Masonry in the Context of Sustainable Buildings: A Review of the Brick Role in Architecture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript discusses modern advances in brick masonry. Although it includes a significant amount of knowledge, in my opinion in its present form it can barely be termed as “a review”. Thus, I recommend major revision of the manuscript. I comment mostly on the structure of the paper, which requires substantial elaboration, but some of the remarks require more detailed literature studies and/or more information to be included (I attached a literature list at the end of my comments).
Major issues
Lines 13-23 – Judging from the abstract, the paper includes a detailed review of the history of masonry, with special emphasis put on the stone masonry (lines 13-21). As a geoscientist, I was eager to read the paper, and I felt a little bit disappointed. On the other hand, the title includes a reference to contemporary architecture, which reflects much better the contents of the manuscript. It is essential to decide what is the aim of the manuscript: a study of historical masonry or the review of contemporary architecture. The title, abstract and introduction have to be coherent.
Line 36 – You refer to both brick and stone masonry. Again, from geoscientific point of view this is disappointing, because the manuscript discusses brick masonry with short notes on the use of natural stone, mostly in ancient civilisations. You should decide if it is reasonable to limit your work to brick masonry or, alternatively, supplement the manuscript with a few paragraphs or a separate chapter devoted to stone masonry. I suggest the first solution. It would take a huge amount of work to explore the history of stone masonry; for earlier attempts see Dipasquale et al. (2020).
Lines 70-136 – You refer to ancient civilisations including China, but please note that your review is definitely centered around Europe. This is not bad, of course, if you decide to restrict the study to one continent. However, the history of masonry in Europe is well studied and outlined in many architecture handbooks. I would therefore recommend adding more details regarding China (there are only four lines in the present version of the manuscript, 107-111, definitely too few to call it an analytical review). In lines 66-67 you refer to Islamic countries, but then you leave this topic without any comment. It would be interesting to read more information on masonry in Asia (you also mention Indochina).
Lines 183-184 – Your historical review is not fully consistent. I agree that it is not possible to cover the history of masonry in a single chapter, as you write in line 65. But we have to conform fully to historic facts. Neo-Gothic is not known from the UK only, moreover, during the Victorian times he became popular in countries other than Great Britain (for example, these are the times when German Empire authorities claimed the country to be the original source of Gothic architecture). Again, I agree that it is not possible to include all information regarding architecture and masonry in a single review, but we have to be strict here, this is a scientific paper.
Lines 224-233 – You refer here to the sustainable construction paradigm. If you decide to include the stone masonry in your review, it is also necessary to study the extraction of natural stones, which is currently far from achieving any form of sustainable growth. For example, see papers by Careddu (2019) and Careddu et al. (2019). Long-distance marine freight is also a problem, given that more and more natural stone resources are exported from India and China to most countries around the world. See also excellent discussion of sustainable stone constructions in Klemm and Wiggins (2016). If you decide to limit yourselves to brick masonry, the problem with sustainable extraction of clay minerals is also worth noting (I do not have any references for that but please note that in medieval times the source areas of natural resources used for brick production were located in the immediate vicinity of the building site; now in most cases this is linkage is not active, and building materials are extracted in opencast mines, not in small local pits, located in distant areas and transported over long distances. You could refer to that problem given that you discuss the possible use of eco-bricks (in lines 445-448).
Lines 424-425 – Again, here you consider bricks as an eco-friendly material, but it would be interesting to see some more details regarding the sustainable extraction strategies for natural resources required to produce standard bricks. Note that you do it partly in line 510, when you refer to the sources of eco-friendly bricks. However, you should probably redesign this part of the manuscript by joining together the sentences that relate to the sustainable brick production techniques and by placing them in a single paragraph.
Lines 523-534 – In the title “sustainable buildings” appear, but here, in the conclusions, there are no statements regarding the sustainable masonry. What is new in your research on sustainable brick masonry that could be placed in conclusions?
Structure
Lines 44-57 – You describe the history of the masonry here. It would be better to place this paragraph in chapter 2.
Line 90 – You refer here to ancient Egyptian masonry which relied on a heavy use of natural stone. However, judging from other parts of the manuscript (for example lines 149-171) you exclude brick masonry from your review (for example by restraining yourselves to architecture of brick Gothic). I think that it is necessary to rethink the scope of the paper and decide, whether the stone masonry is discussed in the review.
Line 130 – Apparent problems with the structure of this chapter are visible here. You refer here to Etruscans, after studying the masonry of ancient Rome. It looks like we are moving back in time or jumping from one civilisation to another. It is necessary to maintain the chronological order of events.
Lines 200-206 – We jump back to ancient Romans here. This is a problem with the structure of this chapter, we should adjust to the chronology of events; this will facilitate the reader’s comprehension of the evolution of masonry.
Line 265 – You start the chapter with the example of Mulberry House. Why have you decided to use it as a study case? A short explanation should appear here.
Lines 317-358 – We are coming back to the history of masonry, to the Art Nouveau and modernism. This part of the manuscript should in my opinion be placed in chapter 2, probably after line 222.
Lines 361-389 – The structure is messy here, because we are moving back to the history, not to the architecture of modernism, but much deeper in time, again to the Gothic Revival! I insist on separating the history of masonry (chapter 2) from the contemporary brick masonry techniques that you discuss here and from the issues related to sustainable development.
Lines 535-545 – This is the Conclusions chapter, but take a look at this paragraph. It sounds like a part of the introduction, or an abstract. You describe here the contents of the paper that the reader has just studied, and listing your aims (perfect to include in the introduction), but personally I do not see here any conclusions from your earlier discussion.
Editing issues
Line 13 – I am not a native, but I was quite convinced that masonry is not only about “building material”, but it refers to the whole process of building from these material. It would be great to include here a precise definition of the masonry: this is the first sentence of the manuscript.
Line 17 – Again, I am not a native, but I think that the term “caveman” is not currently used when referring to earliest relics of human art and constructions.
Line 50 - “have been around for a long time” - This is a scientific paper: please provide some approximations (and a reference to the source if necessary).
Line 99 – Double full stop.
Line 110 – It is necessary to indicate clearly when both dynasties ruled China.
Line 153 – Two full stops and a missing final part of the statement.
Line 173 – Missing full stop.
Line 486 – Do not capitalise “wall”.
Line 515 – Use superscript in “1000oC”.
Line 519 - “produced more than” - Produced more frequently?
Conclusion
As you can see, there are significant problems with the structure of the manuscript. I am not a native, but it seems that extensive proofreading effort is also required. And, last but not least, in my opinion the content of the paper does not allow to name it as review. You should definitely remove the history from the abstract and focus on the contemporaneous sustainable masonry, or alternatively remove contemporaneous from the title and focus on the historical evolution of masonry. In both cases the component related to sustainable production of bricks or dimension stones for the purposes of modern masonry is weak and should be elaborated more thoroughly. I would also suggest limiting the scope of the manuscript to brick masonry or adding more information on natural stone use. The other problem is related to the underrepresentation of examples from outside the Western culture. If you decide to limit yourselves to the European countries, and to sustainability of brick masonry constructions, then your work will be probably similar to these published in Smith et al. (2016). It would be difficult to argue that your research is novel and provides an unusual look at the sustainable masonry practices.
References
Careddu, N. (2019). Dimension stones in the circular economy world. Resources Policy, 60, 243-245.
Careddu, N., Di Capua, G., & Siotto, G. (2019). Dimension stone industry should meet the fundamental values of geoethics. Resources Policy, 63, 101468.
Dipasquale, L., Rovero, L., & Fratini, F. (2020). Ancient stone masonry constructions. In Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials (pp. 403-435). Woodhead Publishing.
Klemm, A., & Wiggins, D. (2016). Sustainability of natural stone as a construction material. In Sustainability of construction materials (pp. 283-308). Woodhead Publishing.
Smith, A. S., Bingel, P., & Bown, A. (2016). Sustainability of masonry in construction. In Sustainability of Construction Materials (pp. 245-282). Woodhead Publishing.
Author Response
All editorial comments and technical clarifications requested by Reviewer #1 have been appropriately incorporated, as follows:
Comment: Lines 13-23 – Judging from the abstract, the paper includes a detailed review of the history of masonry, with special emphasis put on the stone masonry (lines 13-21). As a geoscientist, I was eager to read the paper, and I felt a little bit disappointed. On the other hand, the title includes a reference to contemporary architecture, which reflects much better the contents of the manuscript. It is essential to decide what is the aim of the manuscript: a study of historical masonry or the review of contemporary architecture. The title, abstract and introduction have to be coherent.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1. The title, abstract and introduction were revised to be more consistent according to the reviewer comment
Comment: Line 36 – You refer to both brick and stone masonry. Again, from geoscientific point of view this is disappointing because the manuscript discusses brick masonry with short notes on the use of natural stone, mostly in ancient civilisations. You should decide if it is reasonable to limit your work to brick masonry or, alternatively, supplement the manuscript with a few paragraphs or a separate chapter devoted to stone masonry. I suggest the first solution. It would take a huge amount of work to explore the history of stone masonry; for earlier attempts see Dipasquale et al. (2020).
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer for his important comment, the subjects missioned by the reviewer is done and all the article was revised according to the reviewer comment
Comment: Lines 70-136 – You refer to ancient civilisations including China, but please note that your review is centered around Europe. This is not bad, of course, if you decide to restrict the study to one continent. However, the history of masonry in Europe is well studied and outlined in many architecture handbooks. I would therefore recommend adding more details regarding China (there are only four lines in the present version of the manuscript, 107-111, too few to call it an analytical review).
Answer: As noted by Reviewer #1. This section has been broadened and additional details and references have been added.
Comment: In lines 66-67 you refer to Islamic countries, but then you leave this topic without any comment. It would be interesting to read more information on masonry in Asia (you also mention Indochina).
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1. This section has been expanded, and more information, as well as references, have been included.
Comment: Lines 183-184 – Your historical review is not fully consistent. I agree that it is not possible to cover the history of masonry in a single chapter, as you write in line 65. But we have to conform fully to historic facts. Neo-Gothic is not known from the UK only, moreover, during the Victorian times he became popular in countries other than Great Britain (for example, these are the times when German Empire authorities claimed the country to be the original source of Gothic architecture). Again, I agree that it is not possible to include all information regarding architecture and masonry in a single review, but we have to be strict here, this is a scientific paper.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1. The section was revised
Comment: Lines 224-233 – You refer here to the sustainable construction paradigm. If you decide to include the stone masonry in your review, it is also necessary to study the extraction of natural stones, which is currently far from achieving any form of sustainable growth. For example, see papers by Careddu (2019) and Careddu et al. (2019). Long-distance marine freight is also a problem, given that more and more natural stone resources are exported from India and China to most countries around the world. See also excellent discussion of sustainable stone constructions in Klemm and Wiggins (2016). If you decide to limit yourselves to brick masonry, the problem with sustainable extraction of clay minerals is also worth noting (I do not have any references for that but please note that in medieval times the source areas of natural resources used for brick production were located in the immediate vicinity of the building site; now in most cases this is linkage is not active, and building materials are extracted in opencast mines, not in small local pits, located in distant areas and transported over long distances. You could refer to that problem given that you discuss the possible use of eco-bricks (in lines 445-448).
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer for his insightful comments. In this part, we plan to refer to the bricks, which are becoming increasingly common in modern architecture. We utilized the reviewer's suggested reference in the text revision.
Comment: Lines 424-425 – Again, here you consider bricks as an eco-friendly material, but it would be interesting to see some more details regarding the sustainable extraction strategies for natural resources required to produce standard bricks. Note that you do it partly in line 510, when you refer to the sources of eco-friendly bricks. However, you should probably redesign this part of the manuscript by joining together the sentences that relate to the sustainable brick production techniques and by placing them in a single paragraph.
Answer: According to the reviewer comment #1. This section was revised and reformed
Comment: Lines 523-534 – In the title “sustainable buildings” appear, but here, in the conclusions, there are no statements regarding the sustainable masonry. What is new in your research on sustainable brick masonry that could be placed in conclusions?
Answer: According to the reviewer comment #1. The conclusion section was revised and reformed
Comment: Lines 44-57 – You describe the history of the masonry here. It would be better to place this paragraph in chapter 2.
Answer: According to the reviewer comment #1. The paragraph was moved to section 2
Comment: Line 90 – You refer here to ancient Egyptian masonry which relied on a heavy use of natural stone. However, judging from other parts of the manuscript (for example lines 149-171) you exclude brick masonry from your review (for example by restraining yourselves to architecture of brick Gothic). I think that it is necessary to rethink the scope of the paper and decide, whether the stone masonry is discussed in the review.
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer for this comment, Accordingly, the paragraph was removed according to the scope of the paper “Bricks”
Comment: Line 130 – Apparent problems with the structure of this chapter are visible here. You refer here to Etruscans, after studying the masonry of ancient Rome. It looks like we are moving back in time or jumping from one civilization to another. It is necessary to maintain the chronological order of events.
Answer: According to the reviewer comment #1, the paragraph was revised
Comment: Lines 200-206 – We jump back to ancient Romans here. This is a problem with the structure of this chapter, we should adjust to the chronology of events; this will facilitate the reader’s comprehension of the evolution of masonry.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1. The text was replaced
Comment: Line 265 – You start the chapter with the example of Mulberry House. Why have you decided to use it as a study case? A short explanation should appear here.
Answer: According to the reviewer comment #1, the section including the example, was removed
Comment: Lines 317-358 – We are coming back to the history of masonry, to the Art Nouveau and modernism. This part of the manuscript should in my opinion be placed in chapter 2, probably after line 222.
Answer: According to the reviewer comment #1, the section with art nouveau was removed and it is inserted after line 222
Comment: Lines 361-389 – The structure is messy here, because we are moving back to the history, not to the architecture of modernism, but much deeper in time, again to the Gothic Revival! I insist on separating the history of masonry (chapter 2) from the contemporary brick masonry techniques that you discuss here and from the issues related to sustainable development.
Answer: According to Reviewer Comment #1, two separate sections are now created by reforming sections 2 and 3 of the documents, according to the reviewer's comment.
Comment: Lines 535-545 – This is the Conclusions chapter but take a look at this paragraph. It sounds like a part of the introduction, or an abstract. You describe here the contents of the paper that the reader has just studied and listing your aims (perfect to include in the introduction), but personally I do not see here any conclusions from your earlier discussion.
Answer: According to Reviewer Comment #1, the section conclusion was revised
Comment: Line 13 – I am not a native, but I was quite convinced that masonry is not only about “building material”, but it refers to the whole process of building from this material. It would be great to include here a precise definition of the masonry: this is the first sentence of the manuscript.
Answer: According to Reviewer Comment #1, the paragraph was reformed and revised
Comment: Line 17 – Again, I am not a native, but I think that the term “caveman” is not currently used when referring to earliest relics of human art and constructions.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1, the term “caveman” was removed
Comment: Line 50 - “have been around for a long time” - This is a scientific paper: please provide some approximations (and a reference to the source if necessary).
Answer: The sentence was changed in response to reviewer #1's feedback.
Comment: Line 99 – Double full stop.
Answer: According As pointed out by reviewer #1, the full stop is removed
Comment: Line 110 – It is necessary to indicate clearly when both dynasties ruled China.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1, the period is added
Comment: Line 153 – Two full stops and a missing final part of the statement.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1, the full stop is removed, and the statement is completed
Comment: Line 173 – Missing full stop.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1, the full stop is added
Comment: Line 486 – Do not capitalise “wall”.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1, the word “wall” reformed
Comment: Line 515 – Use superscript in “1000oC”.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1, it was superscripted
Comment: Line 519 - “produced more than” - Produced more frequently?
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #1, the sentence was reformed
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a review of the history of masonry; it covers thousands of years, from use of the unburnt bricks to the recent architecture. The review goes through the world, it mentions various materials or admixtures, techniques, colours, brick sizes or architectural styles. A lot of information can be found here.
The authors have certainly gone to the effort of gathering many sources. Everyone can find something interesting in the article. I have no major objections to the article. Nevertheless, let me mention a few issues to be considered or corrected.
Miscellaneous
· Not all references are given in the text, for example there are no citations to ref. No. 10, 20, 28, 30 or 37.
· L 135, no units of density.
My notes; what came to mind as I was reading (there is no need to react or make changes to the text if the authors think their version is OK)
· L 136, „very low compressive strength 5–20 MPa“; in my opinion, the strength of 20 MPa is not very low, it seems to me that it is rather higher strength (for masonry).
· L 438, I was surprised by the information that „the form and size of standard bricks are the same everywhere“. What is the standard size then? I have thought that the brick size is different in each country.
· L 445–449, sudden information about eco-bricks does not seem to fit between the part of the text about brick dimensions and then about the use of clinker; maybe the eco-bricks section could be elsewhere in the article?
· I was also a bit surprised by the use of the word “seam” through the whole paper; the Eurocode standard, and not only that, uses the word “joint” for mortar layers; the only part where “joints” are used is the Table 2.
Minor mistakes and typographical errors
· Two different hyphen characters (short - and long –) are interchanged randomly throughout the text, often close together, it doesn't look graphically correct.
· Graphical differences between the same abbreviations, for example B.C., B.C, BC
· Two spaces (double spaces) between words in many places throughout the text; I marked some of them and attach the pdf with green marks to my review.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
All editorial comments and technical clarifications requested by Reviewer #2 have been appropriately incorporated, as follows:
Comment: Not all references are given in the text, for example there are no citations to ref. No. 10, 20, 28, 30 or 37.
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer #2 for this important comment, accordingly, all references are given in the text now
Comment: L 135, no units of density.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #2, the unit of density unit is added
Comment: L 136, „very low compressive strength 5–20 MPa“; in my opinion, the strength of 20 MPa is not very low, it seems to me that it is rather higher strength (for masonry).
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #2, the values were cited from an published manuscript “ https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0306-7” the sentence will be adjusted as following “the average compressive strengths (5–20 MPa).
Comment: L 438, I was surprised by the information that „the form and size of standard bricks are the same everywhere “. What is the standard size then? I have thought that the brick size is different in each country.
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer #2 for this important observation, accordingly, all text is revised now “…however regular bricks don't all have the same size…”.
Comment: L 445–449, sudden information about eco-bricks does not seem to fit between the part of the text about brick dimensions and then about the use of clinker; maybe the eco-bricks section could be elsewhere in the article?
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer #2 for his significant observation, accordingly, the text was changed and relocated to a more appropriate location.
Comment: I was also a bit surprised by the use of the word “seam” through the whole paper; the Eurocode standard, and not only that, uses the word “joint” for mortar layers; the only part where “joints” are used is the Table 2.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #2, the term” seam” is removed and in placed with” mortar joints” the same with the joint in the text and table 2
Comment: Two different hyphen characters (short - and long –) are interchanged randomly throughout the text, often close together, it doesn't look graphically correct.
Answer: As pointed out by reviewer #2, these issues were revised
Comment: Graphical differences between the same abbreviations, for example B.C., B.C, BC
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer #2 for his significant observation, accordingly, the text was revised
Comment: Two spaces (double spaces) between words in many places throughout the text; I marked some of them and attach the pdf with green marks to my review.
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer #2 for his redaction help, the text is revised now.
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of the manuscript entitled “Masonry in the context of sustainable buildings and contemporary architecture-an analytical review”
The article is a review of masonry as a building material and modern masonry buildings as well. A major part of the paper concerns the use of bricks (adobe or fired ones) through the centuries. No reference is made to stone which is the main material in many parts of the world. The text is not very well written, and the structure of the paper needs a great revision.
Some comments towards it are found below.
- In this part, many brick structures are described without a picture or a drawing to clarify the descriptions, instead, figures of masonry structural systems are presented in Table 1.
- Many sentences are in the wrong place e.g the sentences in lines 172-177, 287-293. In general, the structure of the article is problematic.
- In line 131, the name is Stefanidou and the mechanical properties of lines 135-136 concern ancient bricks from structures in Greece. In line 135 which is the unit of specific density?
- At least one of the references, meaning 31, is not related to the subject of lines 177-183 because it concerns the confined and reinforced masonry under cycling loading.
- Many typing errors, meaning double space with the words, two periods etc.
- In the title of section 3, the ABC must be explained before first use as abbreviation, what is the meaning of the three periods?
- In line 241 ….bricks are wormer than those… is wrong, the correct is that they provide greater thermal insulation.
- Section 3.1 needs a short introduction before dealing with unique structures.
- The structural forms presented in Table 1 may also have consisted of stone or cement units but nowhere it is mentioned. In addition, in this table, the two last forms are vaults and not arches.
- Two sections are numbered 3.2, the fonts of 3.1 are not italics
- In section 4 there is no mention of modern codes concerning the brick masonry units e.g Eurocodes or American codes.
- Fig 2 concerns only the solid bricks, many types of hollow bricks are available and in use worldwide.
- Table 2 is irrelevant to the subject of this review.
Author Response
All editorial comments and technical clarifications requested by Reviewer #3 have been appropriately incorporated, as follows:
Comment 1: In this part, many brick structures are described without a picture or a drawing to clarify the descriptions, instead, figures of masonry structural systems are presented in Table 1.
Answer 1: We would like to thank the reviewer #3 a figure with brick structure was created (fig 1)
Comment 2: Many sentences are in the wrong place e.g the sentences in lines 172-177, 287-293. In general, the structure of the article is problematic.
Answer 2: As pointed out by reviewer #3, the texts were reformed and revised.
Comment 3: In line 131, the name is Stefani dou and the mechanical properties of lines 135-136 concern ancient bricks from structures in Greece. In line 135 which is the unit of specific density?
Answer 3: The density unit was added, as noted by reviewer #3, where Stefanidou is the author of a paper titled "Analysis and characterisation of Roman and Byzantine burnt bricks from Greece- https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0306-7 ," where we discuss brick from the Roman period.
Comment 4: At least one of the references, meaning 31, is not related to the subject of lines 177-183 because it concerns the confined and reinforced masonry under cycling loading.
Answer 4: As pointed out by reviewer #3, the text was removed
Comment 5: Many typing errors, meaning double space with the words, two periods etc.
Answer 5: As pointed out by reviewer #3, the article was proofread. The journal editing department will control the article technical errors
Comment 6: In the title of section 3, the ABC must be explained before first use as abbreviation, what is the meaning of the three periods?
Answer 6: As pointed out by reviewer #3, section 3 was revised, and explanation of this abbreviation was added, the text with three periods was revised
Comment 7: In line 241 …. bricks are wormer than those… is wrong, the correct is that they provide greater thermal insulation.
Answer 7: We appreciate reviewer #3's input, and the content has been corrected
Comment 8: Section 3.1 needs a short introduction before dealing with unique structures.
Answer 8: We appreciate reviewer #2's insightful criticism, which led to the addition of an introductory section and new reference.
Comment 9: The structural forms presented in Table 1 may also have consisted of stone or cement units but nowhere it is mentioned. In addition, in this table, the two last forms are vaults and not arches.
Answer 9: As reviewer #3 noted, yes, but we focused on the bricks in building structures, and the two final building forms have new names because of reviewer comment.
Comment 10: Two sections are numbered 3.2, the fonts of 3.1 are not italics
Answer 10: As pointed out by reviewer #3, the errors were corrected
Comment 11: In section 4 there is no mention of modern codes concerning the brick masonry units e.g Eurocodes or American codes.
Answer 11: As pointed out by reviewer #3, We take a universal specified standards unit.
Comment 12: Fig 2 concerns only the solid bricks, many types of hollow bricks are available and in use worldwide.
Answer 12: There are many other sorts of bricks, as reviewer #3 noted, but in our study, we only chose the solid kind as a typical product application.
Comment 12: Table 2 is irrelevant to the subject of this review.
Answer 12: We appreciate reviewer #3's feedback on table 1, which discusses several types of masonry joining forms and allows us to eliminate it if necessary.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors followed my previous comments and significantly improved the manuscript and limited the aims and introduction according to the contents of the paper. Therefore, I recommend publication. However, there are still some editing issues that need to be resolved. For example, take a look at the unfinished paragraph in the abstract (line 26), "SSYUDIOMM" (line 270) and "to” historical architecture"," (instead of "to ”historical architecture"," in line 278). Thus, I recommend accepting the article after minor editing changes.
Author Response
All editorial comments and technical clarifications requested by Reviewer #1 have been appropriately incorporated, as follows:
Comment: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors followed my previous comments and significantly improved the manuscript and limited the aims and introduction according to the contents of the paper. Therefore, I recommend publication. However, there are still some editing issues that need to be resolved. For example, look at the unfinished paragraph in the abstract (line 26), "SSYUDIOMM" (line 270) and "to” historical architecture"," (instead of "to” historical architecture"," in line 278). Thus, I recommend accepting the article after minor editing changes.
Answer: We sincerely value the reviewer comments. All reviewer comments and feedback were taken, and the manuscript is revised now accordingly
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version of the manuscript is much better than the original. Some comments are included on the pdf attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
All editorial comments and technical clarifications requested by Reviewer #3 have been appropriately incorporated, as follows:
Comment: The revised version of the manuscript is much better than the original. Some comments are included on the pdf attached.
Answer: We sincerely value your comments, and we thank you for them. All reviewer comments and feedback were taken, and the manuscript is revised now accordingly
