Railroad Buildings of Eskişehir: Challenges and Opportunities for Industrial Heritage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents the work done by the students of the Anadolu University Architecture Department during their internship activities and deals with a case study of documentation, survey, and enhancement of an industrial cultural heritage site, the Railroad Buildings of Eskişehir.
Though the study is interesting and it is not clear enough in its presentation. This paper needs for a major revision before its publication modifying the way to present the different paragraphs.
In particular:
- "Introduction": specify references on ICOMOS – TICCIH documents (2005, 2006, etc.); add references on enhancement of industrial cultural heritage, industrial cultural heritage tourism and, specifically, previous studies related to the Eskişehir industrial cultural heritage tourism;
- the subdivision of the text in "Materials and methods" and "Results" paragraphs is not well defined: the working methodology (documentation, design studios, proposals, stories) must be discussed in "Materials and Methods" while the results (sketches, plans, designs,students proposals, videos, exhibition activity) must be presented in the results paragraph;
- more figures related to the exhibition can be reduced in number and dimension (e.i. figs. 1, 12,15);
- figures referred to designs and plans (figs., 6, 9, 10, 11) must be augmented in dimension (they are illegible and therefore useless like this) as well as students proposal (fig. 18) (maybe they could be linked on-line as the case of paper in Appendix A). Concerning this paper, it is not necessary as a link but it can be cited in references paragraph.
- students proposals (fig. 18) are a more considerable part of the work and therefore they must be better presented.
- "discussion": it is necessary to better specify and describe the value of this study and of the exhibition (their feedback and interest, if there was or not) on the citizens and above all on public institutions.
- "Acknowledgements": it could be helpful to link the mentioned video.
- "References": must be implemented.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: - "Introduction": specify references on ICOMOS – TICCIH documents (2005, 2006, etc.); add references on enhancement of industrial cultural heritage, industrial cultural heritage tourism and, specifically, previous studies related to the Eskişehir industrial cultural heritage tourism;
Response 1:
In ıntroduction section, ICOMOS – TICCIH documents specified in references both in the body of artical and references 1 and 2. A table was added to enhancement of industrial cultural heritage references. Also previous studies related to the Eskişehir industrial cultural heritage was mentioned in the article. (References 5-9).
Point 2: - the subdivision of the text in paragraphs is not well defined: the working methodology (documentation, design studios, proposals, stories) must be discussed in "Materials and Methods" while the results (sketches, plans, designs,students proposals, videos, exhibition activity) must be presented in the results paragraph;
Response 2: I found that sections "Materials and methods" and "Results" should be re‐organized and should be expanded to illuminate the work. Some paragraphs and photograph were added to this purpose. Link also added for related video.
Point 3: - more figures related to the exhibition can be reduced in number and dimension (e.i. figs. 1, 12,15);
Response 3: Figures 1,12,15 related to the exhibition were reduced.
Point 4: - figures referred to designs and plans (figs., 6, 9, 10, 11) must be augmented in dimension (they are illegible and therefore useless like this) as well as students proposal (fig. 18) (maybe they could be linked on-line as the case of paper in Appendix A). Concerning this paper, it is not necessary as a link but it can be cited in references paragraph.
Response 4: Figures referred to designs and plans (figs., 6, 9, 11) were augmented in dimension. Figure 10 was cancelled because there was enough explanatory photos.
Point 5: - students proposals (fig. 16) are a more considerable part of the work and therefore they must be better presented.
Response 4: Students’ proposals (now fig. 16) better explained and linked on-line as the case of paper in Appendix A.
Point 6: "discussion": it is necessary to better specify and describe the value of this study and of the exhibition (their feedback and interest, if there was or not) on the citizens and above all on public institutions.
Response 6: the discussion section is better explained. A feedback and interest on the citizens and above all on public institutions were emphasized.
Point 7: - "Acknowledgements": it could be helpful to link the mentioned video.
Response 7: It may be easier for the readers if they find a link for related video. The link was added.
Point 8: - "References": must be implemented.
Response 8: References (now 14) developed and implemented.
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is interesting, the theme can be innovative in that geographical area, but the theme in general and the methods used are not (give more international references about industrial archaeology...).
It is always difficult to articulate a study about survey and documentation of architecture, especially carried out in the didactic field, within the rigid rules of the discussion of a scientific thesis. However, I would try to deepen the discussion and conclusion paragraphs to give it more strength.
Reference 3?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: - The work is interesting, the theme can be innovative in that geographical area, but the theme in general and the methods used are not (give more international references about industrial archaeology...).
Response 1:
In ıntroduction section, ICOMOS – TICCIH documents specified in references both in the body of artical and references 1 and 2. A table was added to enhancement of industrial cultural heritage references. Also previous studies related to the Eskişehir industrial cultural heritage was mentioned in the article. (References 5-9).
Point 2: It is always difficult to articulate a study about survey and documentation of architecture, especially carried out in the didactic field, within the rigid rules of the discussion of a scientific thesis. However, I would try to deepen the discussion and conclusion paragraphs to give it more strength.
Response 2: I found that sections "Materials and methods" and "Results" should be re‐organized and should be expanded to illuminate the work. Some paragraphs and photograph were added to to better specify and describe the value of this study. the discussion section is better explained. A feedback and interest on the citizens and above all on public institutions were emphasized. References (now 14) developed and implemented.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article on the use of abandoned spaces related to industrial heritage has an important meaning, as it often goes unnoticed as in the case of Eskisehir. The reuse of spaces and social participation from the student's work, like academic activity are positive values in the article. Also are appropriate references to industrial heritage. It is necessary in the final conclusion to add some proposal or alternative for a immediate future in order not to understand that everything remains in a very well organized academic activity.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: - The article on the use of abandoned spaces related to industrial heritage has an important meaning, as it often goes unnoticed as in the case of Eskisehir. The reuse of spaces and social participation from the student's work, like academic activity are positive values in the article. Also are appropriate references to industrial heritage. It is necessary in the final conclusion to add some proposal or alternative for a immediate future in order not to understand that everything remains in a very well organized academic activity.
Response 1:
In ıntroduction section, ICOMOS – TICCIH documents specified in references both in the body of article and references 1 and 2. A table was added to enhancement of industrial cultural heritage references. Also previous studies related to the Eskişehir industrial cultural heritage was mentioned in the article. (References 5-9). I found that sections "Materials and methods" and "Results" should be re‐organized. The subdivision of the text in paragraphs is re-defined. Some paragraphs and photograph were added to this purpose. Link also added for related video. Authors tried to deepen the discussion and conclusion paragraphs to give it more strength. A feedback and interest on the citizens and above all on public institutions were emphasized.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After this major revision the paper now can be published. Congratulations for your proposal and results to enahnce industrial heritage in your State
