NFTs and the Danger of Loss
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper "NFTs and the danger of loss" provides a very comprehensive overview of the importance of long-term preservation of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and minted digital artworks, with a particular focus on related issues such as the energy consumption associated with preserving this digital heritage.
The article is not only well written and comprehensive, it is also innovative and a pleasure to read, taking into account authorship, copyright and open access issues.
I propose to accept the article as it is and would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the authors on their great work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer it was with pleasure that we read your review. Thank you very much for your kind words.
In attachment you may find the article slightly changed according to the comments of one of the reviewers.
Once again thank you very much for your review.
With our best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
This report is deficient in research literature. For example, there is no defined research problem and no original research goal. There is also a lack of scientific methodology. It also brings up a topic that I believe is unrelated to the journal's objective.
no comment
Author Response
Dear reviewer it was with sadness that we read your review.
We believe that there is a misunderstanding. Our paper is not a research report, but an article that presents a theoretical reflection, departing from a literature review of blockchain-related writing in the arts and heritage management and conservation, as clearly stated on the introduction.
We also believe that the paper fits the journal’s scope as it is particularly devoted to raise concerns about the high energy consumption associated with blockchain technology, and its impact on climate change.
In attachment you may find the article slightly changed according to the comments of one of the reviewers.
With our best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
heritage-2457074-peer-review-v1
Review of NFTs and the danger of loss
This is an excellent and very well-argued paper, that was a joy to read. The author(s) set out the issues in a very logical and coherent fashion. I wish other submissions I have been reading/reviewing are even remotely like this.
I have only on issue to critique.
In the introduction the authors repeatedly refer to copyright issues, but their discussion is quite light on. In the body of the paper they refer to the ability to create multiple versions of a digital artwork that differ only in minute ways and be able to have a new NFT allocated to them. They also note problems with the authentication of ownership. It would desirable for the author(s) to restate some of this and bring that together in tight discussion a section on copyright—or drop the copyright issue altogether and focus only on the conservation and environmental sustainability aspects
A couple of typos need to be fixed
Line 82 ‘Proof-of-Wook’ >>> ‘Proof-of-Work’
Line 434 ‘rease’ >>> ‘reason’
Author Response
Dear reviewer thank you very much for the kind words. It was a joy for us to write this paper. We are planning more work on the topic.
We agree with your comment about the copyright issue. Thank you for that. We decided not to add a new section on copyright, but we have made some changes in the introduction so as to make clear that this issue is not that central. Could you please see if you agree with that?
We have also made the corrections you pointed out.
Once again thank you very much for your review. It was a pleasure to read your review.
With our best regards.
