The Contribution of the Segovia Mint Factory to the History of Manufacturing as an Example of Mass Production in the 16th Century

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting paper. I appreciated the connection between the study of the manufacturing and the study of the architectural system. Perhaps you could think in the  integration of the photographs with an architectural survey at a better scale.

Author Response

Dear Sir:

In accordance with the requirements, we send you, the new version of article "The Contribution of the Segovia Mint Factory to the History of Manufacturing as an Example of Mass Production in the 16th Century" revision 1.

First of all, we would like to thank for your comments, which have been added to the new revision.

The article has been reviewed in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor:

The main changes to the article are detailed below:

The text has been revised, in accordance with the request of the reviewers and the editor The abstract, material and methods and conclusions have been reviewed. Title have been incorporated into all figures. All changes are highlighted in yellow.

The response to the comments of the reviewer 1 are detailed below.

Point 1:"Perhaps you could think in the integration of the photographs with an architectural survey at better scales"

Response: Unfortunately, the existing plans of SRMF do not have higher quality"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript develops a historical perspective on the transfer and establishment of a mass production process (minting) and the associated technological developments, introducing the Segovia Mint Factory as an example of mass production in the 16^th Century. This is an interesting piece of work along with a fit to special issue’s aim, scope and objectives.

On the other hand, I am unsure about how this work contributes to the manufacturing and engineering literature, and there are a number of significant areas that are advised to be addressed prior to consideration of publication including the following:

Rewrite the abstract with a view to clarify and expand on the following areas: (1) purpose, (2) methodology, (3) results, (4) knowledge/theoretical contribution. The research motivation, the research aim and objectives, and research gap being addressed is required to be articulated more clearly in the Introduction section. The research methodology adopted is not clear. In fact, the materials and methods section is very weak, does not stand alone as a section, and does not tell much to the reader base at all. For example, how were the bibliographical references identified? How were they analysed? Many more questions could be asked here. The potential contributions of the research to the existing manufacturing, engineering and management body of knowledge are not clear. The limitations of the research are required to be discussed. The authors are suggested to place their findings and claims put forward in the Conclusion section, in the extant body of knowledge. The manuscript contains many grammatical, capitalisation, punctuation and spelling errors (e.g. P2 L59 etc.). Thus, it would benefit from a thorough proof reading. The English language adopted needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear Sir:

In accordance with the requirements we send you the new version of the article "The Contribution of the Segovia Mint Factory to the History of Manufacturing as an Example of Mass Production in the 16th Century" revision 1

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments, which have been added to the new version.

The article has been reviewed in accordance with the recommendations of the revieweers and the editor:

The main changes made to the arcticle are detailed below:

The text has been revised, in accordance with the request of the reviewers and the editor. The abstract, material and methods  and conclusions have been reviewed Titles have been incorporated into all figures All changes are highlighted in yellow.

The responses to the comments of the reviewer 2 are detailed below.

Point 1: "Rewrite the abstract with a view to clarify and expand on the following areas: (1) purpose, (2)methodology, (3) Results

Response: "It has been included in the Abstract"

Point 2: "The research motivation, the research aim and objectives, and research gap being addressed is required to be articulated more clearly in the Introduction section"

Response: "The objective of this article is to highlight the most relevant innovations of this project and its impact on production (reliability, productivity, quality etc.). As indicated in the introduction.

There in no analysis of gaps, because this manufacturing processes is disruptive in relation to the processes existing in the Kingdom of Spain in the 16th century"

Point 3: "The research methodology adopted is nor clear, in fact, the materials and methods section is very weak, does not stand alone as section, and does not tell much to the reader base at all. For example, how were the bibliographical references identified? How were they analysed? Many more questions could be asked here"

Response: "It has been changed in Material an Methods"

Point 4 "The potential contributions of the research to the existing manufacturing, engineering and management body of knowledge are not clear. The limitations of the research are required to be discussed"

Response: "As indicated in the article, the minting processes already exist prior to the project. What has been sought in the article is everything that represents an innovation"

Point 5 "The autors are suggested to place their findings and claims put forward in the Conclusion section, in the extant body of knowledge"

Response: "It has been changed in the Conclusion"

Point 6: "The manuscript contains many grammatical, capitalisation puntuaction and spelling errors (e.g. P2 L59 etc.). Thus, it would benefit from a thorough proof reading. The English languaje adpted needs to be improved"

Response: "Has been improve"

 

Thank you for your valuables recommendations and comments.

Best Regards

Francisco Luis García Ahumada

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents an interesting finding: starting of mass production of coins. In my opinion the article is novel enough to be included in a journal, but the presentation of the article is far away from the standards of a journal.

First of all, the paper was never read in complete, before it was submitted. It has many errors, typos, which should be corrected before submission.

Such errors are: all figures need caption text. Section, which has no content should be removed.

"In this Project several", "took from October 1585 to June 1585", "smithy" and many more like this.

The content is lacking a comparison/result to today's solutions. E.g. production rate, any other appropriate measuring technique to have scientific merit.

The conclusion is pointless.

Author Response

Dear Sir:

In accordance with the requirements we send you, the new version of the article "The Contribution of the Segovia Mint Factory to the History of Manufacturing as an Example of Mass Production in the 16 th Century" revision 1.

First of all, we would like to thank you for your comments, which have been added to the new version.

The article has been reviewed in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor.

The main changes made to the article are detailed below:

The text has been revised, in accordance with the request of the reviewers and the editor. The abstract, material an methods and conclusions have been reviewed Titles have been incorporated into all figures All changes are higlighted in yellow

The responses to the comments of the reviewer 3 are detailed below:

Point 1: "First of all, the paper, was never read in complete, before it was submitted. It was many errors, typos, which should be corrected before"

Response: "It has been changed"

Point 2: "Such errors are: all figures need caption text . Section which has no content should be removed"

Response: "It has been changed"

Point 3: "In this project several", "Took from October 1585 to June 1585", "smithy" and many more like this

Response: "It has been changed"

Point 4: "The content is lacking a comparison/result to today's soluctions. Eg prodution rate, any other appropiate measuring techniques to have scientific merit"

Response: "Comparisons of manufacturing models, in the opinion of the authors, should be made with models of the time. A productivity comparison between the coinage models of Seville, traditional model, and the the SRMF has been incluide in the conclusion section."

Point 5: "The conclusions is pointless"

Response: It has been improved"

 

Thank you for your valuable recommendations and comments

Best Regards

Francisco Luis García Ahumada

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer comments are required to be addressed in full. Minor improvements have been detected in the new version (such as improvement in the language adopted and grammatical errors) however, a more detailed consideration is required to be given to the reviewer comments. All points are required to be reconsidered, and detailed revisions are required to be adopted by the authors.

Author Response

Dear Sir: 

In accordance with the requirements we send you the new version of the article "The contribution of the Segovia Mint Factory to the History of Manufacturing as an example of mass production in the 16th century revision 2"

First of all we would like to thank you for your comments, which have been added to the new version.

The main changes made to the article are detailed below

The article has been reviewed in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor. The introduction, Material and Methods, Results and Conclusions have been reviewed. All changes are highlighted in yellow.

The response to the comments of the reviewer 2 are detailed below.

Point 1: "English language and style are fin/minor spell check required"

Response: "It has been changed"

Point 2: "Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?- Can be improved

Response: "Has been improved"

Point 3:"Is the research design appropiate?- Can be improved

Response:"Has been improved"  

Point 4: "Are the methods adequately described?- Must be improved

Response:"Has been improved"

Point 5 "Are the conclusions supported by the results?- Must be improved

Response: Has been improved"

Point 6: "The reviewers comments are required to be addressed in full"

Response: "It has been changed"

Point 7: "However a more detailed consideration is required to be given to the reviewer comments"

Response: "It has been changed" 

Point 8: "All points are required to be reconsidered, and detailed revisions are required to be adopted by the authors"

Response: "It has been changed"

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been slightly improved according to the reviewers remarks and requests. The paper is still lacking focus and the new bullets point based conclusion is not the best choice for a summary.

Two reviewers asked the authors about their addition/research focus. This is still left unanswered.

What additional results are presented, then provided in e.g. [10]?

There is no need to compare the processing time or other performance parameters to today's solutions, but there should be investigation on that setup.

The paper is more like a report on the foundry, lacking research results or any additional conclusion/remarks.

Figure 3 size is wrong, some text is out of bound.

Author Response

Dear Sir:

In accordance with the requirements we send you the new version of the article "The contribution of the Segovia Mint Factory to the History of Manufacturing as an example of mass production in the 16th century revision 2"

First of all we would like to thank you for your comments, which have been added to the new version

The main changes made to the article are detailed below

The main changes has been reviewed in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor. The introduction, Material and Methods and Conclusions have been reviewed. All changes are highlighted in yellow

The response to the comments of the reviewer 3 are detailed below.

Point 1: "English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Response: "It has been changed"

Point  2: "Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant experiences? - Can be improved

Response: "Has been improved"

Point 3: "Is the research design appropiate?- Must be improved"

Response: "Has been improved"

Point 4: "Are the methods adequately described?- Must be improved"

Response "Has been improved"

Point 5: "Are the results clearly presented?- Must be improved

Response: "Has been improved"

Point 6: "Are the conclusions supported by the results?- Must be improved

Response: "Has been improved"

Point 7: The paper is still lacking focus en the new bullets point based conclusion is not the best choice for a summary

Response: "It has been changed"

Point 8: "Two reviewers asked the authors about their addition /research focus. This is still left unanswered

Response: A new holistic approach has been carried out in which all the innovations factor of the SRFM project are considered"

Point 9: What additional results are presented then provided in e.g. [10]

Response: The reference [11], [10] in the previous version, has been used to:

Establish roles and responsibilities (Table 2) Be able to detail the entire architecture layout (217-292) Establish the efficiency of waterwheels (336) Prepare Table 3

Point 10:"There is no need to compare the processing time or other perfomance parameters to today's solutions, but there should be investigation on that setup

Response: "It has been wanted to compare with results of the time for the other manufacturing model by hammer. But what is relevant is the factory design"

Point 11: The paper is more like a report on the foundry, lacking research results or additional conclusion/remarks"

Response: "For the first time there is an architectural design aligned with the manufacturing and process-oriented  needs. Or at least is the only one that has reached our time"

Point 12 "Figure 3 size is wrong; some text is out of bound"

Response:"It has been changed"

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the language adopted in the paper using the MDPI service, and matured their paper in line with the reviewer suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Novelty and research methodology is still questionable, but the authors don't seem to able to improve these parts.