A Review of Terminologies and Methodologies for Evaluating Conservation Interventions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important review, and it is generally well researched and written.

As a general comment, i would like to suggest for the authors to add some line breaks, and, more importantly, to add a few subsections in chapters 3 and 4, so as to make the text more organized and clear.

Other comments are suggested in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Plese see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper is interesting and is relevant to a review on the field.

the table of citations and references is unneeded in my thoughts, it is better to have a comment and a synthesis of those sentences, with annotation of the author in bibliography than the all sentences on 3 pages.

the authors should alos add CEN norms when they include UNI references, CEN should correspond;

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a lack of information about what method was used for the article.  
While basic points such as aim and scope are given in the abstract, the methodology part is missing. 
There should be more detail on why these four terms were chosen. Could another term have been used in addition to the four terms of choice?
A table is used to define the selected terms, and the same is repeated in the text, such as in lines 84-85.  It will be easier for the reader to add each table to the relevant section of text rather than giving the tables first and then the text. 
Adding a discussion section would be good.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to express the research more clearly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title:

 

A Review of Conservative Intervention Evaluation: Terminology and Methodologies

 

The topic of the manuscript under consideration is not new but considered to be a mater of significant debate and requires a comprehensive analysis. The manuscript titled “A Review of Conservative Intervention Evaluation: Terminology and Methodologies” covers a wide range of definitions and described a broad spectrum of interpretations still lacks a globally practiced various definitions/ concepts interpretations. The conservation terminologies and methodologies along with the interpretations of concepts are directly proportional to the cost effectiveness (as mentioned by authors in accordance to one particular case study) and finally impact the outcome. Therefore, inclusion of review of few case studies in this perspective will enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. The manuscript also needs English corrections and proof reading to be considered for further processing. The detailed review is as follows:

 

Detailed Review:

Title: The title of the manuscript should be revised as currently this reflects as the review of the conservative treatments. For example, “Analyzing Terminologies and Methodologies used in Evaluating Conservative Interventions.”. or A review of Terminologies and Methodologies for Evaluating Conservative Interventions.”

Abstract: The abstract also starts with the following text:

“Conservation interventions on heritage materials are crucial for mitigating the effects of time and environmental degradation, yet predicting their outcomes in specific contexts remains a significant challenge. This uncertainty underscores the need for a comprehensive review of past interventions to assess their effectiveness and identify the benefits and limitations of various methods.”

The abstract should  be clear and concise starting with the concept of paper as authors are reviewing the terminologies and methodologies for the conservative treatment. Again, in the objective of the study it is stated that “The objective of this study is to provide a preliminary review of the current state of research on conservation practices for built heritage, specifically focusing on stone used in architectural and archaeological contexts, as well as mural paintings.”

Authors need to present the objective that is the review of the terminologies and methodologies.

And concluding sentences are missing in the abstract. The authors are requested to reconsider the abstract and write it again carefully considering their manuscript.

Keywords: Too many please be concise and clear

Introduction: The introduction for the review paper needs a comprehensive analysis in the beginning while defining the review perspective. The authors need to emphasize the importance and need of review clearly while revealing the spectrum of the review data/ area.

“Therefore, the aim of this work is to provide a preliminary review of the state of art in assessing conservative interventions on stone, archaeological and architectural heritage, considering also the peculiar case of mural paintings.”

The introduction needs a revision by adding more in depth and comprehensive statements to have readers attention for the upcoming text of the manuscript.

The following text should be revised:

“The review faces three topics:”

2. Terminology: quality, efficacy, compatibility and durability of the interventions

Table-01 detailed analysis shows the absence of larger data set and comprehensive review of definitions from different parts of globe.

2.1 Quality:

This section concluded very well by giving an account for the minimum quality standards in some particular case study. This is advised in the review at the beginning that quality depends on various factors that needs a little description in the introduction section for harmonious argumentation of the objectives of the manuscript.

2.2 Compatibility:

This section is very well written encompassing all the dimensions while defining the term.

2.3. Efficacy/Effectiveness/Efficiency

The authors tried to explain the term used in English while taking into account its perspective in conservation field but a little more explained perspective would further clear the authors analysis.

2.4. Durability

This section is well explained.

3. Methodologies for the assessment of conservative intervention (theoretical approach for the assessment of conservative interventions)

This section is well written. The account for the lack of information within the application of conservative treatments is well mentioned and also the integration of experimental data in the decision-making process. The inclusion of experts and relation of effectivity numbers varies within the case studies so the documentation at each step is necessary for the final evaluation. There are other digital tools that were also mentioned by the authors like DSS, DELPHI and GIS-MCA that contributes for the assessment of conservative interventions. In the end the objects behaviors and the environmental context are identified as main factors for effectiveness the methodologies that is accepted interpretation.

4. Evaluation methods on different products on case studies

The case of mural paintings is very well presented and detailed out.

Conclusions: The conclusion section is very well drafted and mentioning the integration of economic and sustainability aspects is worth mentioning. The reflection of same was found missing in the manuscript. The authors are advised to include few definitions and terminologies as well in the manuscript for the same as in conclusion section.

In the end, the manuscript is appreciable effort but needs to broader the spectrum (as suggested) as this manuscript is for wide range of readers.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript also needs English corrections and proof reading to be considered for further processing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors. Let me congratulate you on your article. The text analyzes the evaluation of conservation interventions on heritage materials, focusing on stone used in architectural and archaeological contexts and wall paintings. Highlights the importance of reviewing previous interventions to understand their effectiveness and limitations. The study focuses on three fundamental aspects: defining key concepts such as quality, compatibility, effectiveness, and durability; evaluating the methodologies used to analyze these interventions; and examining case studies where these methodologies have been applied.

We believe that this work can offer a significant contribution to the field of heritage conservation.

The paper is well structured and described exhaustively, meeting the standards of an academic article.

The text contains sufficient references (113) to previous related works that support the study, the bibliographic review is adequate.

The writing in English does not represent difficulties for understanding the article. The English used is correct and readable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that texts not translated into English be written in italics.

With the aim of facilitating reading, it is proposed:

• In the sentence on line 128: Another interesting study related to compatibility is [24],… It is recommended to write: Another interesting study related to compatibility is that of Apostolopoulou et al. [24]…
• In the sentence on lines 131-132: A different view of the term compatibility
  is proposed in [25],… It is recommended to write: A different view of the term compatibilitynis proposed in Sasse & Snethlag [25],…
• In the sentence on line 135: As reported in [10],… It is recommended: As reported in Rodrigues & Gross [10],…
• In the sentence on line 173: Some articles, such as [32],… It is recommended: Some articles, such as Corradi [32],…
• In the sentence on line 174: This possible overlap can also be deduced from [33]… It is recommended: This possible overlap can also be deduced from Guidolin [33]…
• In the sentence on line 177: A relation in this sense is proposed in [34] (p. 21),… It is recommended: A relation in this sense is proposed in Guidolin & Tognini [34] (p. 21),…
• In the sentence on lines 184-185: An interesting work, where durability, (in)compatibility and effectiveness are all related is [21]. We recommend: An interesting work, where durability, (in)compatibility and effectiveness are all related is Apostolopoulou, et al. [21].
• In the sentence on line 235: One of the first significant contributions to the topic is [25],… We recommend: One of the first significant contributions to the topic is from Sasse & Snethlag [25],…
• In the sentence 238-240: More recently, only few authors have coped with the problem of conservation intervention assessment, based in particular on the compatibility/incompatibility assessment [10,12,41–43]. We recommend: More recently, only few authors as Rodrigues & Grossi [10],and Revés & Delgadohave coped with the problem of conservation intervention assessment, based in particular on the compatibility/incompatibility assessment [12,41–43].
• In the sentence 243-247: The study in which this model is fully detailed can be found in [10]. The proposed method aims to provide a management tool with the compatibility model as its central operational component, a concept also utilized in [12,41–43]. We recommend: The study in which this model is fully detailed can be found in Rodrigues & Grossi [10]. The proposed method aims to provide a management tool with the compatibility model as its central operational component, a concept also utilized in Revés & Delgadohave [12,41–43].
• In the sentence 259: The authors in [10] also stressed the importance of monitoring past interventions for… We recommend: Rodrigues & Grossi [10] also stressed the importance of monitoring past interventions for…
• In the sentence 263: In [41], a new approach for assessing the compatibility of conservation treatments is… We recommend: In the work presented by Gross et al. 41], a new approach for assessing the compatibility of conservation treatments is…
• In the sentence 265-266: This idea has already been mentioned in [10],... We recommend: This idea has already been mentioned in Rodrigues & Grossi [10],...
• In the sentence 270: Here, in [41], some case studies are specifically mentioned. We recommend: Here, in Gross et al. [41], some case studies are specifically mentioned.
• In the sentence 282: The study in [12] is focused on the application of the already proposed compatibility-… We recommend: The study in Revés & Delgado [12] is focused on the application of the already proposed compatibility-…
• In the sentence 286: In [12] a stronger association of the compatibility analysis with the (in)compatibility… We recommend: In Revés & Delgado [12] a stronger association of the compatibility analysis with the (in)compatibility…
• In the sentence 296: The use of this method in interventions planning has been found only in [49],… We recommend: The use of this method in interventions planning has been found only in Cessari & Gigliarelli [49],…
• In the sentence 309-310: One last general approach found in literature considering the participation of experts on this topic is proposed in [53]. We recommend: One last general approach found in literature considering the involvement of experts on this topic is proposed in Raoufi & Mansour [53].
• In the sentence 330-331: An interesting reference is made to the Scotch Tape Test (STT) used in [54],.. We recommend: An interesting reference is made to the Scotch Tape Test (STT) used in Bourguignon et al. [54],..
• In the sentence 335: As a matter of fact, in [63],… It is recommended: As a matter of fact, in Duchene et al. [63], mention…
• In the sentence 343-345: Other interesting reviews on most common methods and NDTs used in the monitoring and preservation of historical surfaces has been proposed in [35,56]. It is recommended: Other interesting reviews on most common methods and NDTs used in the monitoring and preservation of historical surfaces has been proposed in Doehne & Price [35], and Zendri et al. [56].

For all of the above, we recommend Accept after minor revisions.

Best Regards

The reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form