The Three-Dimensional Model as a ‘Scientific Fact’: The Scientific Methodology in Hypothetical Reconstruction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe discussion explores the growing significance of 3D digital modeling in scientific research, especially in fields like architecture, archaeology, and cultural heritage. It asserts that 3D models, which have typically served as tools for visualization and communication, should now be acknowledged as independent "scientific products" within the research framework. To achieve this recognition, 3D models must follow strict scientific protocols that guarantee transparency, traceability, reproducibility, and the possibility of peer review—similar to the standards applied to traditional research outputs like journal articles or monographs.
Over the past 30 years, 3D digital modeling has evolved from a mere visual tool into a critical method for scientific research, particularly in fields where physical artifacts no longer exist. The text traces this transformation and emphasizes the need for a standardized scientific approach to 3D modeling, aligning it with Karl Popper's deductive method. Despite the growing acceptance of 3D models, challenges remain in gaining full recognition as scientific outputs, including the need for standardization, best practices, and platforms for preservation and peer review. The importance of transparency, reproducibility, and adherence to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) is also highlighted. The text notes a positive trend in academic publishing, where 3D models are increasingly recognized as legitimate research products.
The discussion would benefit from a deeper exploration of the specific technical and methodological challenges related to 3D modeling. It might be useful to address the issue of managing and representing uncertainties in data sources, as this analysis could provide valuable insights. Additionally, while emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, the text could be strengthened by providing concrete examples of how such collaboration can be promoted and the distinct roles that various disciplines can play in advancing 3D digital modeling.
In summary, this text makes a significant contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the role of digital tools in scientific research. It provides a clear and thoughtful framework for integrating 3D models into the scientific process as credible and valuable results of research.
Author Response
I would like to express primarily my gratitude to all the reviewers for their efforts in clarify my argumentation, jointly with useful remarks and suggestions they kindly gave me.
Comment 1: The discussion would benefit from a deeper exploration of the specific technical and methodological challenges related to 3D modeling. It might be useful to address the issue of managing and representing uncertainties in data sources, as this analysis could provide valuable insights.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The peculiar nature of the subject of this contribution – in my purpose - does not aim to go into such detail on some of these specific issues (such as the specific technical and methodological challenges related to 3D modeling or the management and representation of uncertainties in data sources) which are, indeed, fundamental to the topic discussed in this paper in a scientific key, as they are the subject of specific and also recent publications, and quoted/referenced throughout the manuscript too. Anyway more detail and related references about ‘uncertainty’ have been inserted in: @ page 7, Section 4, lines 298-324 concerning the terms ‘Uncertainty’ and ‘Reliability’; @ lines 335-336; @ lines 348-350 explaining the conceptual map at Figure 3.
Comment 2: Additionally, while emphasizing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, the text could be strengthened by providing concrete examples of how such collaboration can be promoted and the distinct roles that various disciplines can play in advancing 3D digital modeling.
Response 2: Agree. This is a very significant point, in fact; for this purpose, a paragraph has been inserted (lines 35-52) specifically dedicated to citing the experiences of some networks, which, characterized by a strong interdisciplinarity, have a significant contribution to the development of this specific research area, and brought to the awareness of the researchers themselves of the value of digital reconstruction methods as scientific tools in the context of architectural history research.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article offers important reflections on the scientific production of three-dimensional models with historical significance. This is a crucial discussion for the field and has been missing in the literature. The author delves into the topic and introduces fundamental concepts that will serve as a reference for future research. The article is well-written and well-organized, effectively linking ideas to culminate in the development of a concept.
I have a few suggestions for its improvement.
line 77: When you talk about a clear representation of uncertainty in 3D reconstructions, what exactly does that mean? It might be worth explaining the possible ways to achieve this. I noticed that this is addressed later in the text. Perhaps it would be helpful to inform the reader about this in advance.
line 90: In this case, couldn't a point cloud be considered 3D digitization? In this context, we're not necessarily talking about a 3D model, or are we? A model and a point cloud are not the same thing. However, a point cloud can be a 3D digitization of a building.
lines 106 and 108: use he/she
lines 133 to 142: I find this statement a bit too strong, especially considering that not all technological objects are black boxes. In many cases, they are open source, and there is a clear framework of how it operates. Additionally, for a result to be considered scientific, its method must be properly documented to allow replication. Therefore, I believe this analogy is unnecessary for the idea the author intends to convey. However, the discussion about the selective process of what is presented in an article is valid. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to show the entire process, including the things that went wrong and led to adjustments. Often, only the successful process is presented in an article.
line 213: (TOP)?
line 212: "because to a long list of reasons" > Consider change to: "due to a long list of reasons" or "because of a long list of reasons"
line 228: "In some of these procedures (ANVUR-VQR) [51]" > Consider change to: Consider change to: In some of these procedures, ANVUR-VQR [51] recommends,...
line 239: Could you make it more clear? I could not understand the part inside the ( ... ) Would it be a matter of citing the articles only?
line 350: "A 3D model (or three-dimensional model), is meant"> Wouldn't it be important to include something like: "A 3D model resulting from a 3D digitization or a 3D reconstruction", is meant..
line 356: It would be better to be a bit clearer regarding the author— does it refer to the person who created the 3D model or the original architect? What is the purpose of this identification? Is it to give credit to the developer of the model? Would there be any other purpose?
Author Response
I would like to express primarily my gratitude to the reviewers for her/his efforts in further clarifying my argument together with the useful remarks and suggestions she/he kindly gave me.
Comment 1: line 77: When you talk about a clear representation of uncertainty in 3D reconstructions, what exactly does that mean? It might be worth explaining the possible ways to achieve this. I noticed that this is addressed later in the text. Perhaps it would be helpful to inform the reader about this in advance.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Anyway, the list of challenges/issues listed in line ex 77 (now lines 119-126) is that indicated in Koller [43], 2009. For the points that have been dealt with in this meantime, I added some related references that has been subsequently developed in some research streams: @ page 7, Section 4, lines 298-324 concerning the terms ‘Uncertainty’ and ‘Reliability’; @ lines 335-336; @ page 8, lines 348-350 explaining the conceptual map at Figure 3.
Comment 2: line 90: In this case, couldn't a point cloud be considered 3D digitization? In this context, we're not necessarily talking about a 3D model, or are we? A model and a point cloud are not the same thing. However, a point cloud can be a 3D digitization of a building.
Response 2: I agree with the question posed and, for greater clarity - given the doubt raised - I have added a reference in brackets and a further reference: @ pg.3, Section 3, lines 135-137
Comment 3: lines 106 and 108: use he/she
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment
Comment 4:lines 133 to 142: I find this statement a bit too strong, especially considering that not all technological objects are black boxes. In many cases, they are open source, and there is a clear framework of how it operates. Additionally, for a result to be considered scientific, its method must be properly documented to allow replication. Therefore, I believe this analogy is unnecessary for the idea the author intends to convey. However, the discussion about the selective process of what is presented in an article is valid. Indeed, in many cases, it is impossible to show the entire process, including the things that went wrong and led to adjustments. Often, only the successful process is presented in an article.
Response 4: I had assumed that the definition ‘black boxes’ was somehow clear of the concept regarding the selective process of what is presented in an article. In order to better highlight and clarify the concept - with reference to what some authors have discussed - and to better contextualize its meaning, I added the reference to Latour's use of it: @ pg.5, Section 3, lines 178-180.
Comment 5: line 213: (TOP)?
Response 5: This comment is not clear. @ line 260 (ex 213) refers to data management in research activity.
Comment 6: line 212: "because to a long list of reasons" > Consider change to: "due to a long list of reasons" or "because of a long list of reasons"
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Text changed: @ line 259
Comment 7: line 228: "In some of these procedures (ANVUR-VQR) [51]" > Consider change to: Consider change to: In some of these procedures, ANVUR-VQR [51] recommends,...
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out: suggestion accepted: @ line 275
Comment 8: line 239: Could you make it more clear? I could not understand the part inside the ( ... ) Would it be a matter of citing the articles only?
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree that it wasn’t clear. The part – that was between brackets – cites the title of some research. I removed the brackets and added the references: @ liens 286-287
Comment 9: line 350: "A 3D model (or three-dimensional model), is meant"> Wouldn't it be important to include something like: "A 3D model resulting from a 3D digitization or a 3D reconstruction", is meant..
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. Text changed: @ line 419
Comment 10: line 356: It would be better to be a bit clearer regarding the author— does it refer to the person who created the 3D model or the original architect? What is the purpose of this identification? Is it to give credit to the developer of the model? Would there be any other purpose?
Response 10: Thank you for the question posed, and I agree. I have, in fact, added that by author/s - in the case of the 3D model - we mean the person/people who created it (in some metadata it is indicated as 'creator') in order to evaluate the scientific work produced. @ lines 426-427
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author, I am sending my comments on the text.
I propose to add literature references to the text at the beginning of the Introduction section (pages: 22-38).
The purpose of the article is required in the Introduction Section, which will introduce readers to the remaining sections of the manuscript.
The text contains several identical fragments from other publications from the author :
(Apollonio, F.I., Fallavollita, F., Foschi, R. (2023). An Experimental Methodology for the 3D Virtual Reconstruction of Never Built or Lost Architecture. In: Münster, S., Pattee, A., Kröber, C., Niebling, F. (eds) Research and Education in Urban History in the Age of Digital Libraries. UHDL 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1853.)
Two sentences identical (from the author's publication mentioned above are also found in the Conclusions section. I propose to revise these fragments.
Please see: pages 65-75, 326-333.
This should not be a problem, as the essay aspires to a high style and is a display of the author's literary mastery.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestions and comments able to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
Comment 1: I propose to add literature references to the text at the beginning of the Introduction section (pages: 22-38). The purpose of the article is required in the Introduction Section, which will introduce readers to the remaining sections of the manuscript.
Response 1: welcoming the appropriate comment/suggestion the Introduction has been extensively revised, integrating it with the necessary reference bibliography and articulating it in such a way as to introduce the reader to the subsequent parts of the manuscript: @ lines 22-51
Comment 2: The text contains several identical fragments from other publications from the author:
(Apollonio, F.I., Fallavollita, F., Foschi, R. (2023). An Experimental Methodology for the 3D Virtual Reconstruction of Never Built or Lost Architecture. In: Münster, S., Pattee, A., Kröber, C., Niebling, F. (eds) Research and Education in Urban History in the Age of Digital Libraries. UHDL 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1853.)
Two sentences identical (from the author's publication mentioned above are also found in the Conclusions section. I propose to revise these fragments.
Please see: pages 65-75, 326-333.
Response 2: Thanks for the comment. The two parts have been rewritten from scratch, in order to avoid duplication of texts already published.
