Dismissed Mines: From the Past to the Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with the dismissed mines and their inclusion in the UBH class. It is claimed that the analysis of the previously collected studies was used for the enhancement of the Italian case study of Valle Imperina.

Abstract - it should follow the usual pattern: background to the research, methods applied, results and discussion. In this case practically all is missing, rather it explains what has been done but there are no clear results (only the most important ones), no reference to discussion, while methodology used is not clearly explained.

Introduction

 

 

Research questions are totally missing. It is not clear what the study wanted to investigate. It is read between the lines that the goal was to enhance (what?) the Valle Imperina but the problem was not stated.

Related to the missing research questions/hypotheses, relevant literature review is missing. Although the authors discuss literature related to the mines, it is rather generic and not necessarily academic.

Authors should consider putting the text in lines 75-83 (related to the winners of the Micheletti award) in the footnote, as it adds little to the flow of the text.

Along the same line, last 3 paragraphs of the Introduction add little to the text. Authors should consider a) deleting them and mentioning the projects just in one sentence or b) putting the text in the footnote but not in this chapter but in the Materials and Methods chapter where they mention the projects.

Materials and Methods - unfortunately, the methods have not been well explained. It is obvious that a lot of work has been done here with the analysis of different case studies, but methodology seems to be very poor. It rather results as a professional report and not an academic paper.

Figure 1. is not clear, unfortunately. It is very difficult to understand what the authors wanted to present as the Figure does neither speaks for itself nor it is well explained by the accompanying text.

Chapter 3

It is more like a description of the dismissed mines than a text presenting the Results of a well-thought research study. Normally, Results  should clearly, concisely and objectively describe the findings of a study. This entails a) the description of the procedures used, b) characteristics of the research sample (in this case case studies with clearly described categories which were researched), and c) results of the primary analysis (without interpretation). All that is missing here. Instead, the authors just described the case studies and tried to synthesize it in the respected Table, which contains only the basic data on the case studies and not relevant categories for which the case studies have been researched). Further on, the authors describe the Valle Imperina case study but it is not clear how any knowledge from the previously studied case studies are going to be applied in the "enhancement" of this Italian case, possibly resulting with some recommendations.

Discussion is completely missing in the text.

 

 

General

Some language editing is required (e.g. instead of "an European", it should be "a European; "a reduced ?? number of sites" - did you mean a small number?; "both were presented below" - did you mean "both are presented below?; "this sectoral museum share" - did you mean "this sectoral museum shares or these sectoral museums share"?; "tangible and tangible ?? values" - didi you mean "tangible and intangible values"?, etc.)

While self-citations are not inappropriately used, there is a rather high number of self citations which should be reduced.

Finally, as mentioned before, a significant effort put into the whole project is evident but, due to unclear methodology, it did not result well. This review is in no way meant to discourage the authors, but to offer them an opportunity to reflect on it, brainstorm and decide on which path to take in order to use the previous work with more clarity in their future research goals. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see attached file, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution addresses the theme of disused mines through the study of a vast case history of experiences around the world that have seen their reconversion (more or less successful) into places of testimonial value.

The Valle Imperina case study is well analysed even if somewhat lacking in terms of proposal, especially in reference to the ReMusIt project, which is mentioned but whose potential (and concrete) outputs are not explained.

The article is well written and very clear. Some aspects could be improved, such as the explanation of Figure 1 and the relationship between its elements.

The conclusions are somewhat brief and do not make sufficient reference to recent research in the field.

Author Response

Please see attached file, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study presents an interesting in-depth overview of several enhancement projects of dismissed mines. The various case studies are meticulously described, but the paper is crucially missing a critical discussion that interprets the case studies analyzed. It might be useful to compare strengths and weaknesses of each case study in a table, so that the Valle Imperina case study can be analyzed with reference to the aspects extrapolated from the other case studies. As it is, the Valle Imperina case study looks like an extra case study, simply added to the previous ones. It might be interesting to conduct a comparison between this case study and the previous ones.

Moreover, there is incoherence between the title and the conclusion section. The title introduces "worldwide case studies", but conclusions focus exclusively on the Valle Imperina case study. The reason why extensive research has been conducted on dismissed mines in Greece, Germany, Italy, Japan and Poland is not clear. The results deriving from their analysis need to be interpreted and integrated in the general discussion. The conclusion section should draw together the ideas of the entire paper to explain how they connect and relate. 

In addition, please note the following misspellings:

Line 90 and 188: it is called Sebariu, not Sebariou

Line 403: local archive (?)

Author Response

Please see attached file, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper discusses a very interesting topic which, however, has already been introduced by the authors in previous publications. 

While acknowledging the nature of the research, which is particularly related to the results of the projects mentioned, the paper closely resembles a research report. 

To integrate it I recommend:

- to include, after the introduction, an up-to-date review on the evaluation and valorisation strategies of Underground Built Heritage

- to include in the conclusions the theoretical and practical implications, future developments of the research and its limitations. 

Author Response

please see attached file, thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately, the authors have completely ignored the suggestions by the reviewer. Neither research questions have been highlighted (as the authors claim), not methodology was improved. Discussion section has not been introduced although the review pointed to it. Methodology is still very fuzzy and not likely to be easily replicated.

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has significantly been improved and it is now suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for appreciation