The Cultural Heritage of Montilla and the Printing Press since the Modern Age: Its Evolution and Relationship with Graphic Engineering Boosting the SDGs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the text submitted for evaluation, the following issues have been confirmed:

 Both the title, the summary and the keywords reflect the contents of the text. The work presents a correct scientific structure, which allows a simple and structured reading of it.

The work presented involves an analysis of the arrival of the printing press to Montilla (Andalusia). This is an important contribution to understanding the arrival of the printing press to the city of Montilla and its evaluation.

The work does not present clear methodology, objectives or research questions. We recommend delimiting the object of study. The object of study is confusing, it is not clear what the object of study is. The printing press in Montilla in the 17th century? The printing press in Montillas in the 16th to 20th centuries?

A clarification of the methodology used, a specification of the object of study, is requested.

The engraving analyzed does not allow us to specify the particularities of the printing press in the city of Montilla; it is an engraving that allows us to analyze and identify any printing press of the modern age. This is an extensive section, which does not detract from the object of study.

Evolution of the printing press in Montilla. This section is outside the scope of the study. It is a list of printers.

The work does not present bibliographic references updated until 2023.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

The authors appreciate the comments of the reviewer, that have helped improve the manuscript. A new version of the manuscript is available, and the answers to the reviewer’s comments also.

 

Reviewer 1

Point 1

After reading the text submitted for evaluation, the following issues have been confirmed:

Both the title, the summary and the keywords reflect the contents of the text. The work presents a correct scientific structure, which allows a simple and structured reading of it.

The work presented involves an analysis of the arrival of the printing press to Montilla (Andalusia). This is an important contribution to understanding the arrival of the printing press to the city of Montilla and its evaluation.

The work does not present clear methodology, objectives or research questions. We recommend delimiting the object of study. The object of study is confusing, it is not clear what the object of study is. The printing press in Montilla in the 17th century? The printing press in Montillas in the 16th to 20th centuries? A clarification of the methodology used, a specification of the object of study, is requested.

Response 1:  

• The methodology has been revised, clarifying the aspects proposed by the reviewer. Please see lines 220, and 224-231.
• The objectives of the article/research have been clarified and revised according to the reviewer’s comments. Please, see lines 20-23 and 61.

Point 2

The engraving analyzed does not allow us to specify the particularities of the printing press in the city of Montilla; it is an engraving that allows us to analyze and identify any printing press of the modern age. This is an extensive section, which does not detract from the object of study.

Response 2:  

• No image of the 17th century Montilla typographic workshops has been found so far. The creation corresponds chronologically with the one Stradanus shows us in his engraving. We understand that its analysis, together with the printing treatises studied, allows us to get an idea of what these workshops could have been like. In addition, if we compare this engraving with the images in figure 8, similarities with the Stradanus engraving are observed. These are two unpublished photographs that probably date from the 19th century, which show us the workshop of the Tenllado printing press in Lucena, a town very close to Montilla. If we compare both figures, we can see how the structure of the printing workshop had evolved little between both centuries, the 17th and 19th.
• As the reviewer points out, the Stradanus's engraving is not an image typical of the Montilla workshops, but it is a reference in terms of the typographic industry of the moment. Likewise, just as other engravings of his same work entitled "Nova Reperta", have been for other types of industries and professions.

Point 3

Evolution of the printing press in Montilla. This section is outside the scope of the study. It is a list of printers.

• The object of study of this article has been specified in the abstract (lines 20 to 23) and the introduction (line 61).
• In order to justify the section “Evolution of the printing press in Montilla”. The authors think that the analysis of the number of printing presses per year in the city help to understand the impact that this kind of typographic industry could have on society. And the repercussions of this innovation project and how it was despite the interest of certain sectors of the Montilla oligarchy, led by the Marquis of Priego.
• The scarce educated population in Montilla, epidemics, poor economic conditions or historical events such as the confiscation and the departure of the people from the religious orders in the 18th century, contributed to the decline of this type of industry, to later be driven again to from the 19th century, as we have tried to show in table 4 (lines 553 to 557).

 

Point 4

The work does not present bibliographic references updated until 2023.

• Some more important references have been introduced thanks to the search of new ones. (nº 45, 46, 51).

 

Thank you very much again for all your comments and suggestions that without doubt have helped much improve the manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main objective of this study was to characterise the Spanish printing press of the 17th century through the analysis of an etching by Stradanus, relating it to the founding of the first typographic workshops in the rural Andalusian territory, and studying the specific case of Montilla. The printing press was key for the dissemination of culture and knowledge in the Modern Age. It produced books, documents and etchings, which are different key elements for the dissemination of knowledge and the preservation of Human heritage. This research has allowed us to know and analyze for the process of establishing the printing press in the case of Montilla coinciding with the 450th anniversary of the founding of his first printing press. Before the final publication, the following issues should be addressed.

1. Please further emphasize the innovation of the paper in the abstract.

2. Some of the pictures are fuzzy, please improve the quality of the pictures in the paper.

3. Please add a description of future research directions to the conclusions.

 

4. There are some typos and syntax errors in the paper. Please check the whole paper and correct the corresponding errors.

5. Please make sure that the copyright of all figure is allowed.

6. Many reference names are not written in English.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

The authors appreciate the comments of the reviewer, that have helped improve the manuscript. A new version of the manuscript is available, and the answers to the reviewer’s comments also.

 

Reviewer 2

The main objective of this study was to characterise the Spanish printing press of the 17th century through the analysis of an etching by Stradanus, relating it to the founding of the first typographic workshops in the rural Andalusian territory, and studying the specific case of Montilla. The printing press was key for the dissemination of culture and knowledge in the Modern Age. It produced books, documents and etchings, which are different key elements for the dissemination of knowledge and the preservation of Human heritage. This research has allowed us to know and analyze for the process of establishing the printing press in the case of Montilla coinciding with the 450th anniversary of the founding of his first printing press. Before the final publication, the following issues should be addressed.

1. Please further emphasize the innovation of the paper in the abstract.

The abstract has been revised trying to highlight the innovation presented according to this reviewer suggests and recommends. Please, see lines 19 to 23.

2. Some of the pictures are fuzzy, please improve the quality of the pictures in the paper.

The quality of the figures has been revised according to this reviewer’s comments. The authors have removed those ones that could not be improved.

3. Please add a description of future research directions to the conclusions.

Some possible future lines of research have been introduced in the conclusion section. Please, see lines 620 to 630.

• Perform a study of a printing press in the area that has survived for several centuries, analyzing its evolution from an industrial and socioeconomic point of view.
• Perform a comparative study of the colophons of the texts printed in these three printing presses of Montilla or a 3D reconstruction of the first of the printing press, based on the engraving of Stradanus and carrying out research work in the Archive of Notarial Protocols of the city.
• Study and analysis of illustrated posters and advertising made in Montilla printing presses, focusing on the design, techniques and materials used is another interesting line of research that is derived from this article.

4. There are some typos and syntax errors in the paper. Please check the whole paper and correct the corresponding errors.

The manuscript has been entirely revised by an official translator. Please, see the attached certifícate.

5. Please make sure that the copyright of all figure is allowed.

The copyright of the figures allows the publication of all images. The majority of them (Figures 1, 3 to 9 and 13) are property of one of the authors (Ms. Araceli Calvo-Serrano). From Figures 10 to 12, both included, the authors have permission from the “Biblioteca Manuel Ruiz Luque Foundation”, owner of these manuscript, to use them. Figure 2 comes from a copy published online by the National Library of Spain, which allows its reproduction with the source cited, just as we, the authors, have done. (https://www.bne.es/es/servicios/reproduccion-documentos/uso-reproducciones) .

6. Many reference names are not written in English.

Some of the references come from old books or manuscripts written in Spanish that have not been translated into English, hence their original titles have been maintained.

 

Thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions that have helped improve the manuscript.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this article can be accepted for publication, because its research theme is consistent with the field of this journal, and the research content and results are specific and have a certain degree of contribution. However, I think the author still needs to clarify several key research questions, such as the impact of historical research on printing presses on sustainable development in the past, and how the data in the research content can be used for future sustainable development and practices. If this article can supplement more relevant discussion materials and provide some reference suggestions for future development, so that it will have greater research contribution.

Overall, this is a research article with rigorous, complete and substantial research content. I recommend it to be published in this journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

The authors appreciate the comments of the reviewer, that have helped improve the manuscript. A new version of the manuscript is available, and the answers to the reviewer’s comments also.

 

Point 1

 

I think this article can be accepted for publication, because its research theme is consistent with the field of this journal, and the research content and results are specific and have a certain degree of contribution. However, I think the author still needs to clarify several key research questions, such as the impact of historical research on printing presses on sustainable development in the past, and how the data in the research content can be used for future sustainable development and practices. If this article can supplement more relevant discussion materials and provide some reference suggestions for future development, so that it will have greater research contribution.

Overall, this is a research article with rigorous, complete and substantial research content. I recommend it to be published in this journal.

 

Response to the reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments and appreciations. As the reviewer suggests, the authors have clarified some the key suggestions cited by the reviewer.  

In this sense, this manuscript research has sought to highlight a professional work that has had great importance for the transmission of culture and knowledge in our society: the printing press, which with the development of new technologies and social change is being lost.

The access to culture for all, men and women, is promoted in two areas, as mentioned in SDG 4:

• improving the professional, personal and social skills of young people for employment
• promoting sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles in society.

 

It is true that digital printing, which predominates today, is more sustainable and ecological than traditional printing, as it does not generate waste, but it is important that it is not lost. Thanks to the description of the natural materials used in ancient times for the production of dyes and instrument cleaners, new lines of research can be developed for the production of environmentally sustainable products today, following SDG 9.

Furthermore, we consider that relating the study of an industry, such as typography, with ancient engravings, is a sustainable practice that favors the transmission of culture and knowledge, bringing together works of art, industries and professions, some of them lost or in paths of extinction, to youth.

In lines 598 to 611, the historical impact of this research is related to sustainable development, based on what is established in SDGs 4 and 9, targets for global development adopted in 2015, within 2030 agenda signature.

 

Thank you again for your comments.

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It was with great interest that I read the article “The cultural heritage of Montilla and the printing press since the Modern Age: its evolution and relationship with graphic engineering boosting the SDGs”. This subject is very pertinent, and this work gives voice to qualitative methodology, which is often ignored or treated as being of lesser value in scientific articles.

This article complies with almost all the established norms for the articles of this publication and contains almost all the elements required in a scientific article. However, taking in account the current version of the manuscript, please note the followings:

1.There is not a proper theoretical background to support the study. Some literature review is done in the introduction but, in my opinion, authors should make an effort to fulfil the traditional structure of a scientific article and separate the literature review section from the Introduction. In general terms, the introduction should include the theme/object of study, objectives of the work, research or starting questions, description/justification/pertinence of the specific topic, methodology, summary of the structure of the main results. Sub-point 1.1. should already be part of the Literature Review. Sub-point 1.1. to 1.4 are too descriptive and focused on history. There is a lack of research into other works that focus on the importance of the printing press in heritage preservation.

2. Materials and Methods section: Was any content analysis carried out? Please clarify this issue.

3. Results and discussion section: There are long passages of text without the corresponding reference. Page 12 & 15 footnotes should be avoided. I don't see the point of figure 13, it doesn't add anything. This section is too descriptive. In the abstract it is mention that “we analysed how the printing press has contributed to the dissemination and preservation of the cultural and industrial heritage, key for knowledge dissemination” but I can´t find evidences of that here in this section.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

The authors appreciate the comments of the reviewer, that have helped improve the manuscript. A new version of the manuscript is available, and the answers to the reviewer’s comments also.

 

It was with great interest that I read the article “The cultural heritage of Montilla and the printing press since the Modern Age: its evolution and relationship with graphic engineering boosting the SDGs”. This subject is very pertinent, and this work gives voice to qualitative methodology, which is often ignored or treated as being of lesser value in scientific articles.

This article complies with almost all the established norms for the articles of this publication and contains almost all the elements required in a scientific article. However, taking in account the current version of the manuscript, please note the followings:

• Point 1. There is not a proper theoretical background to support the study. Some literature review is done in the introduction but, in my opinion, authors should make an effort to fulfil the traditional structure of a scientific article and separate the literature review section from the Introduction. In general terms, the introduction should include the theme/object of study, objectives of the work, research or starting questions, description/justification/pertinence of the specific topic, methodology, summary of the structure of the main results. Sub-point 1.1. should already be part of the Literature Review. Sub-point 1.1. to 1.4 are too descriptive and focused on history. There is a lack of research into other works that focus on the importance of the printing press in heritage preservation.

The introduction of the article has been revised, separating it, as proposed by the reviewer, from the literature review, in order to adapt it to the traditional structure of a scientific article according to the reviewer’s comments and recommendations.

We, the authors understand that the content of the previous epigraphs 1.1. to 1.4. are more in line with a literature review, in order to be able to understand the object of this case study within the framework of a historical context, without which it could not be understood in its entirety.

In addition, the references have also been revised to include works until 2023 that focus on the importance of printing in the preservation of heritage (nº 45, 46, 51).

• Point 2. Materials and Methods section: Was any content analysis carried out? Please clarify this issue.

The methodology section was revised, clarifying some aspects proposed by the reviewer. Please, see lines 220, and 224 to 231. Likewise, the objectives of the manuscript were clarified. Please, check lines 20-23 and 61.

• Point 3. Results and discussion section:

, - There are long passages of text without the corresponding reference.

The results and discussion sections were amended according to this comment. Some references were introduced as suggested by the reviewer. Point 4.1. is the one that has less literature references, but this is mainly because an analysis of the Stradanus engraving is being carried out, describing the scene and relating it to the tools and supplies of the printing press.  As it is a description, the authors understand that it is not appropriate to reference. 

- Page 12 & 15 footnotes should be avoided.

Footnotes in the referred pages were removed. And the literature references were introduced properly. (References at the end: 67, 68, 70, 80, 81, 82 y 83).

- I don't see the point of figure 13, it doesn't add anything. This section is too descriptive.

Thank you very much for the comment. However, the authors understand that the graph (Fig. 13) offers its utility in the sense that shows in a visual way the impact that the very first three printing presses in Montilla had on the production. This issue is key to better understand the impact this type of industry had on this region and its future development. In any case, if the reviewer still think we should remove this Figure 13, we will omit it.

- In the abstract it is mention that “we analysed how the printing press has contributed to the dissemination and preservation of the cultural and industrial heritage, key for knowledge dissemination” but I can´t find evidences of that here in this section.

Thank you again for such a comment. We realized that there was kind of misperception with the verb used within the abstract. Therefore, the authors changed the verb “analysed” for “studied”.

Starting from the definition of “printing press” by Tenllado and Mangas that we refer to in the introduction (lines 41 to 48), we have carried out a bibliographic review study on the how and why of the evolution of the printing press. The birth of universities and the social change in the Modern Age entailed a demand of identically reproduced texts [6]. In the first half of the 15th century, different attempts were made to cover such demand. In this context, Gutenberg developed the printing press of moveable types (lines 79 to 84). The printing press spreads throughout the Old Continent and reaches the New Continent relatively quickly (point 2.2). The development of new techniques in the 19th century increased the circulation of copies and reduced the price, making them more accessible to the population. (lines 139 to 152 and lines 172 to 199). 

 

Thank you very much again for all your comments and suggestions that without doubt have helped much improve the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All right

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required