connections, but this does not necessarily mean that viewers accept the film's original historical narrative.

These three points should remain qualitative explanations supported by the data in this study and should not be extended into proven universal psychological laws.

 

8. Minor Revision: Abstract and Keywords

The abstract has been improved; the research design, version differences, and main findings are explained quite clearly. However, it is still recommended to check whether the terminology in the abstract is completely consistent with the main text.

For example, the abstract uses the concepts of "engagement preferences" and "perceived historical authenticity judgments." These two concepts should remain the primary focus of the analysis, and readers should not be misled in the abstract or keywords into believing that the study measured independent psychological scales or causal effects.

Keywords can also be further simplified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx