PONE-D-24-04455Revitalizing Intangible Cultural Heritage via Derivative Design: A Focus on Chinese Woodblock PrintingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear authors

After reading the revisions provided by two independent experts on the topic, my suggestion for the authors is to revise and submit (major revisions) the manuscript by incorporating and addressing all the concerns indicated by the two reviewers. Please check and incorporate all the changes and modifications you consider in order to meet the satisfaction of the independent experts. In case it is required and additional expert could be additional review the manuscript.

With my best regards, the Academic Editor.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Balsa-Barreiro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements: ping

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All data generated or analyzed in the course of this study are included in this published article and its supplementary file.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ".

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

6. We note that Figure(s) 6, 7 and table 3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 6, 7 and table 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

After reading the revisions provided by two independent experts on the topic, my suggestion for the authors is to revise and submit (major revisions) the manuscript by incorporating and addressing all the concerns indicated by the two reviewers.

With my best regards, the Academic Editor.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article presents a commendable scholarly attempt to navigate how innovation within derivative design fields may contribute to intangible cultural heritage safeguarding. The authors focus on Chinese woodblock New Year pictures, navigating transitioning from their traditional two-dimensional form to a more contemporary three-dimensional derivative design. By harnessing design thinking and a comprehensive experiential approach, the study unearths a novel compendium of derivative design methods, bridging the gap between traditional craftsmanship and modern design methodologies.

Whilst the paper harbours the potential to contribute significantly to the discourse on intangible cultural heritage and derivative design, there are several areas where substantial modifications could enhance its clarity, rigour, and overall impact.

The introduction, for instance, appears somewhat prolix, lacking a sharp articulation of the study’s primary objectives and intended contribution to the existing literature. A more focused and better-articulated introduction could better highlight the investigation’s novelty and its significance within the broader academic conversation.

The methodological exposition, particularly concerning the demographic characteristics of the control and experimental groups, demands a more detailed delineation. Clarifying these groups’ demographic traits, alongside a thorough discussion on whether the control and experimental groups were kept unchanged throughout the experimentation process, is imperative for ensuring the study’s robustness. Furthermore, the experimental setup, especially regarding participants’ awareness of their involvement in an experiment and the measures taken to mitigate the Hawthorne effect, warrants further explanation to fortify the study’s validity. Also, the final two colomns of Table 1 have the same heading. I suspect the right most heading is wrong. The authors should double check.

Another issue arises with the visual representation of literature through VOSViewer visualisation. While this approach is commendably innovative, a detailed introduction to the VOSViewer platform is necessary to ensure accessibility for all readers. Additionally, including a bilingual (Chinese-English) translation of the keywords would immensely aid in comprehending the thematic discoveries of the study, enhancing its international appeal and readability.

Moreover, specific terminologies and descriptions within the paper, such as the ‘“Yan value” economy’ (page 2, last paragraph, line 1), require further clarification. Also, is Figure 5, which depicts the Chinese woodcut New Year picture production process, original or adapted from other people’s research results? An appropriate citation from existing literature is needed if it is the latter.

Lastly, the discussion on safeguarding China’s intangible cultural heritage and its implications for economic activities and cultural innovation touches upon an area of great significance. It would, however, benefit from a more detailed engagement with authoritative literature in the field, especially regarding the influence of Chinese government policies on the creative economy within the intangible cultural heritage domain. More discussions on this topic, supported by relevant scholarly works, could enrich the paper’s contribution to understanding the socio-economic dimensions of intangible cultural heritage preservation and innovation. The authors may want to read and consider citing the following articles:

Xu, Y., Tao, Y., & Smith, B. (2022). China’s emerging legislative and policy framework for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 28(5), 566-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2021.1993838

Xu, Y., & Tao, Y. (2022). Religion-Related Intangible Cultural Heritage Safeguarding Practices and Initiatives of the Contemporary Chinese State. Religions, 13(8), [687]. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13080687

In conclusion, this article is a pioneering investigation into the adaptive reuse and innovation of intangible cultural heritage within modern design methodologies. Hopefully, my recommendations will aid in refining the study.

Reviewer #2: In the introduction, it was difficult to follow along with what the authors were setting out to do with their research. I suggest they provide some simple definitions and briefly discuss the main point of the research paper more simplistically.

In the introduction, I suggest doing the following.

Provide a more simple definition of derivative design.

Then, discuss the significance of derivative design and its relationship with intangible heritage. I would even suggest starting the introduction with this main point and then moving into the background information on the Chinese woodblock New Year pictures so that the reader can more easily follow along and understand the significance of the study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-04455R1Revitalizing Intangible Cultural Heritage via Derivative Design: A Focus on Chinese Woodblock PrintingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================The authors must properly and carefully address the comments and suggestions that the second expert suggest, rpoviding a satisfactory responde to his/her comments.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Balsa-Barreiro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

After carefully considering the reviewers' feedback, I recommend that the manuscript undergo major revisions. The independent experts have identified significant issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication. I suggest the authors revise the manuscript thoroughly and provide a clear, detailed response to each of the reviewers' comments to ensure all concerns are fully addressed.

Sincerely,

The Associate Editor

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: This paper holds that the application of generative design can produce numerous high-quality derivative product designs, offering new ways to transmit and preserve intangible cultural heritage. Specifically, the use of this design in "Zhangzhou Woodblock New Year Pictures" has led to innovative applications, turning commercial products into digital art and evolving from 2D to 3D forms. Studies show that generative design can improve the quantity and quality of non-legacy derivative designs. However, the study has limitations, as the authors put, including its focus on a single proposition, a small sample size, a non-exhaustive design method research scope, and uncertain results for seasoned designers. However, the authors have carefully responded to the reviewers’ comments. I suggest this paper be accepted, though there is still room for improvement. For example, the revised title has not been punctuated, which can lead to a lack of clarity or grammaticality.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript provides an overview of traditional Chinese Woodblock Printing in Zhangzhou and the chinese policy on intangible cultural heritage, as well as a positive attemption of generative design on traditional culture. The author already has supply a lot of literature background and detailed description of the experiments, however, there are still several problems need to be revised as followed:

a) Since most of readers are not familiar with the chinese woodblock printing, it would be better to add a few figures of this kind of printings.

b) The term "lion title sword" might means "a sword is holding by a lion head or a sword is bited by a lion" ("shi xian jian" in chinese), thus I suggest you to rethink the term and modify it.

c) Line 70, you mentioned that the "traditinal themes cannot meet the spiritual needs of users in the new era", however, I cannot agree with you because some traditional stories or themes are still accepted by modern people partly.

d) Additonally, the numbers of figues and table should be clearly matched to the text.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-04455R2Revitalizing Intangible Cultural Heritage via Derivative Design: A Focus on Chinese Woodblock Printing

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The authors repeatedly reference the term "Generative design" throughout the paper, but this concept is presented in a vague and ambiguous manner, particularly in relation to the conservation and care of intangible cultural heritage. Generative design is commonly understood as a method that leverages AI algorithms to generate and evaluate multiple design alternatives based on user inputs. However, the paper does not provide sufficient detail or development of this method, leaving readers with an incomplete understanding of the concept and its applications.

To address this, I strongly suggest that the authors conduct a more comprehensive review of potential techniques for digital preservation, as the scope of methods should not be limited solely to AI algorithms. Other valid approaches, such as photogrammetry and laser scanning , could be highly relevant to the example discussed. While the authors may already have a defined focus for their work, it is crucial to at least include a paragraph outlining these alternative techniques and referencing key studies. For instance:

• Regarding Generative design , relevant works could explore leveraging AI methods for heritage conservation purposes.
• For laser scanning and photogrammetry , the studies by Owda and Fristch, such as “Methodology for Digital Preservation of the Cultural and Patrimonial Heritage” and “Generation of Visually Aesthetic and Detailed 3D Models of Historical Cities,” provide excellent insights.

An additional critical point is the terminology used. The authors should consider adopting the more widely recognized term "digital preservation" , which is more precise and commonly employed in academic and professional contexts.

Finally, I recommend improving the quality and resolution of the figures presented in the paper to enhance their clarity and visual impact, aligning with the high standard of the content.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Balsa-Barreiro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments :

The authors repeatedly reference the term "Generative design" throughout the paper, but this concept is presented in a vague and ambiguous manner, particularly in relation to the conservation and care of intangible cultural heritage. Generative design is commonly understood as a method that leverages AI algorithms to generate and evaluate multiple design alternatives based on user inputs. However, the paper does not provide sufficient detail or development of this method, leaving readers with an incomplete understanding of the concept and its applications.

To address this, I strongly suggest that the authors conduct a more comprehensive review of potential techniques for digital preservation, as the scope of methods should not be limited solely to AI algorithms. Other valid approaches, such as photogrammetry and laser scanning, could be highly relevant to the example discussed. While the authors may already have a defined focus for their work, it is crucial to at least include a paragraph outlining these alternative techniques and referencing key studies. For instance:

Regarding Generative design, relevant works could explore leveraging AI methods for heritage conservation purposes.

For laser scanning and photogrammetry, the studies by Owda and Fristch, such as “Methodology for Digital Preservation of the Cultural and Patrimonial Heritage” and “Generation of Visually Aesthetic and Detailed 3D Models of Historical Cities,” provide excellent insights.

An additional critical point is the terminology used. The authors should consider adopting the more widely recognized term "digital preservation", which is more precise and commonly employed in academic and professional contexts.

Finally, I recommend improving the quality and resolution of the figures presented in the paper to enhance their clarity and visual impact, aligning with the high standard of the content.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: (No Response)

Reviewer #8: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #5: This manuscript on revitalization and preservation of intangible cultural heritage is mainly based on questionnaires and on site observations. Overall, the scientific quality is not very high, but the significance is more on the culture heritage nature for its value.

Major comments:

1) First, the writing is far from acceptable for reading and publication, a professional editing is required before moving to the next level/stage.

2) This manuscript is not well structured or organized

3) The effort made by producing this text does not qualify for a scientific manuscript for publication in the present form.

Is ‘generative design’ an accepted terminology?

‘Chinese woodcut new year pictures’ is not a good phrase for this cultural heritage. Can this be called ‘New Year prints from Chinese Woodcut’?

Title:

I personally do not support the using of a break in the title. To be more conservative, it is better to refrain from using it in scientific publication,

Abstract:

Substance is weak or non-existence. Improve this because the quality and value of this article is highly dependent upon this element.

Why ‘Design’ is using this way, not design?

The Chinese New Year picture may be most accurate to replace the ‘pictures’ with ‘prints’

The last sentence seems to convey something, but in actuality, it is very empty to me.

Introduction:

Structure and organization sha;; be improved for clarity.

Fig. 1: This is a ‘schematic diagram of the research’.

Section 2 is a list than a coherent text with structure and logic.

Section 2 Literature review is out of place because the information belonging to be under this title shall be in the Introduction.

Unfortunately, this part is too loosely structured and presented as a cooking book information.

How was Fig. 2 made? Where were the data come from?

4 Conclusion shall be the last section after Discussion

This part is far too long to serve the purpose of a conclusion.

5 Discussion:

I do not see the Results section of s scientific paper here.

Reviewer #6: The manuscript explores the application of generative design in the preservation of intangible cultural heritage, aiming to revitalize the modern relevance of traditional woodblock prints through derivative design. However, the study exhibits significant issues in methodology, theoretical depth, and visual presentation, which detract from its overall quality. A rejection is therefore recommended.

Firstly, the low quality of the images severely impairs the paper’s readability and professionalism. Figures 2 to 4 are direct screenshots from software, lacking proper processing, with low resolution and a coarse appearance, which gives an unprofessional impression and fails to effectively convey the intended information. As an academic paper, all figures should be high-quality and clear, adequately displaying data and logical relationships. Similarly, Figure 4 is blurred and includes unedited scanning shadows. It is recommended that the author remakes all figures using high-resolution professional software to meet the fundamental standards of academic publishing.

Secondly, the methodology in this study is insufficiently developed. Although methods such as questionnaires and user journey mapping are employed, there is a lack of detailed explanation regarding sample selection criteria, data collection processes, and statistical analysis, which casts doubt on the scientific rigor and credibility of the results. Specifically, the core conclusion that generative design improves the quality and quantity of derivative designs lacks explicit experimental data support.

Additionally, the theoretical exposition of the manuscript is rather superficial, failing to delve deeply into how the principles of generative design can be applied to modernize traditional cultural elements. It lacks concrete solutions on balancing cultural preservation with contemporary needs. The discussion remains descriptive without substantive new insights, showing a lack of innovation. Given the abundance of existing research in this area, the paper does not offer unique theoretical breakthroughs or practical strategies.

In conclusion, the manuscript’s low-quality visuals, weak methodology, and lack of theoretical depth render it unsuitable for publication in an academic journal. It is recommended that the author make substantial improvements in figure quality, data analysis, and theoretical framework to enhance the scholarly value and persuasiveness of the work. A rejection is suggested at this stage.

Reviewer #7: In this study, the authors have made the necessary arrangements according to the criticisms given to them. The topic covered in the article is interesting and stimulating in terms of content. The language of the article is appropriate. The Ethics Committee of Fuzhou University has approved that the content of the article does not need an ethics committee report. The content of the article titled “Revitalizing Intangible Cultural Heritage via Derivative Design A Focus on Chinese Woodblock Printing” is found to be original.

Reviewer #8: The author has made and effort to improve the paper and has addressed all the suggestions of th reviewers.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes:  Ayşegül Durukan Arslan

Reviewer #8: Yes:  Juan-José Boté

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revitalizing Intangible Cultural Heritage through Derivative Design in Chinese Woodblock Printing

PONE-D-24-04455R3

Dear Dr. Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jose Balsa-Barreiro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript has undergone a thorough review process by several independent experts. I am pleased to inform you that, in the latest revision, you have responded comprehensively and implemented the suggested changes satisfactorily.

The revisions have successfully addressed the concerns raised in earlier rounds, improving the clarity, contextualization, and overall quality of your work. As a result, I have recommended its acceptance for publication.

Congratulations, and thank you for your dedication to improving your manuscript.

Best regards,

The Associate Editor

Reviewers' comments: