Modern Industrial Heritage as Cultural Mediation in Urban Regeneration: A Case Study of Gunsan, Korea, and Taipei, Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 70: Delete "To this end,"
101: delete people’s; pluralize "perceptions"
102: Pluralize "buildings"
190: Add comma "cultural regeneration,"
Additional content on assessment criteria for modern heritage buildings would be helpful.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable opinion and I understand your points. My responses to each point are as follows.
Regarding the grammar and some expressions, I reflected and modified both the reviewer’s comments. As the reviewer has mentioned, additional content on modern heritage buildings and the theoretical background for cultural regeneration is added to the paper.
Lastly, this paper had gone through professional English editing before I submitted it to the journal. However, I re-read the sentences and revised some of them as you have suggested, as the editor may not be familiar with some terminology even if s/he is a native English speaker.
Thank you again for your valuable opinion. I revised the paper based on your comments. I hope this answers your concerns.
Sincerely,
Prof. LEE JongOh
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Both the topics of Modern Cultural Heritage Protection and cultural urban regeneration are crucial in these times of rethinking urban materials and tools. Also getting practices and theories from worldwide are really needed to approach this poly-faced topic, or better, this set of interconnected topics. The article, then, deserves to be published, despite some needed corrections, primarily concerned with the paper's structure and fluidity.
A few repetitions between the abstract and intro can be retaken better.
Scope and Methods (research methodology) should be separated and treated more in-depth. The scope of research is cross-cutting and multifaced, but it does not appear well developed and articulated in the text. The research methodology is not explained at all, as it would deserve.
Too often, discussions take up too much space with (not-really-useful) turns of words, deviating from the main path. I would suggest an overall reading with this issue as the focus.
It is noted a scarcity of images, maps and pics - mainly of the current state of places and buildings - that instead could help readers who do not know the places to orient themselves.
I suggest splitting the last chapter into two parts; 1) Discussions and argumentations, and 2) Conclusions. So to better develop and argue both parts.
Plagiarism check I did for the article. It results in 27%, a bit borderline and deserving some reshaping of the text.
Finally, I was expecting to find a final clarification of the relationship between the "cultural value of modern industrial heritage", which drives "urban regeneration". However, it is given as a statement that it is not. Authors should clarify why and what kind of interaction exists between that heritage and urban regeneration and not give it as a matter of fact. Even point 2. "aspect of ‘living heritage’ is essential" takes out a new concept not developed and neither explained as it should be. As a last, last suggestion, I would like to remove the verb to use from sentences like "urban regeneration using modern industrial heritage". To "use" often brings to "exploit"...
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable opinion and I understand your points. My responses to each point are as follows.
Regarding methodology, I understand the importance of rigorously demonstrating research methods and results. This paper deals with the aspect of cultural regeneration in Gunsan and Songshan where urban regeneration restores local-specific culture and historicity of the region. These notable comparative cases of applied cultural regeneration in Korea and Taiwan, it is acknowledged that the specificity of this study has led to more focus on the case study. In the research scope and methodology of this paper, I have supplemented the framework and process of the research so that the whole issue of field research can be highlighted. I hope that this aspect will provide an alternative answer to the concerns of the reviewer.
Regarding the theoretical framework and a scarcity of visual content, I supplemented to show more intensively how the cultural regeneration strategy was subdivided and contributed to regional development through Evans' three models in the theoretical framework. I got a lot of inspiration from his theory on the actual fieldwork and I tried to apply it to the cases of Gunsan and Songshan. As the reviewer has mentioned, there are the added more current state of buildings and actual events utilizing industrial facilities in the chapters 3 and 5 of the paper.
As for the conclusion, above all, I was deeply impressed with the fundamental questions posed by the reviewer. As a reminder, the discussions and argumentations section was divided from the conclusions to reveal a critical perspective on the empirical results and to explicate how they resonate with the current situation of Gunsan and Songshan. In the conclusion section, I tried to elaborate on the generalizing aspects of the case study and added a more detailed description of ‘living heritage, as much as possible.
Regarding the similarity index of 27%, the similarity report sent by the academic editor on March 13 was 21% (which may vary slightly from tool to tool), and I tried to reduce the duplicate rate during this revision. I expect a further reduction of about 5%. But I couldn't avoid several similarities, even though we removed many of the same words and sentences used in our paper in 2021. (https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111184). The purpose and direction of this paper are different from the previous paper, but the similarities are still found in meta-language, citations, annotations of famous scholars, patents, references, etc, So I hope you fully understand these inevitable points.
The questions raised by the reviewer have motivated me so much that the paper's directions can be developed in the future. As you know, this paper focuses on cultural regeneration utilizing modern industrial facilities and tries to examine its possibilities for achieving the creativity of the region and community self-reliance through culture, and the changes in Gunsan and Songshan are still in progress.
Thank you for your valuable opinion. Reading your review and struggling to reply to it made me revisit the controversial points and think even further about them. I tried my best to improve the paper based on your advice, and I hope this has worked.
Sincerely,
Prof. LEE JongOh
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents two case studies of modern industrial heritage sites that aid in urban regeneration. The topic is very interesting and deserves more attention in academic journals, especially because the efforts made in East Asian countries has gone unnoticed to people who have never been there.
The manuscript is fairly well written and is a joy to read. May I suggest the following recommendations so that a wider readership can get to understand the interesting results.
______________________________________________________
MAJOR OBSERVATIONS
Abstract: Should also include the conclusions of the study.
Keywords: The ones included are too specific. Please find keywords that may help categorize the study into appropriate areas of interest.
1.1 Background and purpose. This section should include references, placing the study in a line of research. Similar studies should be cited here, that lead to a research gap that the present study fills.
1.2. Study methods: If the study follows a case study method, it should be made clear and be described in detail. Please include key methodological references, as well as studies that have used similar methods.
2. Theoretical background: More references should be added that support the theoretical background.
Line 219: There should be an indication that the results section begins here. Therefore, section 3 should be “Results”.
Line 411: So far, there are interesting details about both case studies, but the section ends abruptly without a discussion section. This discussion section should compare the results of the present research to those of previous research, highlighting what is reported as new in this study. Please also include a table or figure that compares the two case studies.
5. Implications and conclusion: This should be a conclusions section, or a “conclusions and recommendations” section. Right now, it seems to focus mostly (if not completely) on recommendations. Please begin this section with a summary of the main findings of the study. Please include also recommendations for future research.
The conclusions section should not include tables or references. These should be part of previous sections.
______________________________________________________
MINOR OBSERVATIONS
Line 13: Unclear grammar in “which the notions of”.
Line 76: “painful” is a value judgment that should be avoided or fully explained, with appropriate references.
Line 290-294. The study presents evidence of reusing industrial facilities, but it is not appropriate to say that it “employed the method of reusing modern industrial facilities”. The authors are confusing the method with the findings.
Lines 315-317: It is unclear how the facts presented show the scale of Taiwan´s industrialization. Maybe there are missing steps in the explanation.
Lines 422 and 458: It is not appropriate to include a complicated term such as meritocracy in the conclusions without discussing it fully and with appropriate references in the previous sections. The same observation can be made for the concept of “living heritage” on Line 463.
Lines 471-473: The manuscript should end with a stronger conclusion or recommendation, not something that “can be provided”.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable opinion and I understand your points. My responses to each point are as follows.
Regarding methodology, I understand the importance of rigorously demonstrating research methods and results. This paper deals with the aspect of cultural regeneration in Gunsan and Songshan where urban regeneration restores the local-specific culture and historicity of the region. These notable comparative cases of applied cultural regeneration in Korea and Taiwan, it is acknowledged that the specificity of this study has led to more focus on the case study. In the research scope and methodology of this paper, I have supplemented the framework and process of the research so that the whole issue of field research can be highlighted. I hope that this aspect will provide an alternative answer to the concerns of the reviewer.
Regarding abstract and similar comparative studies, I reflected and modified both the reviewer’s comments.
As for the theoretical framework and more comparative figures, I supplemented to show more intensively how the cultural regeneration strategy was subdivided and contributed to regional development through Evans' three models in the theoretical framework. I got a lot of inspiration from his theory on the actual fieldwork and I tried to apply it to the cases of Gunsan and Songshan. As the reviewer has mentioned, there are added comparative figures and actual events utilizing industrial facilities in chapters 3 and 5 of the paper.
As for the conclusion, above all, I was deeply impressed with the fundamental questions posed by the reviewer. As a reminder, the discussions section was divided from the conclusions to reveal a critical perspective on the empirical results and to explicate how they resonate with the current situation of Gunsan and Songshan. In the conclusion section, I tried to elaborate on the generalizing aspects of the case study and added a more detailed description of ‘living heritage, as much as possible.
Regarding the minor comments, additional content and modification were added to the paper.
The questions raised by the reviewer have motivated me so much that the paper's directions can be developed in the future. As you know, this paper focuses on cultural regeneration utilizing modern industrial facilities and tries to examine its possibilities for achieving the creativity of the region and community self-reliance through culture, and the changes in Gunsan and Songshan are still in progress.
Thank you for your valuable opinion. Reading your review and struggling to reply to it made me revisit the controversial points and think even further about them. I tried my best to improve the paper based on your advice, and I hope this has worked.
Sincerely,
Prof. LEE JongOh
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I thank you for your kind reply and wish you my best.
I found the described experience clearer framed, much more understandable and better contextualized within the theoretical argumentations on the subject.
Best greetings.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your satisfaction with the revised version.
We have re-checked and corrected the spelling you mentioned , revealing that there are quite several changes from the ending –s, -ise, -our, -re of British English to the ending –z, -ize, -or, -er of American English (e.g., globalization, analysis, urbanization, modernization, neighbor, center, etc.).
You will see that the further corrections in spelling and expressions are completed and that this paper uses British English expressions.
Thank you very much for pointing these out and advising us in detail.
Best Regards from Seoul,
Prof. LEE Jongoh
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The revision done is quite good. Some very minor points:
May I suggest simplifying the keywords further. These should not repeat what is already in the title.
The revision of the introduction is in the right direction but needs more references.
Line 142: “excellent” is a value judgment that can be removed.
Lines 153-163: This revision is appropriate but would be better in paragraph form instead of bullet points. References on case study methodologies would aid other researchers in replicating the research.
Line 224-241: Better in paragraphs than in bullet points.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable opinion and suggestions.
Regarding keywords and some expressions, we reflected and modified both the reviewer’s comments. As the reviewer has mentioned, additional references on the case study methodologies are added to the paper.
We have re-checked and corrected the spelling you mentioned, revealing that there are quite several changes from the ending –s, -ise, -our, -re of British English to the ending –z, -ize, -or, -er of American English (e.g., globalization, analysis, urbanization, modernization, neighbor, center, etc.).
You will see that the further corrections in spelling and expressions are completed and that this paper uses British English expressions.
Thank you very much for pointing these out and advising us in detail.
Best Regards from Seoul,
Prof. LEE Jongoh
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
