Microanalytical Determinations to Distinguish Maiolica and Mezza Majolica Ceramics from Faenza (Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
You have a very interesting materials, majolicas (M) and mezza-majolicas (MM) from Faenza, (Italy) and you have carried out a good research. However, in order to publish the results achieved in a scientific journal a major revision is required, both in the content and formal matters.
Some of the main comments are:
The characterization of M and MM, but any immediate identification is proposed.
- The statement of Fe-rich and Fe-poor calcareous clays on the basis of semi-quantitative EDS analysis seems little rigorous.
- No results regarding to single or double firing are displayed.
- All the information and results should be shown in the same order, first regarding to M and second MM.
- The content included in each section must be deeply improved and the corresponding information should be included in the suitable section. For instance:
· Introduction: the state of the art, a very brief definition of the main terms (such slip, glaze or enamel) and/or the need to perform this type of studies in order to distinguish both types of ceramics should be addressed. Most of the information included in the last paragraph of the introduction section is methodological information and within the introduction section must be included most of the information exposed at the discussion section.
· Data regarding to macroscopical features should be better placed at the Materials section.
· The results and discussion should be addressed jointly and much more consistently.
· Information regarding to introduction must not be placed at the Conclusions section and a summary should not be included at this section.
- Better scales should be included at figures 2 and 4; figure 1 should include a view of the building sampled; figure 2c should include an image from above of the piece instead of two side views; a side view lacks at figure 2d; representative POM images should be selected, where most of the information displayed in text can be properly observed; some terminology and abbreviations should be corrected; macroscopical data should be included in one single table; the information included at the caption must be improved…
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Dear authors,
You have a very interesting materials, majolicas (M) and mezza-majolicas (MM) from Faenza, (Italy) and you have carried out a good research. However, in order to publish the results achieved in a scientific journal a major revision is required, both in the content and formal matters.
Some of the main comments are:
The characterization of M and MM, but any immediate identification is proposed.
We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have modified all the manuscript.
- The statement of Fe-rich and Fe-poor calcareous clays on the basis of semi-quantitative EDS analysis seems little rigorous.
We thank the Reviewer’s observation. In this paper, we slightly corrected the sentence in the conclusion paragraph, distinguishing two types of - Fe-enriched clay: one characterized by the presence of carbonate, and the other characterized by a lower amount of carbonate.
- No results regarding to single or double firing are displayed.
We thank the Reviewer’s observation, and we have modified the manuscript in the result section.
- All the information and results should be shown in the same order, first regarding to M and second MM.
We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have modified the order in all the figures and tables, and also in the text.
- The content included in each section must be deeply improved and the corresponding information should be included in the suitable section. For instance:
- Introduction: the state of the art, a very brief definition of the main terms (such slip, glaze or enamel) and/or the need to perform this type of studies in order to distinguish both types of ceramics should be addressed. Most of the information included in the last paragraph of the introduction section is methodological information and within the introduction section must be included most of the information exposed at the discussion section.
We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have modified the Introduction.
- Data regarding to macroscopical features should be better placed at the Materials section.
We agree with the Reviewer, and we have moved the entire section.
- The results and discussion should be addressed jointly and much more consistently.
We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion, we modified results and discussion sections to better explain the research aims.
- Information regarding to introduction must not be placed at the Conclusions section and a summary should not be included at this section.
We agree with the Reviewer, and we have modified the Conclusions section.
- Better scales should be included at figures 2 and 4; figure 1 should include a view of the building sampled; figure 2c should include an image from above of the piece instead of two side views; a side view lacks at figure 2d; representative POM images should be selected, where most of the information displayed in text can be properly observed; some terminology and abbreviations should be corrected; macroscopical data should be included in one single table; the information included at the caption must be improved…
We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have modified Figure 1, adding the view of the building sampled. We have also modified figure 2 and figure 4 adding the scale. We are very sorry, but we have no photos form above related to pictures 2c and 2d. The macroscopical data have moved in the Material and Method section and the information included at the caption has improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
-in the description of Figure 2, the size of the marker visible in the photos should be given (109),
-when describing colorimetry, the research area from which the signal is collected and processed should be given (135),
-when describing the L, a and b coefficients,please give the range of their minimum and maximum values (142),
-when writing about porosity, you should refer to specific values (use the soaking and weighing method, or more accurate, such as mercury porosimetry or image analysis) or use phrases like "it seems more porous" or something similar (156,160)
- in line 416 AND 440 - a typo (470/430) - please delete and check all the text,
-please emphasize the purpose of the work and refer to what is new at work;
-in its current form, the work has the structure of a research report, the data analysis is not too deep, but due to the sprint nature of the topic, it is suitable for publication after corrections specified by reviewers.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
-in the description of Figure 2, the size of the marker visible in the photos should be given (109),
We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have added more information in the text and in the figure.
-when describing colorimetry, the research area from which the signal is collected and processed should be given (135),
We thank the Reviewer for the observation, we added a sentence to better explain the portion of samples analyzed..
-when describing the L, a and b coefficients,please give the range of their minimum and maximum values (142),
The range of coefficients are indicated in the Materials and Methods section.
-when writing about porosity, you should refer to specific values (use the soaking and weighing method, or more accurate, such as mercury porosimetry or image analysis) or use phrases like "it seems more porous" or something similar (156,160)
We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have modified the sentence.
- in line 416 AND 440 - a typo (470/430) - please delete and check all the text,
We agree with the Reviewer, and we have deleted the typos.
-please emphasize the purpose of the work and refer to what is new at work;
We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion, we modified results and discussion sections to better explain the research aims.
-in its current form, the work has the structure of a research report, the data analysis is not too deep, but due to the sprint nature of the topic, it is suitable for publication after corrections specified by reviewers.
We thank the Reviewer for all the suggestion, and we have modified the manuscript as requested.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper deals with an interesting and important subject. It provides a simple but effective methodology to overcome a current issue in the identification of different types of ceramic classes. Considering the potential impact on the field of studies I believe that this paper deserves publication. However, there are several errors and issues that the authors may wish to evaluate before being accepted for publication. I provide here a list of them:
TITLE
The title is too general. Since the main problem is the differentiation between majolica and mezza-majolica I would suggest something like this:
Petrographic and microanalytical analysis for distinguishing majolica and mezza-majolica ceramics
INTRODUCTION
While I appreciate the fact the authors go straight to the point of their research, I would love to have some more lines about previous research and why this methodology has not been applied before for this specific scope. For example, it would be interesting to know a bit more about who established the distinction between majolica and mezza majolica. Also, more references are welcomed.
RESULTS
In lines 153 to 169, the authors provide their own functional definitions of the different ceramic sherds. Functional definitions are widespread in the field of ceramic studies with a wealth of publications proposing different options (Rice; Orton; Sinopoli etc). Therefore, I recommend the authors rely upon an existing system to allow the reader to better understand their definition.
DISCUSSION
The authors extensively mention the role of firing. However, no mention of the temperature is given. Is this relevant for the distinction between the two ceramic types or not? Even if it is not, it would be good to explain it.
CONCLUSION
Line 416: delete “407”
Line 417: what is “impasto”?
Line 431: delete “430”
ENGLISH
English language shows several flaws and needs to be revised by a native speaker.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
This paper deals with an interesting and important subject. It provides a simple but effective methodology to overcome a current issue in the identification of different types of ceramic classes. Considering the potential impact on the field of studies I believe that this paper deserves publication. However, there are several errors and issues that the authors may wish to evaluate before being accepted for publication. I provide here a list of them:
TITLE: The title is too general. Since the main problem is the differentiation between majolica and mezza-majolica I would suggest something like this: Petrographic and microanalytical analysis for distinguishing majolica and mezza-majolica ceramics
We very thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion. All the author accept the new proposed title and so we have changed the title of the manuscript.
INTRODUCTION: While I appreciate the fact the authors go straight to the point of their research, I would love to have some more lines about previous research and why this methodology has not been applied before for this specific scope. For example, it would be interesting to know a bit more about who established the distinction between majolica and mezza majolica. Also, more references are welcomed.
We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion and add more information in the Introduction.
RESULTS: In lines 153 to 169, the authors provide their own functional definitions of the different ceramic sherds. Functional definitions are widespread in the field of ceramic studies with a wealth of publications proposing different options (Rice; Orton; Sinopoli etc). Therefore, I recommend the authors rely upon an existing system to allow the reader to better understand their definition.
We agree with the Reviewer, and we have added references.
DISCUSSION: The authors extensively mention the role of firing. However, no mention of the temperature is given. Is this relevant for the distinction between the two ceramic types or not? Even if it is not, it would be good to explain it.
We thank the Reviewer for the observation, we have added some lines of explanation in the conclusion section.
CONCLUSION:
- Line 416: delete “407”
- Line 417: what is “impasto”?
- Line 431: delete “430”
We agree with the Reviewer, they were typos, but we have deleted all the first paragraph, as requested by the Reviewer n. 1.
ENGLISH: English language shows several flaws and needs to be revised by a native speaker.
We very thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have modified the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I appreciate your responses to my comments, as you have followed some of the most important aspects that I suggested. Certainly, my comments of first review were quite brief as and only the main suggestions were provided. To point out the specific comments that you required entails to rebuild the paper rather than a proper review.
I repeat that you have a very interesting and exceptional ceramic materials, you have performed a good research and you have achieved good results. However, in order to publish the research performed in a scientific journal a major revision is still needed, both in content and formal issues.
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewer for the valuable advice and suggestions.
We have tried, as he/she suggested, to further revise the vocabulary of the text and we have followed his/her suggestion to implement the results chapter not only by trying to organize it in a way that we feel is more organic but also by including discussions in it, as previously requested.
We hope that the result will meet the reviewer's requirements.
