Enhancing the Digital Inheritance and Development of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage Paper-Cutting Through Stable Diffusion LoRA Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

thank you for providing an interesting article about paper cutting and AI models use. 

Overall opinion: 

the paper has a good quality of writing style and a logical order of chapters and development of the thesis and results.

Specific minor changes requested: 

in the introduction (lines 52-57) first you have put the Law from 2011 then in this context the Unesco and National ICH. 

In introduction some references might be added:

As expected in lines 27 to 130 AI systems usually focus on technical sides, data optimization, algorithms. 

Are there any other AI systems like Lora that use the cultural features as priority? Or in cultural heritage ?

this should be reversed, because first came the ICH in 2006 and 2009 , then the Law in 2011. 

In methodology

the sample is very modest for the Chinese population

only 57 participants ? and them only from the academy world (students and professors)

no artisans or peasants and they should be the most concerned because this is their culture and hand craft

if some strong and significant results will be shown at least according to the regional population teh sample should be at least with 1000 participants

Similar in Results

lines 616 - 620

about artisans an peasants that create such paper cutting images, how would this AI impact their work?

A sample of them should be involved in the survey.

In conclusions

what do You expect the AI will do ?

duplicate human work

what about the intelectual property rights? it will belomg to the ICT secor or AI Lora program and not to the people in the future ?

they may sell this knowledge and put property or registry protection and no people may create such pape cutting in the future. 

state some opinions about these problems

Kind regards, 

the reviewer 

 

 

Author Response

RE: applsci-3323648 “Enhancing the Digital Inheritance and Development of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage Paper-Cutting through Stable Diffusion LoRA Models”

Dear referee,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and changes are highlighted in the additional copy of manuscript for further review. (Marked in red)

Overall, based on your feedback, I focused on revising the introduction, methodology, discussion, and conclusion sections. I carefully reviewed each of your comments and made the corresponding modifications to the manuscript. Below is a point-by-point response, with all changes highlighted in the manuscript for your reference. Your valuable feedback has enhanced the clarity and coherence of the article, and I hope these revisions meet with your approval.

 

1. Comments:

In the introduction (lines 52-57) first you have put the Law from 2011 then in this context the Unesco and National ICH. 

Response:

Thank you for your correction. In the introduction, I have adjusted the content order to first mention UNESCO recognition in 2006 and the designation of national intangible cultural heritage projects in 2009, followed by the 2011 law. This adjustment better reflects the historical timeline and enhances the coherence of the introduction. (lines 66-70)

 

2. Comments:

As expected in lines 27 to 130 AI systems usually focus on technical sides, data optimization, algorithms. Are there any other AI systems like Lora that use the cultural features as priority? Or in cultural heritage ? This should be reversed, because first came the ICH in 2006 and 2009, then the Law in 2011.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we added content in the introduction (lines 52-65) that discusses relevant research on the application of AI in cultural heritage preservation. This includes an overview of AI’s advantages in heritage detection, restoration, classification, and the digital preservation of intangible cultural heritage, as well as the integration of AI with technologies like hyperspectral imaging and augmented reality. Additionally, we adjusted the order of the content to reflect the historical timeline, mentioning the ICH projects in 2006 and 2009 first, followed by the 2011 Law. These adjustments improve the completeness and logical flow of the introduction.

 

3. Comments:

In methodology, the sample size is very modest for the Chinese population. Only 57 participants? And all from the academic world (students and professors), with no artisans or peasants, who are the most concerned as this is their culture and craft. If strong and significant results are to be demonstrated, a sample size of at least 1,000 participants should be considered, reflecting the regional population.

Response:

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. I fully understand the importance of including a broader range of participants, especially those directly involved in the preservation of traditional crafts. Initially, the sample did include intangible cultural heritage practitioners, though most were teachers and students. Based on your feedback, I made every effort to expand the sample size, ultimately recruiting 321 professionals from fields such as design, fine arts, cultural communication, intangible cultural heritage preservation, and traditional crafts to ensure a comprehensive representation of groups closely related to cultural heritage (lines 373-377). Additionally, section 4.2 (lines 473-560) has been revised to update demographic information and IPA results to reflect this expanded participant base. Although these adjustments led to minor changes in the results, they remain consistent with the original research objectives. The survey was conducted in November to ensure broad representation and reliable data collection. For the 57 participants unable to attend in person, a remote participation option was provided to ensure the survey's completeness and smooth data collection. The survey questionnaire has been revised to obtain experimental data, which is included in the attachment.

 

4. Comments:

Lines 616 – 620, about artisans an peasants that create such paper cutting images, how would this AI impact their work? A sample of them should be involved in the survey.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. I recognize the importance of understanding the impact of AI on the work of artisans and traditional practitioners. In response, I have expanded the discussion section (lines 641–643 and 648–652) to include future plans, such as increasing the survey sample size, improving the scientific rigor of the questionnaire design, and exploring the supportive role of AI in the creative process. Future research will focus further on these aspects to deepen the understanding of AI's multifaceted role in cultural heritage preservation and innovation. Thank you again for highlighting this perspective.

 

5. Comments:

In conclusions, what do You expect the AI will do ? duplicate human work what about the intelectual property rights? it will belomg to the ICT secor or AI Lora program and not to the people in the future ? they may sell this knowledge and put property or registry protection and no people may create such pape cutting in the future. 

Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, I have added a discussion in the conclusion section (lines 688–692) regarding the role of AI technology in cultural heritage preservation and issues related to intellectual property rights. The content notes that, with the rapid advancement of AI and open-source technology, the LoRA model will likely be replaced by more advanced technologies. To avoid the creative limitations that may arise from technology privatization, we suggest maintaining an openness to new technologies to foster the innovative preservation and shared transmission of intangible cultural heritage.

 

 

Finally, thank you once again for your valuable suggestions on this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work, and we hope that the revisions meet with your approval.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the opportunity to review and offer my feedback on the manuscript titled "Enhancing the Digital Inheritance and Development of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage Paper-Cutting through Stable Diffusion LoRA Models". This article addresses an interesting theme in the field of digital preservation of intangible cultural heritage, as the paper explores in particular the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to identify core cultural elements ("Spring Festival," "Chinese Zodiac," "Women," and "Birds and Flowers") that ensures the AI models are trained on the most representative and valuable aspects of paper-cutting tradition.

This article presents a new perspective, as the study demonstrates the LoRA model's ability to generate intricate paper-cutting patterns and reproduce complex Chinese character designs. The article is well presented, with methodological explanations incorporated within the narrative to increase overall coherence. The tables and figures effectively highlight the key findings of the research.

However, there are some minor observations that deserve attention and revision in subsequent drafts of the manuscript:

- revise position for chapter title 2. Literature Review

- for section “4.2. IPA User Survey Results” please detail the “remote methods” used and the period of time the survey took place

- for Figure 2. please correct word “Spring Festival”

- for section “3.1.1. Establishing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model” please provide detailed information about the experts and the period of time the meeting took place

- the concept of “the twelve zodiac animals and birds (animals)” is used, please add all the specific 12 zodiac animals and birds (animals) in the text for better understanding.

Author Response

RE: applsci-3323648 “Enhancing the Digital Inheritance and Development of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage Paper-Cutting through Stable Diffusion LoRA Models”

 

Dear referee,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript. The manuscript has been revised and changes are highlighted in the additional copy of manuscript for further review. (Marked in blue)

Overall, based on your feedback, I focused on revising the introduction, methodology, discussion, and conclusion sections. I carefully reviewed each of your comments and made the corresponding modifications to the manuscript. Below is a point-by-point response, with all changes highlighted in the manuscript for your reference. Your valuable feedback has enhanced the clarity and coherence of the article, and I hope these revisions meet with your approval.

 

1. Comments:

- revise position for chapter title 2. Literature Review

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. I have adjusted the position of the "Literature Review" chapter title as recommended (line 112).

 

2. Comments:

- for section “4.2. IPA User Survey Results” please detail the “remote methods” used and the period of time the survey took place.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In section 3.3 on the remote experiment method (lines 398-404), I have provided an explanation of the remote experimental setup for participants unable to attend in person, which includes allowing participants to conduct tests on their personal devices with technical support available as needed. Additionally, in section 4.2 (lines 486-493), I have provided further details on the remote experiment method and survey timeline. This includes information on the survey period, the distribution and collection of questionnaires, and the number of remote participants. These additions ensure that participants were able to complete the tests smoothly and that data collection remained consistent. I hope this supplementary information provides you with a clearer understanding of our remote data collection method.

 

 

3. Comments:

- for Figure 2. please correct word “Spring Festival” 

Response:

Thank you for your correction. I have revised the spelling of “Spring Festival” in Figure 2 as suggested.

 

4. Comments:

- for section “3.1.1. Establishing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model” please provide detailed information about the experts and the period of time the meeting took place.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. I have added background information on the experts and the timeline of the meetings in section 3.1.1 (lines 229-238). Specifically, I included the professional backgrounds of the 26 experts and the details of the five-day consultation process. This ensured consensus among the experts on the structure of the AHP model and the criteria for weight distribution, thereby enhancing the model’s validity and consistency.

 

5. Comments:

- the concept of “the twelve zodiac animals and birds (animals)” is used, please add all the specific 12 zodiac animals and birds (animals) in the text for better understanding.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a detailed description of the twelve zodiac animals (rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, dragon, snake, horse, goat, monkey, rooster, dog, pig) and birds (such as phoenix, magpie, mandarin duck, and swallow) in the text (lines 223-225) to enhance clarity and comprehensibility.

 

 

Finally, thank you once again for your valuable suggestions on this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work, and we hope that the revisions meet with your approval.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

thank you for providing the revised paper, 

the comments were followed, the paper is now upgraded and with better quality. 

the only missing change are in the figures where some other fonts were used arial or so, and they have to be in palatino linotype. 

kind regards, 

the reviewer

Author Response

RE: applsci-3323648 “Enhancing the Digital Inheritance and Development of Chinese Intangible Cultural Heritage Paper-Cutting through Stable Diffusion LoRA Models”

 

Dear referee,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on this manuscript once again. I have revised the manuscript accordingly for further review. Based on your feedback, I have corrected the font issues in the figures, and the detailed modifications are explained below.

Your valuable suggestions have improved the clarity of the article, and I hope this revision meets with your approval.

 

1. Comments:

In the figures where some other fonts were used arial or so, and they have to be in palatino linotype.

Response:

Thank you for highlighting the font issue in the figures. After careful review, I identified inconsistencies where some fonts were in Arial or similar styles. I have updated all figure fonts to ‘Palatino Linotype’ as required.

I sincerely appreciate your detailed observation, which has significantly enhanced the visual consistency and overall quality of the manuscript.

 

 

Finally, thank you once again for your valuable suggestions on this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work, and we hope that the revisions meet with your approval.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf