GPR and Digital Survey for the Diagnosis and the 3D Representation of the Battle of Issus Mosaic from the House of the Faun, Pompeii (Naples, Italy)
, Antonio De Simone 2, Vincenzo Gentile 1, Paolo Mauriello 1 and Amanda Piezzo 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments were sent directly to editors.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
we have submitted the revised manuscript taking into account the reviewers’ comments.
We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions provided on which we based on to enhance the scientific quality of our manuscript. Point by point author’s responses to the comments is presented in the following text. We hope that this revised version of our manuscript will satisfy the expectations.
Best regards
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I would like to thank you to let me read the paper called "GPR and Digital Survey for the Diagnosis and the 3D representation of the Battle of Issus Mosaic from the House of the Faun, Pompeii (Naples, Italy).". I can say that it is an interesting research topic. After reading the paper, I have some recommendations and questions which you may answer:
1. After reading the Abstract and Introduction, I have a feeling of reading a history book rather than a science research paper. I think it would be better if you focus more on the GPR and its implementation in the Digital Survey for the Diagnosis and the 3D representation of the Battle of Issus Mosaic. It would be also nice to provide a bit of background as well.
2. The literature review is also kind of weak, that would be great if you provided more about similar works. In fact, a related work section would be better if it is possible.
3. In the material method, the mathematical model is not provided. It is really hard to comprehend how significant is your proposed model. That would be great if you could add some diagrams that explain the proposed model.
4. Please also check for minor English grammar errors.
Thank you.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
we have submitted the revised manuscript taking into account the reviewers’ comments.
We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions provided on which we based on to enhance the scientific quality of our manuscript. Point by point author’s responses to the comments is presented in the following text. We hope that this revised version of our manuscript will satisfy the expectations.
Best regards
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript describes a preservation of an ancient art using digital photogrammetric camera and non-invasive geophysical radar. Overall, the manuscript provides sufficient details regarding this preservation practice and the results are also discussed thoroughly. Apart from the very specific description of the survey, the manuscript could be improved if more quantitative analysis can be considered. For example, Figure 4 compares the digital elevation numbers of the art obtained in 2018 and 2020 respectively. It is then possible to calculate the numeric difference between these two DEM and to discuss the accuracy of the new photogrammetric reconstruction. Other suggestions are listed as follows:
1. In Figure 7(b), the fractures are shown as a color that appears to be a higher elevation. But usually fractures seem to be some narrow ditches with lower elevations.
2. In Figure 6 and other places, the unit of ‘ns’ is used to label slices of radargrams. Probably, the depth with unit of ‘cm’ or ‘mm’ could be more intuitive for readers to understand.
3. In Figure 9, three colors are used to label different scans on the left column, but the order of the scan or colors are different on the right column. It could be better to make an alignment for the scanning and the color order.
4. What is the meaning for the red dots in Figure 10?
5. In Figure 16, the left picture indicates that there are three anomalies labeled by 1, 2, and 3, and it appears that they are not located at the same time. So theoretically, the three anomalies could not be founded in a same radargram’s slice, as shown in Figure 16(b).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
we have submitted the revised manuscript taking into account the reviewers’ comments.
We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions provided on which we based on to enhance the scientific quality of our manuscript. Point by point author’s responses to the comments is presented in the following text. We hope that this revised version of our manuscript will satisfy the expectations.
Best regards
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
My concerns are addressed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions provided.
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my concerns satisfactorily. I have not further suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We sincerely thank you for your comments and suggestions provided.
The authors
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
