Developing and Evaluating Management Services for Collective Memory ‡
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, the paper is well structured and written, but its methodology must be more clarified. Initially, the authors describe in detail the gaps related to the existing cultural heritage systems and their main purpose. It is also clear what is the scope of the work on the designing, implementation and evaluation of a crowd-sourcing collective memory management system. Although the authors took very carefully to list related works, they did not situate adequately how their approach contribute scientifically to the literature, mainly regarding the crowd-sourcing and cultural heritage challenges (such as those mentioned by the authors: semantic web techniques, gathering loyal users and quality assurance).
Before the development phase, the authors delineated users requirements for the portal and the mobile app based on similar studies. Nevertheless, they did not mention how their user requirements differentiate from other approaches. I would strongly suggest a table comparing the main user requirements of other approaches and theirs. Furthermore, it is still hard to know which research design was used to guide their qualitative research during the interviews and the elicitation of requirements. Therefore, users requirements are presented without further methodology clarification. That includes the steps required to obtain, evaluate and summarize the requirements. In addition, the authors should highlight what are the main differences between section 3 and 5. At glance, both seems to be very similar. Is Section 5 really necessary? I would suggest authors to draw a component or a class UML diagram instead, and include it in section 4.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We 'd like to thank you for your valuable comments. We tried to address them. The detailed answers to the corresponding comments follow:
1. Although the authors took very carefully to list related works, they did not situate adequately how their approach contribute scientifically to the literature, mainly regarding the crowd-sourcing and cultural heritage challenges (such as those mentioned by the authors: semantic web techniques, gathering loyal users and quality assurance).
Answer: We followed the reviewer’s advice.
In this work, we first attempt to model collective memory data in a coherent context taking into account user needs in terms of raising user awareness and facilitating users operating as memory carriers.
In order to ensure the quality of the collected content, the developed system applies an authoring mechanism asking from expert users to comment on the validity of the provided content and permitting to any registered user, expert or not, to rate the corresponding post.
Gathering loyal users is essential for a crowd-sourcing system. The proposed system has an advantage comparing to other crowd-sourcing systems. The potential user group is people that have an interest to a specific collective memory which mainly is traumatic. The proposed system supports specific participatory services that permit users not only to offer their content, but, also, to comment on it, exchange ideas with other people and transfer their memories to younger generations creating a dynamic social ecosystem. Also, the presented system strengthens the cohesion of the society giving to other people who are not related to the specific collective memory the opportunity to know their neighbours. The user loyalty in the system further increases due to a specific mobile app service that permits a simple user to become a researcher and collect itself relative material.
2. Before the development phase, the authors delineated users requirements for the portal and the mobile app based on similar studies. Nevertheless, they did not mention how their user requirements differentiate from other approaches. I would strongly suggest a table comparing the main user requirements of other approaches and theirs.
Answer: We followed the reviewer’s advice.
3. Furthermore, it is still hard to know which research design was used to guide their qualitative research during the interviews and the elicitation of requirements. Therefore, users requirements are presented without further methodology clarification. That includes the steps required to obtain, evaluate and summarize the requirements.
Answer: We followed the reviewer’s advice. In the revised section 3, we present the research design that guided as through qualitative research.
4. In addition, the authors should highlight what are the main differences between section 3 and 5. At glance, both seems to be very similar. Is Section 5 really necessary?
Answer: Due to the changes at section 3 we believe it is necessary for the reader to see a review of the implemented system services.
5. I would suggest authors to draw a component or a class UML diagram instead, and include it in section 4
Answer: We ‘d like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We restructured the manuscript merging sections 4 and 5 and making system description more compact.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall very good English.
The topic is highly interesing and the article could add additional value to the collective memory management.
However, the paper must be restructured according to the guidelines of the journal. Furthermore, the methodology of creating the system and its results must be further described and separated from the evaluation of the system.
"Implementation" should not be part of a title of a scientific article.
Further comments:
Section 1: smart city context? Why? never mentioned in the paper again.
Section 3:
- attach intermediate results at the end of the paper e.g. what are the identified system features of the first phase?
- give precise information about the number of interviews and the number of users. Who are the five historians and what kind of refinements did they do?
- what is meant by "trust of the public" in main objectives
Section 4:
- The different kind of users is well done
line 233: VideoS and line 234 AudioS
Line 290: sentence not clear
Section 5: Why are those sevices crucial? Scientific value?
Section 6: this section is not needed and does not add scientific value. It is not a tutorial. If the desciptions of the screenshots are crucial, translate them in English.
Section 7: you are mixing results of the system and evaluation of the system. The evaluation of your results is a different part as the results of the system. You should restructure this. Also consider the requirements by the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage/instructions#manuscript
For example what is the connection between the evaluation methodolgy of the design goals with the question "Do you think the world forgets the events of the Asia Minor Disaster?"
Section 7.3: You do need quotes for this section and a small summarization would be sufficient
Split Discussion and conclusions. It is really challenging to follow this section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We 'd like to thank you for your valuable comments. Following you can find the answers we gave to your comments:
1. "Implementation" should not be part of a title of a scientific article.
Answer: We changed the paper’s title to “Developing and Evaluating Management Services for Collective Memory”.
2. Section 1: smart city context? Why? never mentioned in the paper again.
Answer: We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment.
3. - attach intermediate results at the end of the paper e.g. what are the identified system features of the first phase?
Answer: We ‘d like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We restructured the manuscript transferring system features evaluation from evaluation methodology section to section 3 where we describe system design goals. At the new section 3 we describe analytically all the intermediate steps required to obtain, evaluate and summarize the requirements.
4. - give precise information about the number of interviews and the number of users. Who are the five historians and what kind of refinements did they do?
Answer: We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment.
5. - what is meant by "trust of the public" in main objectives
Answer: By the phrase "trust of the public" we mean content soundness.
6. line 233: VideoS and line 234 AudioS
Answer: We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment. We corrected such errors.
7. Line 290: sentence not clear
Answer: The system was implemented using open source technologies. This was done with the intent to show that using free software can be created a system capable of serving the needs of the users without having to pay a large amount of money for software licenses.
The sentence is altered to: The system was implemented using open source technologies intending to show that the system creation is low cost
8. Section 5: Why are those services crucial? Scientific value?
Answer: The heart of our paper is the development and evaluation of specific management services for collective memory. Those services permit recording, preservation, archiving and dissemination of users contributed content. We think that it is necessary to specifically determine them. The scientific value of these services mainly targets the specific communities of refugees, refugee descendants and specialists studying collective memory issues. This is the first time to the best of our knowledge that an actual platform has been developed and evaluated for collective memory management.
9. Section 6: this section is not needed and does not add scientific value. It is not a tutorial. If the descriptions of the screenshots are crucial, translate them in English.
Answer: We believe those usage scenarios give added value to a paper that deals with cultural data. However, we tried to make this section more compact and we translated the descriptions of the screenshots in English where it was possible.
10. Section 7: you are mixing results of the system and evaluation of the system. The evaluation of your results is a different part as the results of the system. You should restructure this. Also, consider the requirements by the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage/instructions#manuscript
For example, what is the connection between the evaluation methodology of the design goals with the question "Do you think the world forgets the events of the Asia Minor Disaster?"
Answer: We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment. We restructured the manuscript transferring system features evaluation from evaluation methodology section to section 3 where we describe system design goals. The specific question "Do you think the world forgets the events of the Asia Minor Disaster?" is related with the necessity of the existence of a memory management system for refugees or refugee descendants.
11. Section 7.3: You do need quotes for this section and a small summarization would be sufficient.
Answer: We ‘d like to thank the reviewer for this comment. However, we ‘d like to give a sense of directness in this section. This approach is common in papers dealing with social matters including asking the public.
12. Split Discussion and conclusions. It is really challenging to follow this section.
Answer: We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment.
Reviewer 3 Report
I find this to be quite innovative, and the examples presented illuminating. The opening parts on crowdsourcing could address the history and possible future a bit more, commenting on whether different political regimes have an influence on what can be remembered, and how (for example, would Chinese authorities allow crowdsourced collective memory of the Cultural Revolution?). This political side is largely absent but should be addressed.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We 'd like to thank you for your valuable comment. Following you can find the answers we gave to your comment:
We have put this piece of text in the introduction section.
We are aware that regimes have the power to shape the collective memory of their nations [58]. In some countries, previously suppressed, marginalized, and “unofficial” memories can now be collected and disseminated [57]. A challenge tor systems that deal with traumatic collective memory is to clearly let the people upload their content without being censored by the applied authoring mechanism.
Reviewer 4 Report
The research is timely, relevant, and entirely appropriate for the journal Heritage. The process of storytelling fundamentally involves putting memories (as well as thoughts and emotions) into words.Through the platform developed by the authors, ICH knowledge is not only being transmitted, but the memories of the participants are being affirmed. Interestingly, this can be cathartic, therapeutic, or empowering for the participant, but also of great value to a broad range of CH stakeholders and scholars.
Regarding revisions, a suggestion would be to condense the description of the system architecture (as it is perhaps a bit too detailed). The section entitled "Usage Design Scenarios" is, I feel, the most vital part of the manuscript. Perhaps it should be more explicit in the introduction that the platform was actually launched and trialed. In fact, I do not think the platform/app is referred to by name in the introduction.
Finally, the manuscript contains numerous (though relatively minor) grammatical issues. I strongly urge the authors to enlist the services of a first-language-English copy-editor.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We 'd like to thank you for your valuable comments. Following you can find the answers we gave to your comments:
1. Regarding revisions, a suggestion would be to condense the description of the system architecture (as it is perhaps a bit too detailed).
Answer: We ‘d like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment.
2. The section entitled "Usage Design Scenarios" is, I feel, the most vital part of the manuscript. Perhaps it should be more explicit in the introduction that the platform was actually launched and trialled. In fact, I do not think the platform/app is referred to by name in the introduction.
Answer: We ‘d like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment.
3. Finally, the manuscript contains numerous (though relatively minor) grammatical issues. I strongly urge the authors to enlist the services of a first-language-English copy-editor.
Answer: We ‘d like to thank the reviewer for this comment. We revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for your adaptions and improvements of the paper. I think it is a very relevevant contribution to cultural heritage!
