Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper dealing with preparation of mummification is worth of pubblication. Furthermore, it is not easy to carry out such a long experiment.

The paper is well structured and results are clear, but there are some min or issues to be addressed before pubblication:

Figure 5: it is not clear what do you mean with "spongy transformation". Could you please mark it in the pictures?

Page 11: results about PCR and cultures are described, but they are not included in the Methods section. Please, add some information on this topic (how was genetic analysis performed? and cultures?). WHich method did you use in identifying the spores?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the manuscript "Experimental Ancient Egyptian style mummification in a human-sized porcine model: 13 years follow-up " with great interest. In my opinion, well-executed analyses can add great value to the existing scientific knowledge, even when dealing with a single individual or solely a "Sus domesticus" specimen.

However, I regret that I have to reject this study in its present form, because it does not meet the publication criteria of a scientific article. In the following, I add some of my reasons. In addition, I commented the pdf document, which I will attach. On these few pages, I had many comments and I decided to stop at a point and continued "just" reading the manuscript. However, I am convinced that the article could be seriously considered for a new review if the authors revised it in favor of the following fundamental points:

- Rewrite and check the manuscript for inconsistent terminology and unclear formulations

- Clarify the goal(s) of the study

- Reorganize most of the sections widely, e.g. see comments in the pdf

- The manuscript does not sound technically

- Most of the data are not available, or not presented in a correct form

- The introduction must provide a review of existing literature, e.g. including similar approaches

- Missing elaboration of novelty of the topic

- Provide the details the methods part

- Avoid repetitions, resp. redundancies throughout the manuscript

- Provide all data in a descriptive way in the results part

- Modify most of the figures

- Clarify the significances of the results

- Highlight the relevance of the findings for the scientific community

- Embedding of the case into context, e.g. scientifically and/ or archaeological

- Perform a thorough review of the existing body of literature of similar investigations and methodology

- A proper comparative analysis is missing

- Enhance the added value of knowledge with regard to the study

- The conclusions are missing

Since the paper deals with an experiment on a (dead) pig, there should be an ethical approval of the institution where the research was carried out available/ mentioned.

I hope that my recommendations will help to improve the manuscript and to revise it for a possible new submission.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is not presented in an intelligible fashion and mostly not written in standard English. It would be beneficial if it were to be improved by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting and allows further research into the issue of mummification by better understanding the ancient processes used in this task.

Below are a few comments.

1. The abstract does not indicate the aim of the research. Those reading the work for the first time don't understand what the problem in question is and what problem this research is trying to solve.
2. The authors indicate “This paper aims to report the results after a further 6 years that is 13 years after mummification”. I suppose the paper aims to expose the results, but I think it is also important to situate the reader in the problem. Because anyone reading this article for the first time won't understand what the aim of this research was. Was it replicating the process with current materials? to check that the information was true? Exactly what was the purpose of this research to lead to the publication of these results. What problems are they trying to solve? What new do you think this study brings to current research on the subject?
3. Considering Material and Methods, the authors must specify if the room conditions were similar to those described in ancient Egypt. If it is not, what were the criteria for such conditions?
4. “and does not have the problems of the ethics of consent and the bereaved family.” In fact, it does. The problem here is not with the piglet family, since it is an animal, but in modern science, all studies on animals must be first analyzed and approved by an Ethical Committee. Authors must provide a certificate that indicates the present study is approved by an ethics committee for publication at a scientific level.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although I do not agree with the answer given by the authors to the question of the ethics committee, although I continue to think that an ethics committee is necessary for this type of experiment, the authors refer to a European Union law in force, where this is not required. Unfortunately, the article must be accepted in this format, although I do not completely agree.