Review Reports - Geophysical Investigation at the Santa Chiara Church in Nardò (Southern Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is well presented, illustrated and discussed. However, I would suggest the authors to improve the resolution for all the figures, particularly for the formats of the horizontal and vertical axes of all the figures. Besides, please improve the Introduction section, as it’s necessary to incorporate a brief summary of the latest development of geophysical methods in archaeology.

Author Response

Was done

For the isosurface figures thi wasn’t possible becouse due to the position of isovolumes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes the application of geophysical techniques to the analysis and investigation of underground features inside a religious complex.

The content is interesting and the result is promising.

Please see below my comments:

Was any desk-based assessment performed before the survey? If this is the case, some information about the data collection (i.e., historical sources) should be reported,

The information about the GPR surveys should be written in a more systematic way. I strongly recommend the use of tables to summarize EM, ERT, and GPR survey details, [i.e., GPR number of profiles, length of profiles, spacing between profiles, and survey configuration (GPR in TM or TE mode?)].

Larger images would help a better understanding of the identified features.

When presenting the anomalies layout, a visual reference to Figure 2 would help the general spatial understanding.

The manuscript needs a robust English language improvement. Although I am not an English native speaker myself, several shortcomings are present. Some examples are below.

Lines 22-29: Due to typos and grammar structure, it is quite difficult to follow the description of the site.

Line 24: XIII refers to what? a century?

Lines 28-30: Please rephrase. It is quite difficult to understand the meaning.

Lines 36-37: Again, What do the roman numbers mean? century? or is it a typo? Please clarify

Line 54: "its traces" refers to? burial places. If this is the case please correct "their traces".

Line 86: please remove "you"

Line 180: Lower instead of more low

Line 160: Have helped instead of had helped

Line: 281: check the use of parenthesis

Line: 282 could lead instead of could be lead

Lines 286 and 297: change corresponds in corresponding

A large number of self-citations is not advisable.

Author Response

Was any desk-based assessment performed before the survey? If this is the case, some information about the data collection (i.e., historical sources) should be reported,

doesn’t was any desk

For Gpr were acquired 140 profiles, for ERT was acquired a 3D profile in a snake mod, for electromagnetic surveys were aquired 46 profiles. All acquisition the parameters are explained in the text.

Larger images would help a better understanding of the identified features.

Was done

When presenting the anomalies layout, a visual reference to Figure 2 would help the general spatial understanding.

Was done

The manuscript needs a robust English language improvement. Although I am not an English native speaker myself, several shortcomings are present. Some examples are below.

Was done

Lines 22-29: Due to typos and grammar structure, it is quite difficult to follow the description of the site.

Was done

Line 24: XIII refers to what? a century?

Was done

Lines 28-30: Please rephrase. It is quite difficult to understand the meaning.

Was done

Lines 36-37: Again, What do the roman numbers mean? century? or is it a typo? Please clarify

Was done

Line 54: "its traces" refers to? burial places. If this is the case please correct "their traces".

Was done

Line 86: please remove "you"

Was done

Line 180: Lower instead of more low

Was done

Line 160: Have helped instead of had helped

Was done

Line: 281: check the use of parenthesis

Was done

Line: 282 could lead instead of could be lead

Was done

Lines 286 and 297: change corresponds in corresponding

Was done

A large number of self-citations is not advisable.

Was done

Reviewer 3 Report

Page 5, lines 136-139: The sentence “Observing the anomaly A1 on the radar section, a change in the polarity of the electromagnetic wave (EM) is noted, indicating the presence of a strong contrast of electromagnetic characteristics such as that due, for example, to the presence of a vacuum [20].” is not clear. An inversion of polarity is produced when the reflection coefficient is negative. So, for materials where the wave velocity depends only on dielectric constant, when radar waves is reflected in a material with higher dielectric constant. A typical case is reflections from air to any other material.

Another point of this sentence is the reference. I think reference 20 is not related with this fact.

This reference is also repeated in line 266 in page 10.

In page 6 line 171: Can you reference or explain a little why you use the value of 0.075m/ns?

In page 11 line 281 there is an extra bracket.

The references are mainly from Italy cases and could be interesting to enlarge to others countries.

Author Response

Was done

Another point of this sentence is the reference. I think reference 20 is not related with this fact.

Was done

This reference is also repeated in line 266 in page 10.

Was done

In page 6 line 171: Can you reference or explain a little why you use the value of 0.075m/ns?

Was add a reference in the material and methods paragraph

In page 11 line 281 there is an extra bracket.

Was done

The references are mainly from Italy cases and could be interesting to enlarge to others countries.

Was done

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The suggested changes has been done

Author Response

We have add all suggestions

thank you very much for your help

best regard

Giovanni Leucci