Integrated Approach of Historical Landscape Characterisation Techniques and Remote Sensing for the Definition of Predictive Models and Scenario Analysis in the Planning of Archaeological Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents contributions to science, being relevant for the journal. However, some changes need to be made to improve it.
The author should follow the instructions on: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage/instructions
About the abstract:
- Abstract: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.
The title: “characterisation" > characterization
Throughout the text, there are a lot of missing periods at the end of the sentences, and sometimes there is one in the middle of them (i.e. 269 to 274 and 275 to 277).
Sometimes the sentences are too long, making them difficult to understand (i.e. 221 to 225, 233 to 240).
1. Introduction
The introduction lacks a clearly defined research aim.
Line 38 – the same thing
Line 73: invert > MIVIS (Multis- pectral Infared and Visible Imaging Spectrorneter) to Multispectral Infared and Visible Imaging Spectrorneter (MIVIS)
2. Materials and Methods
Line 117 – state what IGM mean
Phrase from 117 to 118 is confusing
Line 132: confusing. All of this data is then available to be interrogated?
Line 160 – state what (MNF and PCA) mean
Line 161 – state what SAM mean
Line 168 - The Study Area section could be after introduction.
The use of BC and AC/AD could be changed to BCE/ ACE relating to common era.
Line 204 - missing citation
3. Results and Discussion
Figure 4 – it would be interesting to highlight the studied archaeological area
Line 300: “From the analysis of the remote sensing images” of 2011? Can you provide figures showing these areas?
Lines: 302, 312, 320 – use bullets
Lines 328, 336, 340 - use bullets instead of numbers
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThroughout the text, there are a lot of missing periods at the end of the sentences, and sometimes there is one in the middle of them (i.e. 269 to 274 and 275 to 277).
Sometimes the sentences are too long, making them difficult to understand (i.e. 221 to 225, 233 to 240).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsResearch Problem Formulation: The article addresses the challenge of planning archaeological areas by proposing an innovative approach that combines remote sensing and HLC. This integrated methodology aims to offer a detailed and complete vision of the landscape's variations, which is crucial for documenting, conserving, planning, and valorizing archaeological sites. The problem is well-articulated, highlighting the necessity for innovative techniques to optimize data collection and improve the contextual understanding of archaeological sites. The research problem, while interesting, is presented in a general manner without explicitly stating the specific research gaps it aims to fill. A clearer articulation of the novel challenges this study addresses in the context of existing literature would strengthen this section. It would be improved by providing a more detailed discussion of the specific limitations of current methodologies and how the proposed approach directly addresses these gaps would enhance the clarity and impact of the research problem formulation.
Hypotheses Articulation: While the article does not explicitly state hypotheses, it implicitly suggests that the synergistic use of HLC and remote sensing will enhance the effectiveness and precision of archaeological planning. This approach is hypothesized to contribute significantly to the sustainable preservation of archaeological resources and the management of cultural heritage. Please formulate and present specific, testable hypotheses at the outset to guide the research and provide a clear framework for evaluating the results.
Description of Research Methods: The article provides a detailed description of the methods employed, which include the integration of HLC and remote sensing techniques, particularly the use of MIVIS technology for hyperspectral imaging. It elaborates on how HLC is used to categorize landscapes into 'types' based on historical development, and how remote sensing facilitates the detection of archaeological features through high-resolution images. This methodological framework enables a holistic understanding of landscape transformations over time.
Novelty in Approach: The novelty of the approach lies in the integration of two distinct methodologies—HLC and remote sensing—into a unified framework for archaeological planning. This multi-scalar and holistic approach is innovative in its capacity to provide a comprehensive understanding of landscape and historical dynamics, thereby enhancing the precision and effectiveness of archaeological conservation and planning. The novelty is asserted more than demonstrated. The article would benefit from a more thorough comparison with previous work to highlight what aspects of this approach are truly innovative. Please include a more comprehensive literature review to contextualize the novelty of the approach, specifying how this integration advances beyond existing practices.
Discussion of Results: The discussion section effectively illustrates how the integrated approach can monitor and interpret changes in land use and landscape over historical periods. It demonstrates the methodology's potential in identifying elements of landscape risk and informing future landscape transformations. The case study of the archaeological area of Caulonia serves as a practical example, showcasing the applicability of the approach in real-world scenarios. Expand please the discussion to include a critical analysis of the limitations of the study, potential sources of error, and how these might impact the generalizability of the findings.
Presentation of Results: The results are presented clearly, with visual aids such as maps and aerial photographs highlighting the changes in the archaeological landscape of Caulonia. The article successfully demonstrates how the integrated approach can reveal insights into the urban layout and historical evolution of the area, thus providing a solid foundation for strategic planning and conservation efforts.
In conclusion, the article presents a compelling case for the innovative use of HLC and remote sensing in archaeological planning. The detailed research methods, novelty of the approach, and thorough discussion of results make a significant contribution to the field, offering new perspectives for the conservation and management of archaeological sites. This work not only advances the academic discourse but also provides practical implications for the preservation of cultural heritage in the face of contemporary development challenges.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language quality of the article demonstrates a competent use of English, which is critical for reaching an international academic audience. However, based on the provided excerpts, there are several aspects where the language could be refined to improve clarity, coherence, and academic tone:
The article occasionally employs complex and lengthy sentences, which might challenge reader comprehension, particularly for those for whom English is a second language. Simplify please sentence structures where possible and break down complex ideas into shorter sentences to enhance readability.
The article effectively uses technical terms relevant to the fields of archaeology and remote sensing. However, ensuring consistency in terminology is crucial to avoid confusion. Review the document to ensure that technical terms are used consistently throughout. Consider a glossary for highly specialized terms if the target audience includes non-specialists. While the sections of the article are logically structured, transitions between paragraphs and sections could be smoother to guide the reader through the argument or narrative more effectively.
There are minor grammatical errors and instances of awkward syntax that could detract from the professional quality of the writing.
While the article demonstrates a proficient use of English and adequately conveys its scientific contributions, attention to language clarity, grammar, and coherence will enhance its overall quality. Proofreading and minor revisions are recommended to ensure the document meets the high standards of academic publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA brief summary
This paper presents a methodology for the integrated interpretation of data provided by satellite imagery, Historical Landscape Characterization, and Multispectral Infrared Visible Imaging Spectrometer to hypothesize the transformation of archeological sites.
General concept comments
Review:
The methodology and data interpretation lack clarity. The results are inadequately presented, and the absence of legends in the photographs makes it impossible to correlate the text with the provided images. The paper must provide comprehensive details about the data sources and methods of image processing. To enhance clarity, the discussion section requires a table similar to the one depicted below:
|
No. |
Location |
Data |
Meaning |
Hypothesis based on historical literature |
||
|
Satellite Imagery |
HLC |
MIVIS |
||||
|
1 |
(N,E) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
(N,E) |
|
|
|
|
|
Specific comments
Requires English language revision.
Please provide the extended form of abbreviations the first time they are used.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRequires English language revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI find the article to be well-written and well-structured. It is suitable for publication in the Heritage and may be of interest to its readers. I suggest some minor revisions, such as reducing the length of the abstract, which is relatively long, and adding a scale to all figures for clarity.
Overall, the article is of good quality and I recommend it for publication with the suggested revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Colleague, a technical revision of the contribution is necessary because it does not respect the formal indications of the journal with particular reference to the bibliography and captions of the figures. Bibliographic additions are also necessary since the texts mentioned are rather old in the attachment. There are some tips.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
A quick revision of the English is necessary as some articles are missing and some sentences can be reformulated with more precise technical terms.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt was observed that several changes were made to the article; however, there are some points that still need to be improved:
Abstract: The abstract should be a single paragraph (see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage/instructions)
When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form. So, Invert: MNF (Minimum Noise Fraction) and PCA (Principal Components Analysis) and the Rules Images derived from the SAM (Spectral Angle Mapper) – change to > Minimum Noise Fraction (MNF) and Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and the Rules Images derived from the Spectral Angle Mapper (SAM).
Study area: use only one of the following: B.C.E or B.C.
What does E.C mean? In English should be C.E. for Common Era
Figure 4 – it would be interesting to highlight the studied archaeological area
Results and Discussion: use only one type of bullet
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageChange E.C. to C.E, meaning Common Era
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe figures can be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing of English language required. Avoid long sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Colleague,
Thank you for the review the contribution has been integrated and implemented correctly.
The reference to the figures within the text which does not correspond to the indications, remains to be fixed.
As you will have seen from the site, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage/instructions, As I indicated in the attachment; in MDPI the abbreviation Fig. is not used. It is preferred Figure.
The line spacing in the bibliography has double spaces and must be compacted as required by the publisher's standard.
These are just technical issues that you can resolve quickly.
Best regards,
The Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
