Methodology for the Study of the Vulnerability of Historic Buildings: The Reconstruction of the Transformation Phases of the Church of the Abbey-Castle of Santo Stefano in Monopoli in Puglia (Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic presented in the paper is very interesting. However, to improve the quality of the manuscript, this Reviewer suggests contextualizing better the research work in the framework of the state-of-the art (also including further not self-referential references), increasing the clarity of the adopted methodologies, and highlighting the original results. The English is clear, but some sentences must be improved (some indications are summarized below).
Abstract
Please, revise the punctuation of some sentences in the abstract. (e.g. “Studies on the abbey-castle have revealed different construction and deconstruction phases relating to historical periods of the Roman age; late antique age; medieval age; modern and contemporary age”. […] “The arm of the church is characterized by the crypt with opus reticulatum walls; from the two surviving bays of the former Benedictine church; from the residential palace of the XVIII century and from the residential extensions of the XX century“ and others).
Introduction
Please, revise the following sentence in the Introduction: “., already applied in other case studies [ii2], in these years of work he has produced scientific publications and several specialist degree theses.”
Consider replace “The studies carried out, supported by thermographic investigations, have made it possible to highlight the design solutions and the use of building materials that are unsuitable for the structures” with “The studies carried out, supported by thermographic investigations, have made possible to highlight the design solutions and the use of building materials that are unsuitable for the structures”.
Please, revise the punctuation of the sentence “Such as, for example, the lack of planning attention for the construction of the crypt and the monks' lodgings or the recovery of wall partitions in opus reticulatum made in Roman times with soft tuff. The structural relationship between the crypt and the upper church. Vulnerability to direct contact with the sea [ix9].”
Material and methods
The sentence “[…] or the different stratigraphic analysis phases of the church arm to analyze the vulnerability natural and induced building” is not clear. Please, revise the English.
Maybe the sentence “Methods of investigation were used: restoration; landscape archeology and architecture archeology” could be revised as follows: The used investigation methods were: …”.
Results
Please, revise the sentence: “The analysis of the vulnerability of the church's underground environments made use of investigation methods aimed at recognizing the construction techniques, the con- nections and configuration of the environments, the evolutionary phases and transfor- mations. With the aim of identifying precariousness and strengths.”
At the beginning of page 12, please revise the caption of Fig. 17. Now, it appears as part of the text.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment".
thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Colleague,
The article has potential as a research topic. The vulnerability and instability of a building are analysed in detail, also considering past seismic events and the chemical-physical characteristics of the material in its re-use context.
- Anyway, the contribution needs an improvement in syntax and the English language.
- I suggest you break it into several sub-paragraphs to make reading and comprehension more accessible.
- Perhaps in the first part of the article, a chronological diagram of the building could be added to the text.
- Too many small to medium-sized and low-resolution images. I recommend that you select a few that are of high quality.
- If you mention earthquakes in the past, you should devote more attention to them (more details and references).
Best regards
Author Response
"Si prega di consultare l'allegato."
grazie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The argument of the manuscript is original and interesting, since it studies in depth all the construction phases of the Church of an important castle in Puglia.
Nevertheless the submitted article needs some revisions to be improved.
In particular, the paragraph on Materials and methods should be expanded and better structured. It is in fact the opinion of this reviewer that the methods used are not clear and the results obtained by the author and distinct from the bibliographic research are not highlighted enough. In order to better frame the state of the art of the study and distinguish it from the author’s original work, references should be expanded and non-self-referential articles should be added.
Moreover, the resolution of the imagines in the figures should be implemented in order to enhance understanding of the various stages of construction of the Abbey.
Finally, an editorial revision of the paper should be done, in order to check punctuation and some sentences that are not clear.
Author Response
"Si prega di consultare l'allegato."
Grazie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
A detailed historical chronology of the church of the Castello di Santo Stefano Abbey in Monopoli in Puglia (Italy) is provided to understand its changes, restoration, and current state of preservation. In addition, a detailed analysis of the structural vulnerability, especially the reconstructions and demolitions on one arm of the building, would be evidence of possible earthquake damage.
An article that can contribute to the seismic history of the place. A detailed survey is adopted, demonstrating when it is relevant in the historical-chronological analysis.
The contribution deserves to be published, but the English language still needs improvements (long sentences and syntax errors).
In the first revision, a chronology table was suggested. However, I recommend leaving the most relevant information for the entire article, selecting figures (lots of them and small ones), and providing more clarity in explaining methods and results (tables, diagrams).
Please, one more check on the references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has certainly been improved, but still needs more clarity in the description of the methods used and the results obtained.
Perhaps a subdivision into subparagraphs could help to better structure and make the work done more understandable to the reader.
Some imagines steel need an implement in resolution, and an editorial revision still should be done.Author Response
"Vedi l'allegato.
Grazie
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
