Beyond Heritage Science: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the paper is interesting in considering some aspects of the past and new approach to the Sciences applied to Cultural Heritage.

However, I would like to suggest some points to be improved. 

A)    To give a more comprehensive representation of the state of the art, the creation of the various research infrastructures in the field of cultural heritage in the European context should be highlighted. In particular, E-RIHS deserves to be better mentioned, as it marks an important turning point in the field of Heritage Science for both the research community and the society through the sharing of facilities, resources and service, and their accessibility to public and private sectors. The important role assigned to E-RIHs in the panorama of Heritage Science through the ARCHLAB, DIGILAB, FIXLAB, MOLAB integrated platforms should be more extensively presented. 

The authors may develop this point in the Introduction or elsewhere.

B)     When the authors present the historical context, they mention the creation of scientific laboratories within museums and their important role in supporting preservation of collections, as well as to the growth of conservation profession (in particular, lines 313-316). No mention is made to the prominent role played by Italy in this regard, and by the important national centers of competence and reference in this sector, such as the Opificio delle Pietre Dure and the Central Institute of Restoration of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities, which have also contributed to setting the restoration activity on a scientific basis, especially after the  disastrous floods of the past century in Florence and Venice. Please, add elements on this point.

C)    With reference to Heritage Science and Policy, mainly the context of the United Kingdom is analyzed. I would suggest extending the analysis to broader contexts, including references to other countries or to the European community. 

D)    As regards emerging technologies in the domain of the Heritage Science, remote sensing deserves better mention, especially those techniques based on the processing and integration of satellite-scale data. They identify new promising fields of research, with successful applications in the survey of large-scale sites in relation to the archaeological research, the study of ancient landscapes, and the natural and anthropic risk analysis of cultural heritage. 

Author Response

Good morning.

On behalf of the authors I would like to thank the editor and reviewers for taking the time to consider this manuscript and make suggested changes. The vast majority of these, where possible, have been incorporated and we firmly believe these changes have acted to improve the paper.

Where reviewers have made specific recommendations we have responded to these, below.

Reviewer 1 stated:

“No mention is made to the prominent role played by Italy in this regard, and by the important national centers of competence and reference in this sector, such as the Opificio delle Pietre Dure and the Central Institute of Restoration of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities, which have also contributed to setting the restoration activity on a scientific basis, especially after the  disastrous floods of the past century in Florence and Venice. Please, add elements on this point.”

Response: We have included this (lines 349-352).

Reviewer 1 stated:

“As regards emerging technologies in the domain of the Heritage Science, remote sensing deserves better mention, especially those techniques based on the processing and integration of satellite-scale data. They identify new promising fields of research, with successful applications in the survey of large-scale sites in relation to the archaeological research, the study of ancient landscapes, and the natural and anthropic risk analysis of cultural heritage.”

Response: We have included further detail and references (lines 786-801)

Reviewer 1 stated:

“To give a more comprehensive representation of the state of the art, the creation of the various research infrastructures in the field of cultural heritage in the European context should be highlighted. In particular, E-RIHS deserves to be better mentioned, as it marks an important turning point in the field of Heritage Science for both the research community and the society through the sharing of facilities, resources and service, and their accessibility to public and private sectors. The important role assigned to E-RIHs in the panorama of Heritage Science through the ARCHLAB, DIGILAB, FIXLAB, MOLAB integrated platforms should be more extensively presented.”

Response: We have included this detail (lines 983-997)

Reviewers 1, 2 and 3 all stated that elements of the article are UK-centric.

Response: We recognise that some elements of the article are heavily skewed towards the UK (for example the section on Heritage Science and Policy), whilst other elements are international (eg the Vinland Map Controversy). To address this we have amended the abstract (lines 24-26) to highlight that many case studies given are UK-based, but that the themes explored have international resonance.

Best wishes

Craig Kennedy

Reviewer 2 Report

The article does an excellent job demonstrating the impact of heritage science across disciplines and applications. This work is a very good starting point to inspire scientists and conservation professionals. The reviewer personally enjoyed the last section about the role played by heritage science in the 4th digital industrial revolution. Well done!

Before publication, the reviewer has a few comments to raise:

1. The authors should specify in the abstract that the review mainly considers case studies and evidence from UK.

2.  The Figures 1 and 2 are hard to understand. Please enlarge the caption with more details. 

3. The authors addressed in a few lines (1011-1017) the concerns raising from the application of robotic technologies. The authors may consider enlarging this part by adding or extending the points of concern. This point is extremely interesting in terms of ethics and possible developments of heritage science in the future.

Author Response

On behalf of the authors I would like to thank the editor and reviewers for taking the time to consider this manuscript and make suggested changes. The vast majority of these, where possible, have been incorporated and we firmly believe these changes have acted to improve the paper.

Where reviewers have made specific recommendations we have responded to these, below.

Reviewers 1, 2 and 3 all stated that elements of the article are UK-centric.

Response: We recognise that some elements of the article are heavily skewed towards the UK (for example the section on Heritage Science and Policy), whilst other elements are international (eg the Vinland Map Controversy). To address this we have amended the abstract (lines 24-26) to highlight that many case studies given are UK-based, but that the themes explored have international resonance.

Reviewer 2 stated:

“The authors addressed in a few lines (1011-1017) the concerns raising from the application of robotic technologies. The authors may consider enlarging this part by adding or extending the points of concern. This point is extremely interesting in terms of ethics and possible developments of heritage science in the future.“

Response: This has been expanded upon (lines 1024-1079)

Reviewer 2 stated:

“The authors should specify in the abstract that the review mainly considers case studies and evidence from UK.”

Response: This has been added now.

Reviewer 2 stated:

“The Figures 1 and 2 are hard to understand. Please enlarge the caption with more details.”

Response: This has been done. The captions have been significantly expanded. 

Best wishes,

Craig Kennedy

Reviewer 3 Report

Beyond Heritage Science: a review

This paper provides a review on the main aspects of modern heritage, under several aspects. Authors report some case studies of different techniques, investigation strategies and some novel technologies applied to heritage (AI, robotics etc.).

I read the paper with curiosity, and I appreciated it. The paper is well written and easy to understand, the case studies are well explained, as the different aspects of heritage Authors underline.

I detected few punctual points to correct in the text, Figures need some improvements and the references to. This latter is the weakest point of the paper. I strongly suggest reducing redundant and inappropriate citations (and self-citations,) especially conference proceedings. I removed few from the text, but some improvements in this direction are needed.

I also proposed a modification in the title, that as it is now, is a little misleading. The focus on UK case studies and innovative technologies maybe could be underlined in the title: I suggested one, but other forms are welcome.

Therefore, I recommend publication in Heritage after minor revision.

Punctual comments:

See pdf file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

On behalf of the authors I would like to thank the editor and reviewers for taking the time to consider this manuscript and make suggested changes. The vast majority of these, where possible, have been incorporated and we firmly believe these changes have acted to improve the paper.

Where reviewers have made specific recommendations we have responded to these, below.

Reviewers 1, 2 and 3 all stated that elements of the article are UK-centric.

Response: We recognise that some elements of the article are heavily skewed towards the UK (for example the section on Heritage Science and Policy), whilst other elements are international (eg the Vinland Map Controversy). To address this we have amended the abstract (lines 24-26) to highlight that many case studies given are UK-based, but that the themes explored have international resonance.

Reviewer 3 provided a PDF with suggested changes. The vast majority of these have been made, including the removal of references 98 and 99. However several of the references that the reviewer suggested be deleted have been kept in as the authors consider that these are related in the text. Further, as a review paper it is felt that the paper here should encapsulate research activity in this area as far as possible.

Best wishes,

Craig Kennedy

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the manuscript has been improved and it may be accepted in the present form.