Heritage as Action Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The text, well constructed and well argued, aims at trivializing what specialists and a specialized culture can bring to local communities. The critique of econometric perception, as well as a simplified vision of action to make people able to act is well founded and supported by convincing arguments. 
The text, while not developing in depth the modalities showing the added value brought by an anchored specialist action, for example through a case study, allows to fully grasp the hypothesis of transforming the meaning of "simplistic action" into a "mediated action" that generates awareness and commitment.
The article fully responds to the principles set out by the European Landscape Convention, where the role of the "specialist" is well mentioned. 
To position differently the connoisseur in the actions of participation is an urgency which holds to all the disciplines of reading and interpretation of the palimpsests constituted by the landscapes.  
The conclusion could be expanded.

Author Response

I appreciate the positive feedback from Reviewer 1. Regarding the results of empirical research, this is a tricky issue given the nature of the paper. It is not empirical per se, but rather based on a great many studies, as well as a theoretical perspective, which I believe are explained sufficiently. I have added som references and expanded the conclusion, as requested.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research is interesting and looks forward to next work. 

Author Response

I appreciate Reviewer 2's kind words. I have done some minor corrections. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is structured in a discursive way. It refers to well-known and long-established principles and approaches.

On the basis of this, it develops a logical and consequential reasoning, which ultimately leads to the conclusions as a natural outcome.

The arguments are well explained and clear, and the logical thread that follows is understandable even for non-experts on the subject.

The topic is important and the literature on it needs further study to induce a productive discussion in the sector. For this reason, I think the article is publishable, even if some references are missing in the text (probably due to editorial problems)

Author Response

I am very greatful for Reviewer 3's positive feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Your article is very interesting and important.

I have some comments:

Abstract - There is no information about "What we are presenting in this article"; "What is the main objective"

FIGURES - None of the figures have a source

Figure 1. How archaeology can improve quality of life [derived from 10, Table 1]. What table 1????

In Line 138, 144, 152 appears an error - (see Error! Reference source not found.),

Figure 3 - The font is too big. You could put a minor size in order to be more related to the others.

There is no reference to a methodology or article objective.

Author Response

Reviewer 4 has been conscientious in corrections, and I appreciate it. I have found some problems and mistakes which were either my fault, or caused by the editing process (e.g. removing internal cross-references). I have followed the suggestions by expanding the introduction to explain better the aims of the paper, and its unorthodox structure. The abstract adequately describes the goals and contents of the article, which are many and fraught, given the short extension available. The figures are sourced, and some are original, but I have checked and found some minor editing mistakes. I have also made the font in figure 3 smaller, and adapted the font type to the publication, so it is much better.

Thank you for your time.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations for the reviews.

Now I believe that is much better for publication.