Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Seismic Evaluation and Methods of Rehabilitation of Old Masonry Buildings in The Bay of Kotor" suggests the seismic risk assessment and rehabilitation methodology for architectural heritages focusing on masonry structure. Despite the interesting work behind it, in the reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form, mainly because of insufficient quality in the discussion. The scientific and engineering results are not critically analysed, and the discussions section does not provide a sufficient answer to the research question. Additionally, the research objectives, originality, and key arguments would be more specified and clearer.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We, the authors, have given a more precise description on the questions asked in the comments of  reviever 1 and rewiever 2.  Reviever 3 had no remarks. We have written the paper so as not to break its concept.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a description about masonry buildings in the bay of Kotor (Montenegro), accounting for the details and the parameters that influence the seismic behavior of these structures. The paper is also interesting and well written, but it reports very few technical information, considering the full state of the art about this topic available in the scientific literature. In addition, authors defined some levels of interventions, which have not been well-explained. 

I suggest to consider a major revision of the paper (some comments are provided in the attached PDF file), before to consider the paper suitable for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We, the authors, have given a more precise description on the questions. 

Best regards,

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Even though there is no real novelty since similar researches have been conducted in other countries, the paper is pleasant to read. It is a useful casehistory for Montenegro so I recommend publishing it. I do not feel qualified to judge English writing, but please, double check it

Author Response

Dear Sir,

We, the authors, have given a more precise description on the questions.

Best regards,

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript considering the reviewer's comments. The quality of the paper has improved. For the further research methodologies to the seismic risk assessment or performance evaluation of architectural heritages based on the engineering point of view, the previous research papers like below and their references could be referred to.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1665143

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9066-5

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-251-2013

https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2011.557138

Author Response

Please see the attachment below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After the reviews made by authors, the paper is suitable for publication

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx