A Crowdsourcing Recommendation Model for Image Annotations in Cultural Heritage Platforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a great research paper although it could have cited some debate surrounding the pros and cons of controlled vocabularies versus the subjectively constructed folksonomies (social tags).   While crowdsourcing could result in a wealth of data, you will be backlogged simply because you need to sort through the misinformed, ideologically/politically aligned comments, and other misleading information (disinformation).  Will your algorithm identify which one is correct, reliable, unbiased, trustworthy, or accurate?  While you address accuracy throughout the paper, you cannot assume that crowdsourcing and algorithm will solve the gap in knowledge related to material lacking descriptions, but this is a great start! 

Headers: "1. Related work" is confusing since in the previous paragraph, you write "In Section 2, we present related work..." Where is your first contribution (Section 1) then?  When you enumerate parts of your paper, it will help your readers to follow the narrative.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article adresses a relevant topic but the principle research question and the context doesn't become fully clear. Here some recommendations:
1. You start with a vague definition of CH that somehow sounds like a NEW Heriatge Approch. Please use a clear definition and make it very clear that you understand cultural heritage as a system (?) and not just obbjects. This is very relevant for your article and the method that you have used. By starting with a clear systemic definition of heritage it would be much more logical.
2. Why did you do this research? What is the added benefit of this method over others? Why do you restrict it to pictures and not also text?

3. What about data protection related limitations?

4. A very large part of you article is the technical details. This is fine, but you should elaborate more cleary your research question and starting point and also explore other uses of your model and data. Could it be used for a metamodel for cultural heritage? Or why not?
5. I see the theoretical potential of your article not to so much in the description of the tecnical details, but in the theoretical background and understanding of CH and how you have translated this in your Model, Metadata, Domains, etc.

6. Some References show up as an Error. Please do a careful check of the text again.

7. The Rereference should be expanded to latest articels that dear with CH, Digitization and Modelling.

fine

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has improved an can be published now. 

ok