Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article represents an interesting account on a novel method of examination of artworks based on the use of Microwave Holography (MH). The paper is well structured and well written, presenting sufficient results to support the conclusions. I have a few minor remarks or suggestions that will help to improve the text.

First, the paper present interesting and important results, which are discussed in sufficient manner. However, the Abstract of the article does not represent the entire content of the article. Therefore, it is suggested to rewrite the abstract for it to better reflect the important content of the article.

Second, the aims of the research are discussed in the text, however, are not described in the Introduction section. it would help the readers a lot, if the authors dedicate a paragraph in Introduction section to the aims. The authors do mention, however in the Abstract, that the aim is to demonstrate an example of the use of MH for examination of icons. In the main text, however, the authors pursue and talk about more specific aims. For example, the research aims could be to explore the capabilities of MH for reconstruction of icons’ stratigraphy, study of support material, discovery of details that are not visible to the naked eye and, eventually, contribute knowledge to icon making techniques. All these aspects are described by the authors, however, not mentioned in the beginning of the article.

Third, I encourage the authors to pay attentional to the language. For example, in the line 44 "But" could be replaced with a more scientific However; in the line 46 "So" – with Therefore etc.

 

Overall, the article is recommended for publication in the journal of Heritage after the few corrections described above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your efforts in reading the article and suggestions on improving its quality.

1. Reviewer suggested rewriting the abstract for it to better reflect the important content of the article.

Answer: I have expanded the abstract to include the main points and themes of the article.

2. Reviewer 1: It would help the readers a lot, if the authors dedicate a paragraph in Introduction section to the aims.

Answer: I added two paragraphs in Introduction that explain main goal and themes of the article.

3. Reviewer 1: I encourage the authors to pay attention to the language.

Answer: Thank you for remarks related to the paper language. We took them into account in reviewing the paper and done our best to improve the paper’s language.

5. You can see all changes and amendment in the revised manuscript. They are marked by editor.

Reviewer 2 Report

  It would be useful to have a wider and more detailed discussion about the actual advantages (if there are any) to use the mirowave together with or instead of other well-experienced techniques, as x-radiography (which offers a much more higher spatial resolution than the MW hologram), while studying cultural objects as easel paintings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your efforts in reading the article and suggestions on improving its quality.

We expanded the paper’s Conclusion with explanation how microwave holography could be used in diagnostics of cultural heritage.

You can see all changes and amendment in the revised manuscript. They are marked by editor.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of the article is ok. No further comments are needed.