Preservation of Synagogues in Greece: Using Digital Tools to Represent Lost Heritage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe information provided by the article is important and worth of being published. The form, however, cannot be tolerated. I recommend to hire a professional editor of English and to rewrite the article completely together with the editor. In its current form, the article cannot be published. The text does not provide a logical description of the author outstanding work on documentation and reconstruction of the Greek synagogues, it jumps from one example to another, often without any connection between the things. It is hard to understand what the author means in many places, which city or synagogue is discussed. Many sentences lack meaning, while others are grammatically incorrect. Data in one paragraph contradicts data in the next paragraph, etc. I would also recommend to insert figure along with the text and not to concentrate them under 3.2, between “Results” and “Discussion.”
line 63 - "inspired by 62 the synagogues of Spain and the rules of Halakhah". This sentence means that the Romaniot synagogues discussed before are not built according to Halakhah? I would remove Halakhah from here.
line 66 - "Jewish quarters were located in the historic city centers of the geographic area of Greece" - which area?
line 74 – I would remove “Halakhic laws” from here. Otherwise, it means that all other features are not Halakhaic 😊
line 77: It is very bad English sentence “Prior to Second World War lived in Greece more than 70,000 Jews”
line 81: “nearly 59 synagogues” – sounds weird 😊 Or 59, or “near 60”, like in line 64
line 85 – now there were 70 synagogues in Thessaloniki. Please choose one number!
Line 87: unclear sentence “They represent in digital form, the extensive Jewish presence in Thessaloniki in particular, and in Greece in general, before the Second World War and the Holocaust.”
Line 90: bad sentence “The Greek Jewish communities were annihilated by 87% in the Holocaust.”
Line 94 – now you mention 100 synagogues, in line 85 there were 270 synagogues and sites. Please be consistent with numbers
Line 97 – who are “they”?
Lines 106-108 – please correct the sentence “As a result, when between the end of 1970s and the middle of 106 the 1990s when many of the abandoned synagogues were demolished”
Lines 109-111 – I could not understand these sentences. They should be rewritten!
Line 114 – remove commas
Line 116: Not understandable sentence: “Thus bring to life a lost heritage”
Lines 130-133 – The sentence cannot be understood
Line 134-145 – rewrite the sentence
Line 143-144 – rewrite the sentence
Line 154 – remove “at Givat Ram campus of the Hebrew University in” it is no more there.
Line 155-156 – what is KISE and OPAIE?
Line 163-164 – correct the language
Line 204 – which city?
Line 229 – correct the sentence
Line 254 – correct the sentence
Line 292, figure 5 – please provide an address where the readers can access this map.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA good editor is needed. For details see above
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please find a detailed reply to each comment in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic addressed in this manuscript is certainly compelling, especially within the broader discourse on heritage preservation and the role of digital tools in recovering lost architecture. While the theme itself is not new—having been explored by numerous scholars in recent years—the focus on synagogues in Greece adds a distinctive layer of specificity and relevance. This typological and geographical focus gives the paper potential value for publication in Heritage.
However, there are a number of concerns that should be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. One significant issue is that much of the core research was conducted almost three decades ago and has already been published in various forms by the author. This raises concerns about the novelty and authenticity of the current submission. The manuscript also contains a high proportion of self-citations (approximately 20% of the total references), which further emphasizes its reliance on previously published work rather than introducing new scholarly contributions.
The paper lacks a well-defined theoretical or conceptual framework, and there is little to no discussion of the ethical challenges or limitations involved in digital reconstruction of lost heritage. Additionally, the manuscript does not clearly articulate the key outcomes of the research. While the recently discovered archive of architect Shemtov Samuel presents a valuable new angle, the author focuses largely on describing the material it contains, without sufficiently exploring how this discovery reframes, deepens, or enhances the author’s prior work.
To strengthen the paper’s academic merit, the author should revise the manuscript thoroughly—rephrasing it where necessary—to better articulate its originality and to situate it in the context of current academic debates on digital heritage preservation.
Given these concerns, I do not recommend acceptance in its current form, but I strongly encourage the author to revise and resubmit the manuscript after addressing the points below.
Specific Comments and Suggestions
Structural and Content Revisions
Abstract and Introduction:
The abstract should be concise and focused, clearly stating the research aim, methods, findings, and significance. A research question or central hypothesis should be introduced early in the paper to guide the reader.
Line 56–59:
References to previous work are welcome, but should be expressed in a more academic and neutral tone. Consider rephrasing to avoid repetition or self-promotion.
Figures (e.g., Line 72):
Figures mentioned in the early text (e.g., Figures 1–8) appear much later in the document, disrupting the reader’s flow. It is recommended to reposition figures closer to their corresponding textual references or include them as in-text images for clarity.
Inconsistent Data (Lines 84–88):
The number of synagogues mentioned in the abstract differs from the numbers cited later in the paper. Please verify these figures and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.
Lines 148–158:
While the surveys from 1993–1996 were important, technological tools at that time were limited. The author is encouraged to revisit and update those surveys using current technologies, or at least discuss how new tools could enhance or reinterpret previous documentation. This section should also be rewritten in a more formal academic tone.
Lines 195–198:
Including selected photographs or scanned pages from the Shemtov Samuel archive would greatly support the narrative and underscore the archival value of the material.
Line 242:
If possible, include a photograph of the 1:20 scale model mentioned, particularly the one exhibited at Yad Vashem, to illustrate the practical output of the reconstruction work.
Line 340:
Virtual reality is mentioned for the first time rather late in the paper. It should be introduced earlier—in the methodology or materials section—as one of the digital tools used in this research.
Lines 369–372:
Consider including the case of Prague, where several synagogues have successfully digitized their history and integrated VR-based interpretation. This would offer a valuable comparative example and help contextualize the Greek case within wider European practices.
Discussion Section:
The discussion is brief and reads more like a summary of future possibilities rather than a critical reflection on the study’s outcomes. Expand this section to include the main findings, challenges, unexpected insights, and scholarly contributions.
Conclusion:
The conclusion currently reiterates much of the paper’s content without synthesizing the main arguments or outlining key takeaways. It should be reframed to highlight the significance of the study and its implications for future research or practice.
Research Ethics:
Since the study incorporates interviews and oral testimonies, the author should explicitly state whether ethical approval was obtained, or clarify if an exemption was granted. This is now a standard requirement for publication and must be addressed.
Limitations:
A short paragraph reflecting on the study’s limitations—such as reliance on memory, limited visual data, or constraints of digital reconstruction—should be added to the discussion or conclusion.
Technical and Editorial Recommendations
Grammar and Style:
The manuscript would benefit significantly from a thorough language review by a native English speaker or professional editor to address awkward phrasing, repetitive structures, and unclear sentences.
Figure Captions and Attributions:
Ensure that all figures have proper, informative captions and clearly indicate the sources of images, especially those from archives or private collections.
References:
While referencing one's own work is appropriate, excessive self-citation (20%) weakens the objectivity of the paper. Consider balancing this with more external sources and related international literature to strengthen the manuscript’s scholarly grounding.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please find a detailed response to each comment in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe architectural heritage of Greek synagogues is a topic of great interest. The proposal aims to highlight the need for enhancement of the largely destroyed heritage by proposing a project based on the possibilities offered by digital graphics.
The author, as stated in the text, began the study several years ago on the occasion of his doctorate. Compared to already published studies, he points out the recent availability of drawings from Shemtov Samuel archive, which allow for the improvement and the verification of the disappeared heritage mapping and description.
Although-as mentioned-the topic is of great interest, the study presented does not offer original insights, either in terms of content or of methodological approach. In the text, which has an overly descriptive character, several possibilities for research development are briefly described, ranging from VR applications for the enhancement of disappeared buildings to typological classification. None of these, however, is explored in depth.
Therefore, it is recommended that the text be revised profoundly, developing more the outcomes of this multi-year research with reference to new acquisitions and highlighting more strongly the originality of the proposal with reference to the publications of the same author.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please find a detailed response to each comment in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe text was greatly improved! Only small points are left to be dealt with:
Line 14 What does it mean? “to become full scale digitally enhanced architectural drafts”
Line 16-17 What does it mean? “the project can restore 16 architectural detail”
Line 79 – meaningless sentence: “Whatever their tradition, all Greek synagogues followed the rules of Halakhah” It means that synagogues outside of Greece did not follow these rules. I would omit it completely.
Lines 81, 87, 91 – please decide how many synagogues you have in Thessaloniki, 60 or 70?
Line 217 - methodology CANNOT involve a series of progressive steps. Please find a better word.
Line 234 – The Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People always was and still is an independent institution. Once it was situated in Givat Ram Campus, today in is in the building of the National Library. But why does it matter? Why do you need mentioning both its locations? In my mind, just the word Jerusalem is enough.
Author Response
Please see attached. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for Author
Based on the overall quality of the manuscript and the relevance of its subject matter, I believe the paper is suitable for publication after minor revisions. The abstract has been significantly improved, and the content presents a compelling case study within the field of heritage preservation, particularly through its focus on synagogues in Greece. While the research revisits previously explored material, integrating the Shemtov Samuel archive adds new value. However, to enhance academic tone and clarity, I suggest rephrasing self-referential statements, adding references where appropriate, and improving the placement and readability of key figures—particularly Figures 2, 6, and 9. These minor adjustments will strengthen the paper's overall presentation and scholarly impact.
Specific Comments and Suggestions
The abstract has been significantly improved. It now clearly articulates the study's aims, objectives, research questions, and expected outcomes and is well-structured and coherent.
Line 138–143:
It would be helpful to include references for these statements. Additionally, mentioning the names of specific projects or city centres from the case studies would strengthen the discussion and provide a clearer context for the reader.
Line 145-149:
The authors should clarify whether this statement refers to the previously mentioned cities or specifically to Greece. Additionally, it would be helpful to explain the relevance and contribution of Figure 5 in supporting the accompanying text.
Lines 252–254:
Moving these lines to the beginning of Section 2.1 would be more effective. Doing so would enhance the logical flow of the text and provide a clearer foundation for the development of Section 2.2.
Lines 310–328:
While these lines are informative and relevant to the context of the paper, certain parts of the text could be rephrased to maintain a more objective and academic tone. This is a scholarly publication, so avoiding self-promotional language would be more appropriate. Phrases such as "the author was commissioned" or "the author was appointed" should be revised or removed. Rephrasing these parts will help maintain an objective academic tone, enhance the paper's credibility, and align with scholarly publishing standards.
Figures:
It would be helpful to present all figures in a slightly larger size for better readability. If resizing all figures is not feasible, I recommend increasing the size of Figures 2, 6, and 9 in particular, as they contain important visual information.
Research Ethics:
The paper should address research ethics more explicitly. Since the study incorporates interviews and oral testimonies, the author should clearly state whether ethical approval was obtained, or if an exemption was granted. This is a standard requirement for academic publications. While this information does not necessarily need to appear in the main text, it should be included in the Acknowledgments or Conflicts of Interest section. I would also recommend consulting the journal editor for guidance on this matter.
Author Response
Please see attached, thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has effectively incorporated the comments received during the first revision. The text has been integrated and considerably enhanced, including the iconographic apparatus. The research on a topic of such great interest, not only at a national Greek level, now appears to be adequately enhanced, both methodologically and in terms of the greater clarity of the objectives that the present study wishes to highlight with reference to the many years of research that have involved the author. As things stand, the text is now acceptable for publication.
Author Response
Please see attached, thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
