Next Article in Journal
Mould Growth Risk for Internal Retrofit Insulation of Heritage-Protected Timber Plank Frame Walls
Previous Article in Journal
Does Water Cleaning Mitigate Atmospheric Degradation of Unstable Heritage Glass? An Experimental Study on Glass Models
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluating Older Adults’ Engagement with Digital Interpretation Exhibits in Museums: A Universal Design-Based Approach
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Reshaping Museum Experiences with AI: The ReInHerit Toolkit

Heritage 2025, 8(7), 277; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8070277
by Paolo Mazzanti *, Andrea Ferracani, Marco Bertini * and Filippo Principi
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Heritage 2025, 8(7), 277; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8070277
Submission received: 27 May 2025 / Revised: 4 July 2025 / Accepted: 10 July 2025 / Published: 14 July 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deeply addresses the topic and is based on a solid and broad project that has undoubtedly provided an important basis for study, and there is also a clear potential for impact on contemporary reflection on the use of artificial intelligence in museums. The ReInHerit Toolkit is a concrete and well-developed proposal, which enhances digital accessibility and emotional interaction as central elements of the museum experience. However, the manuscript presents some aspects that, in my opinion, require further work of clarification and refinement to strengthen its scientific coherence, especially if it is intended to be placed in the context of a presentation that is also attractive for technicians in the field, in addition to its communicative impact.

Theoretical contextualization and state of the art
Although an overall picture of the issues addressed is provided, the discussion is sometimes dispersive and not always sufficiently synthetic. The link between the ReInHerit Toolkit and the most recent theoretical currents on human-machine interaction, emotional engagement in museums, or ethical issues related to the use of AI in cultural heritage should be made more explicit and analytical also because little space is dedicated to the critical observations that can currently be found in the literature. It is suggested to rationalize the citations, avoiding redundancies, and to strengthen the critical comparison with the most current literature.

Definition of the research structure and methodology
This is one of the most critical aspects of the contribution. The manuscript lacks a clear articulation of the research questions, hypotheses (if present) and above all an explicit and formalized methodology. Much information is reported in narrative or descriptive form, but a precise methodological design is missing that allows us to understand how the data collected (focus groups, surveys, application tests) were analyzed, evaluated and used to generate significant results. It is essential to explain the participant selection criteria, the survey tools, the qualitative/quantitative analysis methods adopted and their validation. The analytical explanation of the project is clear and detailed but the research purposes are less so. The tool is explained very well but its purposes in the context of the research are less so.

Discussion of the results
The applications of the toolkit are well described, but the discussion is sometimes more illustrative than analytical. The results collected through field tests, demos, and interactions with the public should be discussed in a more structured way, even in a comparative form. There is a lack of critical reflection on the limitations that emerged, on the difficulties encountered in the implementation or adoption of the tools, and on any ethical or operational implications.

Conclusions
The conclusions effectively summarize the vision and objectives of the project, but remain partially disconnected from the results presented. It is suggested to strengthen the connection between what emerged in the empirical part and the concluding statements, avoiding generalizations not directly supported by the data. It could also be useful to clarify how this work is positioned in relation to other existing toolkits and what are the expected future developments.

In summary, the article has an evident value for its practical contribution and its originality, but it requires a substantial revision in terms of methodological structuring, critical discussion and argumentative balance. Work on these aspects would allow to fully valorize the impact of the ReInHerit project in the context of European museum digitization.

Author Response

Comments 1: "Theoretical contextualization and state of the art"... It suggested to rationalize the citations, avoiding redundancies, and to strengthen the critical comparison with the most current literature...

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We worked to rationalize the citations by adding references to most current literature.

Comments 2 "Definition of the research structure and methodology"... It is essential to explain the participant selection criteria, the survey tools, the qualitative/quantitative analysis methods adopted and their validation..

Response 2  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the conceptualization and the methodological part, trying to solve the reported critical aspect. In particular by adding details on qualitative and quantitative analysis at pag 8, also indicating references to the project deliverable where more detailed information on these aspects can be accessed.

Comments 3 "Discussion of the results"... There is a lack of critical reflection on the limitations that emerged, on the difficulties encountered in the implementation or adoption of the tools, and on any ethical or operational implications.

Response 3  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore,. At the end of the section 4 “Discussion”, we have indicated some considerations of how the toolkit is positioned in relation to other existing tools. On page 18 we added more ethical considerations on Stike A Pose and and Face Fit.

Comments 4 "Conclusion"... Work on these aspects would allow to fully valorize the impact of the ReInHerit project in the context of European museum digitization.

Response 4 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, following your suggestion and the suggestion of the academic editor, we added a final section where we highlighted future challenges and perspectives. (Section  5 "Challenges and Future Directions") and revised section 6  "Conclusion".

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-structured, providing a clear overview of the project's background, methodology, and results. The entire project is deeply rooted in extensive user research, which ensures the relevance and effectiveness of the developed tools. The toolkit directly addresses the disparity in digital capacity between large and small cultural institutions, promoting accessibility and sustainability through open-source development and comprehensive training. Although the toolkit is well described, the article would be enhanced from deeper comparative insights into existing digital museum tools. How does ReInHerit perform compared to other AI-based heritage toolkits (e.g., Google Arts & Culture, ArtLens, etc.)?  Sections 3.5 and 3.6 (VIOLA Multimedia Chatbot and Photo Video Restorer) are only briefly mentioned in the overview of results. Expanding on their functionalities, technical details, and potential impact, similar to the level of detail provided for Strike-a-Pose and Face-Fit, would make the Results section more detailed. Some figures are densely packed and lack detailed captions, which may reduce their interpretive clarity. For instance, some survey results could be more digestible if combined or summarized with clearer headings.

Author Response

Comments 1: "Although the toolkit is well described, the article would be enhanced from deeper comparative insights into existing digital museum tools. How does ReInHerit perform compared to other AI-based heritage toolkits (e.g., Google Arts & Culture, ArtLens, etc.)? 

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, at the end of the “discussion” section, we have indicated some considerations of how the toolkit is positioned in relation to other existing tools.

Comments 2  VIOLA Multimedia Chatbot and Photo Video Restorer are only briefly mentioned in the overview of results. Expanding on their functionalities, technical details, and potential impact, similar to the level of detail provided for Strike-a-Pose and Face-Fit, would make the Results section more detailed. 

Response 2  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, 

  • On page 18 we have added some ethical considerations on Stike A Pose and and Face fit
  • On page 24 we have added information about the results of tests conducted with VIOLA Chatbot

Comments 3 "Some figures are densely packed and lack detailed captions, which may reduce their interpretive clarity.

Response 3  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we added new, more detailed captioning to images

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Peer Review: Reshaping Museum Experiences with AI – The ReInHerit Toolkit

This manuscript presents a timely and rich exploration of the ReInHerit Toolkit—an open-source suite of AI-driven digital tools designed to transform museum experiences. Drawing from empirical research (surveys, focus groups, workshops), the paper offers clear value to the cultural heritage and museum studies community, particularly those navigating digital transformation and audience engagement.

The paper is well-structured, with detailed methodology, ethical considerations, and grounded discussions on accessibility, co-creation, and sustainability. The integration of AI and computer vision is both technically sound and socially and ethically reflective—something the sector greatly needs.

Suggestions for Improvement

While the paper is detailed, it could benefit from tightening in parts. Some sections (especially the survey result interpretations and emotional engagement theory) repeat similar ideas in multiple places.

Consider trimming back on technical detail (e.g., model architectures).

The work references existing studies and projects but could do more to position ReInHerit in relation to other comparable AI/museum initiatives globally (e.g., Smartify, the Rijksmuseum’s digitisation projects, etc.).

The applications are described well, but it would be valuable to offer more critical reflection on:

  • How success is being measured (beyond engagement or participation).
  • Any limitations or challenges encountered in implementation (e.g., technical glitches, institutional pushback, scalability).

Minor Notes and Edits

  • Line 13: "Horizion" should be corrected to "Horizon".

  • Clarify acronyms on first use (e.g., CV, AI, ICT) to make the work accessible to interdisciplinary readers.

  • Consistency in formatting of footnotes and web links would improve readability.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: "The work references existing studies and projects but could do more to position ReInHerit in relation to other comparable AI/museum initiatives globally (e.g., Smartify, the Rijksmuseum’s digitisation projects, etc.).

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, at the end of the “discussion” section, we have indicated some considerations of how the toolkit is positioned in relation to other existing tools.

Comments 2  The applications are described well, but it would be valuable to offer more critical reflection on: How success is being measured (beyond engagement or participation). Any limitations or challenges encountered in implementation (e.g., technical glitches, institutional pushback, scalability).

Response 2  Following your suggestion on implementation  and scalability and considering the suggestion of the editor, we added a final section where we highlighted future challenges and propectives (Section 5 "Challenges and Future Directions") and revised section 6 "Conclusion"

Comments 3  Minor Notes and Edits

Response 3 Typos,  Acronyms and Footnotes edited

Back to TopTop