Component Materials, 3D Digital Restoration, and Documentation of the Imperial Gates from the Wooden Church of Voivodeni, Sălaj County, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript consists of text, 22 figures and only 1 table. These are supplemented by ONLY 17 cited publications(!). The manuscript is 18 pages in total.
I perceive the reviewed text very positively. I can see that this is interdisciplinary research and using a variety of methods.
However, I have a number of comments that I recommend be included to improve the quality of the manuscript.

However, the content of the article is very specific. It contains information from various sources (field and laboratory research, digital scanning, websites, etc.). I wonder if it would not be better to present the results of laboratory analysis separately from "tourist-promotional" information? The consequences are the contents of the abstract and conclusions, which are a combination of very diverse data. This does not always encourage the reader to review the content of the entire article.

The first, VERY IMPORTANT, comment is to revise the content of the chapters. I propose to separate the large "Methods" chapter (Chapter 2). In the current version, "Methods" is not a separate chapter, and content about methods is scattered throughout the text from "1. Introduction" to "3. Results and discussion". It would be better to separate "Methods" and gather all the "methodological" content there. Without this, the manuscript has no scientific character.

Line 220 - "Error..." please correct this entry. This is a text editing error.
Line 277 - a blue interactive link with a 3D model of the door - unfortunately the link takes you to an empty web address(!)

Figure 1: essentially no substantive or technical comments. Lack of in-text citations.

Figure 2: English language to be corrected (?). Inappropriate style of arrows. In the current version they are very thick black arrows, which do not look aesthetically pleasing. I suggest replacing them with arrows with black outline and transparent fill.

Figure 3: in the current version this diagram has a very low resolution.

Figure 4: basically no substantive or technical comments.
Figure 5: I propose to resign from this figure - it is just an apparatus on a desk
Figure 6: I propose to move a and b for individual graphics after the description. In the current version these letters precede the characteristics
Figure 7. as above.

Figure 8: I propose to expand the description. The graphic consists of two pairs of images. The first pair is a general image, while the second pair is a close-up.

Figure 9: I suggest expanding the caption. The graphic also shows the surroundings of the church.

Figure 10: no comments

Figure 11. I propose to put the X-axis at the absorption value of 0.0 - in the current version the field below this value has no content. Also, the legend is very infantile, too big fonts. First letters should be lowercase (currently it is different).

Figure 12 and 13. comments noted above.
Figure 14. Same comments as above. The vertical scale is incorrectly chosen. In addition, the legend obscures the X-axis. Figure needs to be corrected.
Figure 15. Same remarks as in Figure 14.  The current version of the Figure is unacceptable.
Figure 16. OK.

Figure 17. Basically this Figure does not add anything new. It repeats the content of Figure 2. In the text I propose to quote a modified version of Figure 2.

Figure 18 OK.

Figure 19. The caption does not correspond to the content of this figure. Basically we see there a window of a program for graphical processing. There are graphics as well as windows with graphical tools. Their readability is very poor. The figure adds nothing to the manuscript and is only methodical. I propose to abandon it.

Figures 20 and 21. OK, but - because of the content and subject matter - I propose to merge them into one Figure with parts A and B.

Figure 22. I recommend resigning from this graphic. It does not contribute much. The quality is low.

Table 1.  OK. However, the lack of in-text citation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

 

Thank you for accepting to review our manuscript and for your highly pertinent improvement suggestions. All your comments and observations have been accepted and the proper modifications have been made to the manuscript. We have summarized your improvement suggestions and the corrections made to the manuscript in the following table, for an easy traceability. Furthermore, the “track changes” option was activated in the manuscript and all the changes can be closely followed.

 

No.	Improvement suggestion	Correction
1	Present the results of laboratory analysis separately from “tourist-promotional” information	The large chapter 3 “Results and discussion” was separated, the laboratory analysis remained in chapter 3, the “tourist-promotional” information was moved to a new chapter 4 “Digital restauration”
2	It would be better to separate “Methods” and gather all the methodological content there.	The second chapter was renamed to “Materials and methods” and all methodological content was included here.
3	Line 220 - "Error..." please correct this entry. This is a text editing error.	This reference was corrected and referred to in the text.
4	Line 277 - a blue interactive link with a 3D model of the door - unfortunately the link takes you to an empty web address	We apologize for the expired link, it was replaced with a new link, which now works fine.
5	Figure 1: essentially no substantive or technical comments. Lack of in-text citations.	Figure 1 was referred to in the text (line 50 and 62).
6	Figure 2: English language to be corrected (?). Inappropriate style of arrows. In the current version they are very thick black arrows, which do not look aesthetically pleasing. I suggest replacing them with arrows with black outline and transparent fill.	Figure 2 was completely remade, considering also the comments from no. 20. The caption was updated and corrected
7	Figure 3: In the current version this diagram has a very low resolution.	Figure 3 was replaced with a high-resolution image (600 DPI)
8	Figure 4: Basically, no substantive or technical comments.	-
9	Figure 5: I propose to resign from this figure - it is just an apparatus on a desk	Figure 5 was removed
10	Figure 6: I propose to move a and b for individual graphics after the description. In the current version these letters precede the characteristics	Corrections made, can be seen on line 165
11	Figure 7. as above.	Corrections made, can be seen on line 170
12	Figure 8: I propose to expand the description. The graphic consists of two pairs of images. The first pair is a general image, while the second pair is a close-up.	Figure was further explained and was referred to in text (lines 206-207)
13	Figure 9: I suggest expanding the caption. The graphic also shows the surroundings of the church.	Caption was expanded (line 221)
14	Figure 10: no comments	-
15	Figure 11. I propose to put the X-axis at the absorption value of 0.0 - in the current version the field below this value has no content. Also, the legend is very infantile, too big fonts. First letters should be lowercase (currently it is different).	Figure was replaced with one having a higher resolution and the X axis was moved to 0.
16	Figure 12 and 13. comments noted above.	Figure was replaced with one having a higher resolution and the X axis was moved to 0.
17	Figure 14. Same comments as above. The vertical scale is incorrectly chosen. In addition, the legend obscures the X-axis. Figure needs to be corrected.	Figure was replaced with one having a higher resolution and the X axis was made visible.
18	Figure 15. Same remarks as in Figure 14. The current version of the Figure is unacceptable.	Figure was replaced with one having a higher resolution.
19	Figure 16. OK.	-
20	Figure 17. Basically, this Figure does not add anything new. It repeats the content of Figure 2. In the text I propose to quote a modified version of Figure 2.	Figure 2 was completely remade, considering also the comments from here.
21	Figure 18 OK.	-
22	Figure 19. The caption does not correspond to the content of this figure. Basically, we see there a window of a program for graphical processing. There are graphics as well as windows with graphical tools. Their readability is very poor. The figure adds nothing to the manuscript and is only methodical. I propose to abandon it.	This figure was further explained between lines 333-339, clearly indicating part of the rendering workflow.
23	Figures 20 and 21. OK, but - because of the content and subject matter - I propose to merge them into one Figure with parts A and B.	The two figures were kept separately, because although their content is similar they are referred to in different places in the manuscript and their size is important, as well, so all their details can be observed.
24	Figure 22. I recommend resigning from this graphic. It does not contribute much. The quality is low.	This figure was replaced with a short paragraph, in which reference is made to the link from the caption (lines 410-412).
25	Table 1. OK. However, the lack of in-text citation.	Caption was remade and it was referred to in the text

 

We hope that now the manuscript meets your requirements, and we are prepared to work on it further should you consider it necessary.

Thank you very much for your time.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents an interdisciplinary methodology, applied in digitizing and digitally restoring imperial gates from wooden church of Voivodeni, Sălaj County in Transylvania, Romania. It is very important to make known the wooden church of Voivodeni based on virtual reality and to mediate the interaction between the general public and heritage objects in their current state of preservation, in a digital environment. Moreover, to showcase how these heritage objects were degraded over time, a digitally restored version of the artefact in pristine condition is presented alongside a version in its current  state (as is, digitized, but not yet digitally restored).

ARTEFACT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary  an object that is made by a person, such as a tool or a decoration, especially one that is of historical interest.

The authors present a digitally restored version of the artefact in pristine condition versus a version in its current state. They have to explain what means pristine condition.

As Figure 18 shows “Proposed digital restoration of Saint Marc” it seems to be a repainting which does not respect the principles of restoration.

Even the digital restoration of the imperial gates was made using the pigments identified by the physico-chemical analyses, applied on the 3D model of the church and the imperial gates the authors may not suggest repainting –again restoration in fact or digital has to respect the scientific principle (of restoration).

The bibliography must include more specialized scientific papers. Out of 17 works, 14 are national and only 3 international.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

 

Thank you for accepting to review our manuscript and for your highly pertinent improvement suggestions. All your comments and observations have been accepted and the proper modifications have been made to the manuscript. We have summarized your improvement suggestions and the corrections made to the manuscript in the following table, for an easy traceability. Furthermore, the “track changes” option was activated in the manuscript and all the changes can be closely followed.

 

No.	Improvement suggestion	Correction
1	ARTEFACT | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary an object that is made by a person, such as a tool or a decoration, especially one that is of historical interest.	The word “artifact”, which was previously used in 8 places throughout the manuscript has been replaced with the correct form “artefact”.
2	The authors (…) have to explain what means pristine condition.	Further explanations on this concept were introduced into the manuscript and can be found at lines 119-122; 324-330
3	As Figure 18 shows “Proposed digital restoration of Saint Marc” it seems to be a repainting which does not respect the principles of restoration.	This aspect was further explained in the paragraph between lines 306-316 and a few references were cited in this regard.
4	Even the digital restoration of the imperial gates was made using the pigments identified by the physico-chemical analyses, applied on the 3D model of the church and the imperial gates the authors may not suggest repainting – again restoration in fact or digital has to respect the scientific principle (of restoration).	This aspect was also explained in the paragraph mentioned previously (lines 306-316), and a parallel was made between the scientific principles of physical and digital restoration.
5	The bibliography must include more specialized scientific papers. Out of 17 works, 14 are national and only 3 international.	The “References” section was significantly extended (from 17 to 29 entries), all the new entries were cited in the text (some even multiple times) and additional paragraphs were also included in the manuscript. Also, the international character of the cited scientific papers was significantly enriched. The new refences include entries 1-4; 18-21; 26-29, which are included in paragraphs situated at lines 52-60; 145-157; 302-316.

 

We hope that now the manuscript meets your requirements, and we are prepared to work on it further should you consider it necessary.

Thank you very much for your time.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper, using an interdisciplinary approach, shows how an information package can be created on a cultural asset based on “physic-chemical” analysis and 3D digitization techniques, emphasizing the economic as well as cultural potential of digitizing heritage.

Overall, it is clear, but continuous repetitions of already clarified concepts lead the speech to be at times too redundant. The organization of the paragraphs should be reviewed to avoid repetition: for example in the second part of the paragraph 1, you are summing up the various methodologies and at the end of the same paragraph you synthetize, again, the same methodologies: you could make a single summary. On the other hand, the descriptions of some methodologies and tools used, in the paragraph 2 and 3, are too synthetic: more uniform paragraphs would be preferred or you might consider merging paragraphs 2 and 3 referring to the methods and tools description parts.

Finally, some typos: pp.10 line 220; pp. 12 line 276 the link does not show the content.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

 

Thank you for accepting to review our manuscript and for your highly pertinent improvement suggestions. All your comments and observations have been accepted and the proper modifications have been made to the manuscript. We have summarized your improvement suggestions and the corrections made to the manuscript in the following table, for an easy traceability. Furthermore, the “track changes” option was activated in the manuscript and all the changes can be closely followed.

 

No.	Improvement suggestion	Correction
1	The organization of the paragraphs should be reviewed to avoid repetition	The indicated paragraphs were reorganized to avoid repetitions by clearly separating ones that refer to methodological aspects from those that have only introductory character. The former ones were all included into a new section entitled “Materials and methods”
2	On the other hand, the descriptions of some methodologies and tools used, in the paragraph 2 and 3, are too synthetic.	For enriching the scientific character of the paper, all methodological related aspects were clearly explained/expanded in the newly added “Materials and methods” section.
3	some typos: pp.10 line 220; pp. 12 line 276 the link does not show the content	The “Table 1” caption was remade and as such its cross-reference was updated and the “Error …” message was removed. We apologize for the expired link from line 276, it was replaced with a new link, which now works fine.

 

We hope that now the manuscript meets your requirements, and we are prepared to work on it further should you consider it necessary.

Thank you very much for your time.

 

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is the second time I have received for review the manuscript "Component materials, 3D digital restoration and documentation of the imperial gates from the wooden church of Voivodeni, Sălaj county, Romania". The present version is a modified, expanded and completed version. The main changes are visible in the form of coloured fonts sharply differentiating them from the text I am already familiar with.
I believe that in general the text has been correctly modified. My present comments concern only two graphics.
Fig. 9 - I recommend a different layout of the graphs. I suggest arranging them differently, so that they fit on one page.
Fig. 17 - the graphic shows a window of the graphical software. The gates are visible, as well as side, top and bottom menu. I propose to modify the caption.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

 

Thank you, once again, for your comments, we have made the suggested modifications to the manuscript and also rearranged a little bit the rest of the figures, as well, so there will be none to very little unused “white” space throughout the pages of the manuscript. Thank you for your positive review of our paper and thank you for your time!

 

Kindest regards,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

I agree new version of the paper and the clarification  - artefact is colored as its “pristine condition

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

 

Thank you, once again, for your comments, we have made some minor modifications to the manuscript regarding the rearrangement of the figures (suggested by Reviewer 1), so there will be none to very little unused “white” space throughout the pages of the manuscript. The “track-changes” option is still active, and you can follow the modifications on your own.

Thank you for your positive review of our paper and thank you for your time.

 

Best regards,

The authors