An Assessment of the Impact of Design Elements on the Liturgical Space of Church Buildings: Using Churches in the North of Iraq as a Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, the work presented with the title "Assessment the Impact of Design Elements on the Liturgical Space of the Church Building: Churches in North of Iraq as Case Study" is interesting, but it does not follow a clear and defined path regarding the scientific method expected for the Buildings journal.
A significant part of the conceptual framework is dedicated to an approach from the perspective of Art History and the definition of multiple architectural elements along with their iconographic significance.
The section dedicated to materials and methods is concise and imprecise, as it introduces a technical tool (Visual Attention Software VAS 3M) that interprets eye-tracking based on photographs (supposedly adapted to human eye perception) of the most highlighted and visible elements. The precision levels and repeatability of this software tool and other technical data necessary to evaluate its scope and reliability are not indicated.
Another section concerns the results extracted from this tool (VAS 3M) and their statistical treatment using Anova test, including tables 2 and 3 without graphical representation that adequately allows understanding the variables for each of the nine churches that constitute the Case Study.
Finally, no conclusions are included in the study, and 17 pages of graphic appendices are provided showing "thermal" visual attraction maps and numerous numerical data that are not represented in any way for proper interpretation.
Consequently, and with respect to academic freedom, I consider that the work should be rewritten and organized appropriately so that the reader and the academic community can adequately understand the experimental part, the interpretation of results, and their value through graphical tools, along with clear, orderly, and definitive conclusions.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
A background about the research was added to the introduction, and the relevant references are included in the theoretical framework including the introduction.
|
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
This manuscript is a concept from my PhD thesis, which I am preparing, about the impact of theology on the Church of the East., most of the cited references in this manuscript were prepared from two groups of studies; the first group is related to the design elements, while the second group is related to the liturgy and architecture and the studies that are defining the parts and functions of the churches. I will be thankful if you suggest some related references in order to strengthen the bibliography of my manuscript and thesis. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: [A significant part of the conceptual framework is dedicated to an approach from the perspective of Art History and the definition of multiple architectural elements along with their iconographic significance...] |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, In the conceptual framework, the approaches from the perspective of art history have been modified. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM1] |
||
|
Comments 2: [The section dedicated to materials and methods is concise and imprecise, as it introduces a technical tool (Visual Attention Software VAS 3M) that interprets eye-tracking based on photographs (supposedly adapted to human eye perception) of the most highlighted and visible elements. The precision levels and repeatability of this software tool and other technical data necessary to evaluate its scope and reliability are not indicated. ] |
||
|
Response 2: We Agree. We have, accordingly, modified a statement with a figure about the science and working process of the VAS tool to enhance the section dedicated to materials and methods, to emphasize this point. |
||
|
Comments 3: [Another section concerns the results extracted from this tool (VAS 3M) and their statistical treatment using Anova test, including tables 2 and 3 without graphical representation that adequately allows understanding the variables for each of the nine churches that constitute the Case Study.] |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, Tables 2 and 3 have been modified into graphical representations. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM4, NM5] |
||
|
Comments 4: [no conclusions are included in the study, and 17 pages of graphic appendices are provided showing "thermal" visual attraction maps and numerous numerical data that are not represented in any way for proper interpretation.] |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The conclusions have been modified, and the graphic appendices have been reduced and modified into charts. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM6] |
||
|
Comments 5: [the interpretation of results, and their value through graphical tools, along with clear, orderly, and definitive conclusions.] |
||
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The results and their interpretation have been modified and strengthened by the graphic charts from the samples of the study. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM3] |
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: |
||
|
Response 1: (Thank you for pointing this out, we made a revision to the English language of the manuscript ) |
||
|
5. Additional clarifications |
||
|
|
||
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYou present a very technical approach to the study of how a particular form of architecture (churches) is perceived and appreciated. The results are presented as quantitative results which in themselves are not meaningful: and your Discussion does not make adequately clear what your results mean. While I am sure the work is solid in terms of method from a purely technical standpoint, I am not at all sure how your results contribute to our understanding of church architecture or how visitors or worshipers appreciate and understand these spaces.
I am not sure your characterisation of how church interiors reflect relations between earth and heaven would be accepted by scholars of religion and you offer no references to religious studies to support them. Since you refer to how church architecture relates to liturgy (which is church practice, not just belief), some direct connection will need to be made. Similarly, I am not at all sure I understand the connection between what is shown in your figures and other claims you make about church architecture.
I think readers need much more direction from you on what your findings mean for the interpretation of church architecture and restoration/maintenance. You could perhaps include clear recommendations for those involved in the process of managing churches. I suggest the following will strengthen the paper to make it both intelligible to readers and useful to others:
1. Revision of your Introduction to include references to the literature of Christian church practice and how it is reflected in the design of churches. I would also include here a clear statement of why a concern with churches in the East matters: since Christianity in a number of territories in the Middle East is under severe threat, I suspect this is not difficult to substantiate. You refer also to other work but do not cite it or explain it: you need to if it places this work in context.
2. A clearer statement of methodology to explain exactly what your results are intended to achieve and how they connect directly to the discussion of church liturgy and form in your Introduction.
3. A much clearer discussion of your results, how they connect to the images you present, and especially what they mean. What specifically do they tell us about visitor or worshiper response to these spaces?
4. Inclusion of a Conclusion to sum up the results and what they mean for interpreters of church architecture and those restoring and managing them, and how they are of relevance beyond the specifics of your case studies.
All in all, you need to make it clearer to readers what your paper adds to our knowledge: your results do not speak for themselves. This is an extensive rewriting process and it may involve production of an entirely new text to achieve it.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: [The results are presented as quantitative results which in themselves are not meaningful: and your Discussion does not make adequately clear what your results mean. While I am sure the work is solid in terms of method from a purely technical standpoint, I am not at all sure how your results contribute to our understanding of church architecture or how visitors or worshipers appreciate and understand these spaces. ] |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The results have been modified. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM3] |
||
|
Comments 2: [I am not sure your characterisation of how church interiors reflect relations between earth and heaven would be accepted by scholars of religion and you offer no references to religious studies to support them. Since you refer to how church architecture relates to liturgy (which is church practice, not just belief), some direct connection will need to be made. Similarly, I am not at all sure I understand the connection between what is shown in your figures and other claims you make about church architecture.] |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. About the second comment in its first part, which I considered essential and connected to my PhD thesis, which I am prepare, (this manuscript is a concept from my main thesis) I have a chapter about the relationship between theology, liturgy, and architecture. The quote mentioned in this comment is based on my readings of liturgy and architecture, which is a book written by Allan Doig in 2008. “In this book, Allan Doig explores the interrelationship of liturgy and architecture from the Early Church to the close of the Middle Ages, taking into account social, economic, technical, theological, and artistic factors. Buildings and their archaeology are standing indices of human activity, and the whole matrix of meaning they present is highly revealing of the larger meaning of ritual performance within and movement through their space.” The citation was missed; therefore, it has been included. In the second part of the comment, I tried to provide some evidence about the layout of the church in the north of Iraq and the function of each zone of this church, as those zones and functions were made according to the Christian liturgy. |
||
|
Comments 3: [I think readers need much more direction from you on what your findings mean for the interpretation of church architecture and restoration/maintenance. You could perhaps include clear recommendations for those involved in the process of managing churches.] |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, recommendations have been included. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM5] |
||
|
Comments 4: [Revision of your Introduction to include references to the literature of Christian church practice and how it is reflected in the design of churches. I would also include here a clear statement of why a concern with churches in the East matters: since Christianity in a number of territories in the Middle East is under severe threat, I suspect this is not difficult to substantiate. You refer also to other work but do not cite it or explain it: you need to if it places this work in context.] |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, in the first part, the citation has been included in the introduction about the relationship between liturgy and architecture, which represents the general vision of two major books on the relationship between liturgy and architecture. In the second part, the statement has been included in the introduction. And in the third part, the citations of the previous works have been included, and highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM1] |
||
|
Comments 5: [A clearer statement of methodology to explain exactly what your results are intended to achieve and how they connect directly to the discussion of church liturgy and form in your Introduction.] |
||
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, a statement of methodology has been inserted within the introduction. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM2] |
||
|
Comments 6: [A much clearer discussion of your results, how they connect to the images you present, and especially what they mean. What specifically do they tell us about visitor or worshiper response to these spaces?] |
||
|
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The results have been modified. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM3] |
||
|
Comments 7: [Inclusion of a Conclusion to sum up the results and what they mean for interpreters of church architecture and those restoring and managing them, and how they are of relevance beyond the specifics of your case studies.] |
||
|
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The conclusions have been modified. And highlighted in the manuscripts with the comment NM4] |
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: |
||
|
|
||
|
5. Additional clarifications |
||
|
|
||
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract: the research question is (what are the most perceptible elements to the visitor of the church of the east?).
is not a research question
church of the east is a ambiguous concept
“Previous studies were explained as an attempt to specify the main variables related to the liturgical space”: please, add bibliography
The approach of the research figure 1 is not at all clear
Please, pay extreme attention to typos and formal mistakes: the text is full of them
I suggest explaining, from the introduction: the method, the investigation, the field of research.
At the same time, I suggest that research hypotheses with results and expectations for the future be better outlined in the conclusions. indeed, it is important that the conclusions highlight clearly what the original contribution is and, above all, what methodological or heuristic advantages the essay brings
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Review is raccomended
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [Most of the typos and formal mistakes were modified, except for the English revision, due to a lack of time. I asked Ms. Thananchai to extend the English revision for a couple of days. The modifications to your comments are highlighted in yellow with their related comments.]
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below] |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: [Abstract: the research question is (what are the most perceptible elements to the visitor of the church of the east?). is not a research question.]
|
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The research question has been modified, and has been highlighted in the manuscript]
|
||
|
Comments 2: [church of the east is a ambiguous concept.] |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The church of the east is a term that we used to name our churches in the north of Iraq. This church’s prototype started in the Sasanian period and moved to the surrounding countries. I am using this term in my PhD thesis that I am preparing about the impact of theology on the church of the East. I will be thankful if you suggest other terms for this type of church, like (the church in the north of Iraq).]
Comment 3: “Previous studies were explained as an attempt to specify the main variables related to the liturgical space”: please, add bibliography Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The bibliography has been modified, and has been highlighted in the manuscript]
Comment 4: The approach of the research figure 1 is not at all clear
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The approach to Research Figure 1 has been modified, and has been highlighted in the manuscript]
Comment 5: Please, pay extreme attention to typos and formal mistakes: the text is full of them Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The typos and formal mistakes have been corrected.]
Comment 6: I suggest explaining, from the introduction: the method, the investigation, the field of research. Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, A statement has been added in the introduction about the method, the investigation, and the field of the study, and has been highlighted in the manuscript.]
Comment 7: I suggest that research hypotheses with results and expectations for the future be better outlined in the conclusions. indeed, it is important that the conclusions highlight clearly what the original contribution is and, above all, what methodological or heuristic advantages the essay brings
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, The conclusions have been modified.]
|
||
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your prompt response to implement improvements in the proposed article. I have read them carefully, and they now represent a substantial enhancement for the benefit of readers and the scientific community. I particularly appreciate how detailed the response has been and the changes made to the data interpretation. I fully agree with the modifications and consider the article worthy of being published in the journal.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in evaluating my work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour responses make it clear that is a reduced version of a much larger work (a PhD thesis) which means that much of the theoretical and other justificatory background has been removed for reasons of space. You have tried to respond to reviewers' comments but in a rather minimalistic way: addressing them as briefly as possible. The problem is that this is still inadequate to demonstrate the value of your work.
I note you have removed some of the unsupported descriptions of what parts of the architecture are supposed to represent (earth versus sky etc.) in favour of a general statement that church form reflects liturgy. While I do not doubt this, it has nothing to do with what it is that visitors or worshipers first see on entering the building which is what your methodology tells us. The link between your results and how church architecture refers to liturgy is therefore not addressed by your work. And this has nothing to do with restoration work which are the issues addressed in your recommendations. (I note you still refer to 'good' restoration without telling us what this is or how you know it to be 'good').
Your conclusions remain weak and vague. What it is you have tell us is still not clear. This is the result of trying to cover an entire thesis in one article rather than addressing one aspect here in good detail and others in separate articles. As it stands, I regret I cannot support publication to a global audience: the article does insufficient credit to the potential value of your work; it is unfair to you and readers to allow its publication. Much better to look again -- and obtain solid advice -- on how to publish your work.
Author Response
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in evaluating my work.
I understand your concern that the research appears to be a condensed version of a PhD thesis. My goal was to present a comprehensive and cohesive narrative that reflects the interconnected nature of the research components, which together contribute to a richer understanding of the topic. Given the interrelated nature of the aspects covered, separating them into different articles would not do justice to the holistic approach that is critical for addressing the research questions and advancing the field. In the conclusion section, my conclusions are based on my vision of the construction processes of the church buildings and how the engineers and specialists in architectural history are dealing with the process.
However, I appreciate the importance of ensuring that the manuscript meets the high standards and qualifications of the journal.
Thank you once again for your constructive feedback and guidance.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the corrections and changes in the text
Author Response
Thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in evaluating my work.
