Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The premise of the article is interesting; however, it is woefully lacking in data, and the conclusions are not at all substantiated.  A basic flaw is basing the conclusion on the assessment of the partial interview of one informant.  As presented, the conclusions are not credible because of the absence of scholarly rigor and documentation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are only minor corrections that need to be made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors can be found in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine. I have only identified a few typing errors which you will find in the attached pdf.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has a very high relevance in what  concerns the topic. Although, the methodology should be cleared since authors are using methods from different social sciences and the conclusions presented are too many for being based on the interviews. The role of the interviews should be better explained. What conclusions are based only on the interviews, how the subjectivity of their interpretation was approached? Besides the structure of the paper should be improved specially the methodology (the presentation of one interview isn´t enough to the wide range of conclusions) because is not clear what methods provided the different conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer's Comments

The many short paragraphs, beginning in Section 1.3 and continuing need to be expanded and organized in a consistent narrative flow.  Paragraphs should not be a single sentence. 

There should be more discussion of the air-raid shelters in Szczecin, Poland in terms of how the subsequent history of their existence provides an apt parallel for the study of the Alicante shelters (lines 74-75). 

In line 182 there is mention of the narrative of a woman who endured the bombing, and the authors indicate that they will focus on the narrative.  That is not done subsequently in the article. 

Why are there quotation marks at the end of line 202? 

Why are there quotation marks at the end of line 207? 

The text contained in fig. 2 is too small to be readable. 

Line 258 – dynamzsation – this surely is a misspelling. 

Repetition of total number of visits to the shelters needs to be remedied.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of the article is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper needs some minor English  written reviews (highlighted).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs some minor English  written reviews (highlighted).

Author Response

Dear Mr. Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your efforts in pointing out phrases that could be improved in terms of their expression in English. We have attached the revised original document for your reference. We have reviewed each sentence and word that you have kindly indicated. You can verify this in the text (in green letters). We reiterate our gratitude for helping us enhance our document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf