Round Heaven and Square Earth, the Unity of the Pagoda and Statues—A Study on the Geometric Proportions of the Architectural Space, Statues, and Murals in Ying **an Fogong Si Shijia Ta 應縣佛宮寺釋迦塔 (Sakyamuni Pagoda of Fogong Temple in Ying County)†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI regret to inform you that the manuscript submitted for publication closely resembles a paper already published in the "Jianzhusi (Journal of Architectural History)", 2021(2), pages 71-94, with DOI: 10.12329/20969368.2021.02010. The similarity is not just in the content, but notably, the English title of your manuscript exactly matches the English title of the Chinese paper, "Round Heaven and Square Earth, Unity of Pagoda and Statuary—A Study on the Geometric Proportions of Space and Statues inside the Timber Pagoda in Ying County."
As someone who has extensively read and cited this earlier work (2021), the reviewer recognizes its exceptional analysis on the spatial utilization in pagodas and temples, particularly in the context of integrating pagodas and Buddhist statues within Buddhist spaces. The paper is a significant contribution to the field, credited as part of a major project by the National Social Science Foundation.
If your manuscript had been presented as part of a master's or doctoral thesis, its overlap with existing literature might be acceptable. However, for publication in an academic journal (AHCI), it is imperative that the content not only be original but also contribute new perspectives or findings to the existing body of knowledge.
Unfortunately, as it stands, your manuscript appears to be a mere translation of the previously published paper, lacking any new claims or insights.
Since this is a paper that has already been published in a renowned academic journal in China, it is difficult for me to approve its publication in this manuscript form.
To proceed towards publication, I strongly recommend a substantial revision of the manuscript. This revision should incorporate new content or perspectives, particularly focusing on developments or insights that have emerged since the original paper's publication in 2021. This approach would not only address the issue of originality but also enrich the academic discourse with updated research and analysis. I encourage you to explore and include newly discovered thoughts or findings in your revised manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript's English quality was deemed average; however, this did not pose a significant issue for the reviewers, as they were already familiar with the content of the manuscript. This familiarity allowed for an easier review process despite the language quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUse of the English language can be improved. I list some awkward use of adverbs and other terms and sentences below as quoted in the text
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I list and advise for revision some awkward sentences and terms in the text:
lines 43. 44.45add Chinese characters for all romanizes words
line 51. Delete And and t and write T
and further noted in the text
line 57. delete d and write s
line 57-59
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very original and creative research topic that worth publishing!
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1
The principle that the height of columns and the multiplier of the square root of two are crucial in determining the placement of elements and the overall scale of the building is important. Therefore, the reviewer notes that this manuscript does not mention studies by other researchers who have explored similar concepts to your research. Currently, the manuscript only includes papers you have published. It is essential to enrich the quality of the manuscript by incorporating additional references and content, as a gesture of respect for the research of others.
Please consider referencing the following papers:
Cha, Ju-Hwan, and Young-Jae Kim. 2021. "Rethinking the Proportional Design Principles of Timber-Framed Buddhist Buildings in the Goryeo Era" Religions 12, no. 11: 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12110985
Cha, Juhwan, and Young Jae Kim. 2019. Reconsidering a proportional system of timber-frame structures through ancient mathematics books: A case study on the Muryangsujŏn Hall at Pusŏksa Buddhist Monastery. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 18: 457–71.
Juhwan Cha; Young Jae Kim. 2019. "Design Principles of Early Stone Pagodas in Ancient Korean Architecture: Case Studies on the Stone Pagodas at Chŏngnimsa and Kamŭnsa Buddhist Temples." Religions 10, no. 3: 208.
Wang, Guixiang. 2011a. √2 Yu Tang Song Jianzhu Zhuyan Guanxi [Relationship between √2 and Eaves Columns in the Tang and Song Architecture]. In Zhongguo gudai mugou jianzhu bili yu chidu yanjiu [Research on the Proportion and Scale of Ancient Chinese Wooden Buildings]. Bei**g: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 40–47.
2.
The reviewer notes that the new research sections mentioned by the author have previously been addressed in the author's earlier work, leading to no significant change in the overall context. Thus, more additions are considered to be anticipated to be upgraded as a completely new version. However, a request has been made to ensure there are no copyright issues with images used from other papers. If the images are from your thesis, there should be no concern. If you plan to use images published in other papers a few years ago, please consult with the main editor of the publication in which those papers appeared. It is advised to confirm with that editor that using these images does not infringe on the unique copyrights held by the architectural history society in China. The reviewer desires a response regarding these matters. It is also considered a safe practice to clearly state that these images have been cited from your previous publications.
3. Consultation with the previous journal, the Architectural History Society in China, is required for this manuscript. The reviewer would like to receive a response from the author confirming that this issue has been well resolved regarding the reuse of images and contents of this manuscript with the Architectural History Society in China.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English is not bad at the moment. Although some specific details need to be corrected, I would like to talk about the quality of the English again in the future.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are still many grammatical errors and Repetition is still a problem. The concept of proportions and balance is clear. An editor is needed to correct the repetition and grammar.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The concept of proportions and balance is clear. An editor is needed to correct the repetition and grammar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1
The reviewer has comprehended the authors' points. However, they express significant concern regarding the inclusion of all images from the authors' previous papers in this manuscript. The reviewer suggests reducing the number of reused images to 2-3 or fewer and adding numerous new images.
Due to the authors' emphasis on the acceptability of using all images from the previous paper, the reviewer acknowledges this issue.
2
Furthermore, the reviewer notes that in the reviewed manuscript, many references are not cited in the main text compared to the references section, urging the authors to address these discrepancies.
3
The reviewer expresses regret that the reviewer could not thoroughly discuss the manuscript's essential content due to concerns about duplicate publication.
I believe there are no concerns regarding the quality o
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
