A Case of the Guthi System in Nepal: The Backbone of the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting paper and focuses on an important and intriguing topic. Community-based groups can perform the role of custodians and contribute towards conservation of local culture and heritage resources, particularly the fragile ones.

That said, in its current form, the manuscript requires some work:

-Methods part is not clearly presented.

-Table 3 is very long. Only few examples of festivals can be included in the table inside the paper. The remaining list can be presented in a separate table in Appendix. Alternatively, these festivals can be divided into five or six broad groups based on similarity in function and meaning. That will reduce the size of the table.

Results and discussion sections are mixed together. They should be separate. Discussion and Conclusion/implications can be presented together. Theoretical and academic implications are missing. The authors only present practitioner-related implications.

The results part is too brief and needs to be elaborated given the methodological techniques used, as presented in the abstract.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. I look forward to receiving positive feedback. Please find the attached file. Thank you again!!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I read the article “A Case of Guthi System in Nepal: Backbone of the Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage” with great interest. The topic addressed is intriguing and aligns with the ongoing discussion about the conservation and management of cultural heritage taking in account the risks to which they are exposed.

The manuscript largely adheres to the established norms for articles in this publication regarding organization and length. Also noteworthy is the long list of bibliographical references used.

However, I believe some improvements are necessary. Please take note of the following:

1) Content: it seems to me that there is a confusion between Literature Review and Results. It seems to me that the LR are the Results of the numerous methodologies applied to this study. In LR it might be interesting to look at various systems (in other countries?) for managing and conserving heritage. The discussion section should be improved. Table 1 could show the number of articles found by research area.

2) Formatting: Pay attention to the missing spaces between the end of sentences and the appearance of tables and between sub-points. The text is too close together. Correct some bibliographical references that do not appear according to the rules (line 121, line 133). Line 37 and 121 lowercase letter after reference 10 and Tiwari reference. The end point is missing on line 256.  Figures of page 13 and 14 should be organized differently (assigning a), b), c) and d) and then describing each one in the legend.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your fruitful comments. Please find the response file.
I look forward to receiving positive feedback. Thank you again!!

Salik and Sudha!!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of Subedi and Shrestha

• Line 66 “the current trend” is global or Nepali?

• Lines 88-97 This paragraph says that patterns have evolved over time yet twice iot gives the time frame of 1950-51. What is the frame of the “evolution”? 

• In general,  the authors claim certain things in a paragraph, then list 8-10 citations at the end. That is neither common practice nor good communication. If you mean to use a citation in support of an argument, cite the paper where it is relevant 

• Line 102 says the primary goal of the paper is to empower and strengthen… That is advocacy. It might be an admirable goal  but not in this venue. This journal publishes work that is driven by questions and hypotheses.

• The authors use a numbered system for citations, as expected. However, they don't use it consistently. For example, in line 121 they cite Tiwari (2002, 2013) which is not found as Tiwari in the lit cited, but rather is found as [39, 40]

• Line 139 says Tandon [29] defense since the beginning … That is not a sentence

• Line 150 you use raikar property without definition

• Table 2, Lines 157 and beyond-this is a  valuable table 

• Lines 158 and beyond-there is a great deal of detail here about the Nepali system. That duplicates Table2, and is not necessary to illustrate or support your point 

• Throughout the MS, guthi and guthis are used to indicate singular; be consistent in how they are used

• Lines 384-389 contain 15 different Nepali words that convey no meaning to the reader. It’s enough to say there are 15

• Line 416 and beyond-I don’t see the value of Table 3. It is very long and conveys little 

• Line 430 The difficulties faced by the guthi system seems to be the driving force of theme paper, but that is an advocacy position not a scientific question

• Lines 482-489, lines 490-495 It is not appropriate writing to claim that a series of points is supported by the literature and then cite 8-10 papers at the end of the paragraph

• Lines 525-540 You conclude that the guthi system should be m maintained and strengthened, but that seems to be your opinion based on your experience, not based on the literature or any findings. It appears that you decided that conclusion, then offered a series of observations in  support of that position, rather than collecting data and allowing the data to drive a conclusion.

No comment

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your fruitful comments. Please find the response file.
I look forward to receiving positive feedback. Thank you again!!

Salik and Sudha!!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version looks good, for the most part. Most of my review comments have been addressed except for the methods part. The authors should have a separate section after literature review and expand on the techniques used and describe how reliability and validity considerations were addressed. In the revised version, the authors just add a few sentences towards the end of the introduction section. Missing methodological details and their justification, from an empirical standpoint, make the findings and conclusion part weak. The author should address this issue.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your fruitful comments. I/We revised the manuscripts as much as possible.

Thank you again!

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper. The work done by the Authors resulted in its improvement. Congratulations on that.

Please note some minor sugestions: see the ponctuation on line 102 and 154; correct the reference on line 127 (there's no need to repeat Tiwari [42], Tiwari [43]).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your fruitful comments. I/We revised the manuscripts as much as possible.

Thank you again!

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors hsave mader significant changes in theMS. I believe it now is 1/3 too long, but I have neither the time nor perspective to edit the MS for length. I believe it now conveys the message they intend. My concern about length is that most readers will not invest the energy to delve deeply into the MS, therefore limiting the impact the athors wish to make. But, if the editors are willing to accept an overly long MS, I feel it is ready for publication 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your fruitful comments. I/We revised the manuscripts as much as possible.

Thank you again!

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf