Estimation of Magnitude and Heat Release Rate of Fires Occurring in Historic Buildings-Taking Churches as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

IIn the introduction, more focus should be given to the need to protect historic buildings and adjust them to the fire safety requirements and how far the integrity of the historic building can be affected.
The authors should also refer to ICOMOS documents. The need for dialogue between experts has to be strengthened, given the problem is anchored between conservation and the need to meet the fire safety requirements.
Additionally, it would be advised to study more extensively the existing literature. The conclusions should be connected with possible recommendations for the future. Is the problem to be solved at the national/international level? Perhaps the mode of conduct/ set of good practices would be of any use.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for submitting your work. The article provides an interesting analysis.

1.- The summary is not accurate enough. The summary should address the objective of the research, the methods used and the main results of the work in a concise, clear and persuasive manner.

2.- The Introduction highlights the research problem and defines research gaps. However, the introduction should provide not only the background and objective of the investigation, but also a brief indication of the methods used and a brief description of the content of each section of the document (in the last paragraph).

3.- The revision of literature presents important highlights about the current state of art. The literature review section should identify gaps in the literature or controversial areas and formulate hypotheses. One of the main weaknesses is that the research hypotheses are missing. The section is also too descriptive and not sophisticated enough, etc. Authors should identify areas of their approach, provide literature review, and identify gaps in literature.

4.- The use of research methods is adequate, however, it would be important to justify the choice of methods and used data as well as the strengths and weaknesses for the research.

 5.- The result section includes data analysis. The key findings can be considered significant and important. However, the result section should include not only data presentation but also the interpretation of the findings obtained. The key findings presented in tables should be better explained and justified considering more details. The critical assessment of the results will improve the quality of the analysis.

6.- The conclusions section includes a synthetic summary of the key results of the research. However, authors should also indicate the practical or theoretical implications, limitations of research, and possible directions for future research.

Thank you for submitting your work. The article provides an interesting analysis.

1.- The summary is not accurate enough. The summary should address the objective of the research, the methods used and the main results of the work in a concise, clear and persuasive manner.

2.- The Introduction highlights the research problem and defines research gaps. However, the introduction should provide not only the background and objective of the investigation, but also a brief indication of the methods used and a brief description of the content of each section of the document (in the last paragraph).

3.- The revision of literature presents important highlights about the current state of art. The literature review section should identify gaps in the literature or controversial areas and formulate hypotheses. One of the main weaknesses is that the research hypotheses are missing. The section is also too descriptive and not sophisticated enough, etc. Authors should identify areas of their approach, provide literature review, and identify gaps in literature.

4.- The use of research methods is adequate, however, it would be important to justify the choice of methods and used data as well as the strengths and weaknesses for the research.

 5.- The result section includes data analysis. The key findings can be considered significant and important. However, the result section should include not only data presentation but also the interpretation of the findings obtained. The key findings presented in tables should be better explained and justified considering more details. The critical assessment of the results will improve the quality of the analysis.

6.- The conclusions section includes a synthetic summary of the key results of the research. However, authors should also indicate the practical or theoretical implications, limitations of research, and possible directions for future research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I agree with the changes introduced.

Reviewer 2 Report

.