Next Article in Journal
Capitalizing on the Potential of South African Indigenous Beef Cattle Breeds: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Modeling the Fourth Dimension of Architectural Heritage: Enabling Processes for a Sustainable Conservation
Previous Article in Journal
Small and Medium-Sized Ports in the TEN-T Network and Nexus of Europe’s Twin Transition: The Way towards Sustainable and Digital Port Service Ecosystems
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Information Management for the Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Heritage
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Authenticity of the Hidden Christians’ Villages in Nagasaki: Issues in Evaluation of Cultural Landscapes

Sustainability 2021, 13(8), 4387; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084387
by Tinka Delakorda Kawashima
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(8), 4387; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084387
Submission received: 21 February 2021 / Revised: 31 March 2021 / Accepted: 4 April 2021 / Published: 14 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Affirming Authenticity: Sustainable Conservation of Cultural Heritage)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The heritage object considered in this manuscript is notable, and the idea of its characteristics deserves appreciation. However, this manuscript as it stands requires a lot of changes before any further consideration. My main concerns are as follows.

  • Introduction: too brief and without citations. This is impossible!
  • Materials and Methods: too brief. Neither materials, nor methods are characterized in detail.
  • Results: in fact, these are conceptual background and interpretations, but not the results following the methodology.
  • Discussion: interesting, but, again, without the references.
  • What are your conclusions?
  • Where are multiple citations to articles in international journals, which are mandatory to articles published in such a good journal as Sustainability?
  • The quality of figures is poor, and note, please, that figures cannot be reproduced directly. It is better to re-draw them or to provide permission for re-production.

I encourage you to find several papers on cultural heritage already published in high-reputation journals and to follow their style and structure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for possibility to read that interesting paper. I have some suggestions and advice.

Overall and very important suggestion: Please read, please look through papers published in Sustainability and make your article according the style of mdpi papers. I feel that author didn’t prepare that text to Sustainability, but just sent without any deep attentions. Please make that paper more scientific. Currently looks like as descriptive material.

Materials and methods: how many interviews or surveys were realized? When it was realized? Author write: long decades, so it was realized for 20-30 years?

Lines 75, 80, 95, 117, 229, 506, 548, 587 – please don’t use ibid. Please make citations according mdpi rules. Please don’t use footnotes. Moreover, please don’t make footnotes or any text in Japanese language.

Line 106 – Please don’t write in scientific papers that kind of titles: Emiko Kakiuchi, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. Please use simply style e.g  According to Kakiuchi [x] the cultural properties protection system in Japan…. Or in similar way. Please rewrite that sentence.

Line 148 –please use only surnames, not names and surnames.

Line 326 - The author writes about the next phase of missionaries. I believe that it is worth mentioning Maximilian Kolbe, who built the monastery in Nagasaki and was saved during the drop of a nuclear bomb on August 9, 1945. For Nagasaki Catholics it is important history.

Please explain or modify Figure 1 because it is not clear if Senpuku finished their existence in 1873 and after that there is only Kakure? Or they exist parallel?

Figure 1 – it is impossible to read anything at that map. Please make new one.

Figure 2 – it is very complicated and not enough visible. Please modify in order to make more clear and understandable. Maybe not every information is required/important?

Figure 3 – please find better picture (without Japanese language and more visible text at the picture)

Lines 383 – 390 – what is supplementary what are components in these lines?

Line 437 – hidden Christian and underground period. I suggest to read about underground cities in Kapadokya (Turkey) where lived Christians (even 20.000 people) under the ground in the cities located under the ground during prosecution time. Author can use that information in some place of the paper where is about prosecution. It happened in the history in many places, but hidden cities (even underground cities existed.

Line 614 – please don’t ask that kind of questions.

Please make deep rewrite of that paper in order to create much more scientific paper style, without footnotes, without not clear information. Please explain acronym such ICOMOS at the beginning not in the line 372. I hope that my suggestions will help to make better paper for Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the author's revisions. Somethong else should be done.

  1. Separate Results and Discussion. These MUST be different sections. Results - your findings, Discussion - interpretations.
  2. Add citations to articles in international journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for new version of the paper. Now it is much better. From your conclusion part you can transfer some sentences and add the small part: recommendation. In that part you will be more free to write your own ideas fro the future. In that part you can show you novelty in your mind for future research. Maybe to add, spread the idea of christian heritage on more historical elements from Nagassaki Prefecture.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop