Review:

"A Focus on the Future of our Tiny Piece of the Past: Digital Archiving of a Long-term Multi-participant Regional Project"

This highly interesting paper presents a comprehensive and insightful exploration of the challenges and solutions associated with digital archiving in the context of a long-term, multi-participant research project. 

The paper's strength lies in its practical approach to the subject matter. The authors candidly share their initial struggles with digital archiving, including a failed attempt to use the DSpace system. This honesty about the difficulties encountered in the early stages of their digital archiving journey adds a layer of authenticity to the narrative. It provides valuable lessons for other researchers embarking on similar projects.

The authors' exploration of different digital archiving environments, specifically Dataverse and Dryad, is thorough and informative. Nevertheless, the evaluation of these platforms' technical features, such as metadata standards, file formats, storage capacity, interoperability, and access control are somewhat missing. Elaborating on these points would provide valuable guidance for researchers seeking to preserve and disseminate their own data.

The paper's emphasis on the importance of digital archiving from the outset of a project is particularly noteworthy. The authors stress the need for long-term data management strategies and the integration of digital archiving technologies and specialists into research projects. This is a crucial message for the research community, particularly in an era where data is increasingly digital, and the reproducibility of research is paramount.

The authors' commitment to transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration in their research practices is commendable. Their hope that their data will prove helpful to future researchers reflects a forward-thinking approach that is likely to contribute significantly to the advancement of their field.

While the paper is commendable in many aspects, a few areas could be improved, such as more elaborated comments on technical details about the digital archiving environments used (supra), specifically Dataverse and Dryad. For instance, the authors could have elaborated on the metadata standards used, which would have benefited readers interested in the technical aspects of digital archiving.

Regarding this and other points, a few comments in the paper are strongly recommended to be considered.

Despite such minor issues, the paper remains a valuable resource for researchers interested in digital archiving, particularly in long-term, multi-participant projects. Overall, this paper is a valuable contribution to the literature on digital archiving in research. It offers practical insights, lessons learned, and actionable advice to benefit researchers in various disciplines.

The paper presents an ongoing project - an initiative for long-term digital storage of the results of forty-five years of interdisciplinary research. This effort has not yet been brought to a conclusion. However, the description of this valuable initiative seems to me a precious testimony and a warning to all those involved in science. 

The manuscript is well written. At this stage of the project's development, no shortcomings in the research design, analysis or interpretation of the results are discernible.

Title

The title clearly reflects the content of the article.

Abstract

The abstract is concise and presents the main findings of the study.

Introduction

The introduction clearly explains the motivation for the study.

The research question and objectives are clearly presented.

The introduction builds on relevant research performed in the field (discussion within the archaeology community and the Computer Applications in Archaeology community).

Materials and methods

Details for the methods and analysis are provided. 

More detailed information on the problems encountered and the resulting decisions on the methods planned to complete the metadata, provenance or missing keywords (if the project has reached this stage) would be welcome. These methods/procedures could then be reproduced by other researchers.

For example:

·         Were certain data deliberately and consciously eliminated from the group of archived documents? If so, what were the principles and reasons for this selection?

·         Is it planned to distinguish between metadata, paradata and ... currently existing in the documents in question from those that are reconstructed or deduced?

·         Will the information about who is completing the data be retained?

·         Is the documentation that has been destroyed or not made available in any way qualifiable - quantitatively or qualitatively? (quantity, type of data, their subject, ...) ? An estimation of the 'percentage' of lost data in relation to that which could be saved could be extremely informative. 

Results

It is too early to evaluate the final results.

Tables and figures

All Figures are understandable without reference to the main body of the article.

Figures 1, 2 and 3 contain text which, in its current form, is not legible at 1:1 scale and needs to be enlarged (making it illegible in print).  It would be very useful to be able to partially improve their legibility.

Discussion

The conclusions and cautionary statements made are adequately and clearly supported by the facts.

References
All references cited in the text appear in the list of references. The reverse is not true.

a)      Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO (2021)

b)      Copiello S (2020)

c)       Doyle H, Gass A, Kennison R (2004)

The reference a) concerns peer reviewing, b) focuses on issues of the transition to a open access publishing landscape and analyses them from the perspective of Elsevier  - a major commercial publisher, and reference c) is about the costs of open access publishing.

If the authors intend to cite them in the context of this article, the thematic link should be clearly indicated.