Diagnostic Multidisciplinary Investigations for Cultural Heritage at Etna Volcano: A Case Study from the 1669 Eruption in the Mother Church at the Old Settlement of Misterbianco
, Patrizia Capizzi 2, Raffaele Martorana 2, Raffaele Azzaro 1, Stefano Branca 1, Riccardo Civico 3, Mario Fucile 4 and Emilio Pecora 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for the work done.
- Some typographical elements need to be corrected, especially on metric units (the space between numbers and units, exponents, lower case letters to respect for units...). Font size change for bibliography, the style used for the doi is not consistent in the bibliography...
- It would perhaps be desirable to quantify the data acquired, to know the computer resources used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Review on the article Diagnostic Multidisciplinary Investigations for Cultural Heritage at Etna Volcano (Italy): a Case Study from the 1669 Eruption in the Mother Church at the Old Settlement of Misterbianco (ID: remotesensing-1701591). The paper presents multidisciplinary investigations at a well-known cultural heritage site of global importance. The paper is well-written and the discoveries are of global importance and also to the preservation of cultural heritage in general. At this point, the article needs some minor revisions. My suggestions are highlighted below:
You should delete the word “title” from the title. Pay more attention to spelling. Also, you can also delete Italy from the title. Everybody knows where Mt. Etna is
L16: delete CE
A better structure of the paper is needed: Sections 2 and 3 could be part of the Introduction Section
Section 4 as a subsection of Materials and Methods Section
Some references are a bit old, try to update them with more recent ones; there is plenty of literature out there to do that
In Section 4, you directly present the Methodology and the Results. In the Methodology section, you only present what kind of equipment you used. Then in the Results section, you present the output of using the equipment in the Methodology section. There should be a clear delimitation of these two
In figure 8, you show some thermal images, but how they were made is not presented in the Methods
The discussion section should also tackle the results obtained with other sites of global importance that were also affected by volcanic eruptions and/or earthquakes
Author Biography is not needed here.
Also, format the references according to the Instructions for Authors
Good luck with the review!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The sections on GPR and thermo imaging could be improved. Notes on some minor corrections along with suggestions on improvements in attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
