Network for forest by-products charcoal, resin, tar, potash (COST Action EU-PoTaRCh)

Abstract

The COST EU-PoTaRCh Action establishes a network focused on the past, present, and future significance, production, and use of major forest by-products in Europe and beyond. The Action centers around forest by-products—primarily potash, tar, resin, and charcoal (PoTaRCh), along with plant extracts—which have been produced and utilized for over 100,000 years due to their unique chemical, biological, and therapeutic properties.
The primary goal of the Action is to demonstrate the importance of these products for the socio-economic development of European countries and beyond, as well as their impact on biodiversity and the natural environment. The Action's objectives are organized into five Working Groups (WGs), each aligned with specific areas of interest: heritage, chemical characterization, archaeology, environmental history, and future perspectives of PoTaRCh materials.
A key aspect of the Action is its support for stakeholders outside the scientific community who possess knowledge of PoTaRCh products through their use in industries such as production, education, and the promotion of forests' natural and cultural heritage. In doing so, the Action brings together stakeholders with diverse activity profiles, including museums, state forests, the forestry industry, associations dedicated to preserving traditions, and the tourism sector.
The EU-PoTaRCh Action adheres to the three key principles of COST’s inclusiveness policy: participation of inclusiveness target countries, gender balance, and the involvement of young researchers, including in leadership positions.

Full text

OPEN LETTER
 [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
 Network for forest by-products charcoal, resin, tar,
potash (COST Action EU-PoTaRCh) [version 2; peer review: 2
approved]
Magdalena Zborowska 1, Jakub Brózdowski1, Jakob Starlander 2,
Jiri Woitsch 3, Erika Ribechini4, Rodica-Mariana Ion5,6, Oliver Nelle7,
Koen Deforce8,9, Anna Varga10, Péter Szabó11,12, Elena Badea 13,
Johannes Tintiner-Olifiers14, Katja Tikka 15, Jeannette Jacqueline Lucejko4
1Department of Chemical Wood Technology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska
Polskiego, Poznań, 60-637, Poland
2Universität Bern, Länggassstrasse 49, Bern, 3012, Switzerland
3Institute of Ethnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Na Florenci 3, Praha, 11000, Czech Republic
4Department of Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry, University of Pisa, Pisa, 56124, Italy
5National Institute of Research and Development for Chemistry and Petrochemistry - ICECHIM, Bucharest, 060021, Romania
6University Valahia from Targoviste, 13 Aleea Sinaia, Targoviste, Dambovita, 130004, Romania
7Baden-Württemberg State Office for Cultural Heritage, Fischersteig 9, Gaienhofen-Hemmenhofen, 78343, Germany
8Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 35, Gent, 9000, Belgium
9Belgium & Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Vautierstraat 29, Brussels, 1000, Belgium
10Padon Foundation, Krúdy Gyula utca 16-18, Budapest, 1088, Hungary
11Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Pruhonice, 25243, Czech Republic
12Department of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Joštova 10, Brno, 60200, Czech Republic
13University of Craiova, Calea Bucuresti 187, Craiova, 200585, Romania
14EY Denkstatt – EY denkstatt GmbH, Wien, 1140, Austria
15University of Helsinki, Fabianinkatu 33, Helsinki, 00014, Finland
First published: 13 Aug 2024, 4:176
https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.18160.1
Latest published: 17 Oct 2024, 4:176
https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.18160.2
v2
Abstract
The COST EU-PoTaRCh Action establishes a network focused on the
past, present, and future significance, production, and use of major
forest by-products in Europe and beyond. The Action centers around
forest by-products—primarily potash, tar, resin, and charcoal
(PoTaRCh), along with plant extracts—which have been produced and
utilized for over 100,000 years due to their unique chemical,
biological, and therapeutic properties.
The primary goal of the Action is to demonstrate the importance of
Open Peer Review
Approval Status
1 2
version 2
(revision)
17 Oct 2024
view
version 1
13 Aug 2024 view view
Diego Tamburini , The British Museum, 1.
Open Research Europe

Page 1 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

these products for the socio-economic development of European
countries and beyond, as well as their impact on biodiversity and the
natural environment. The Action's objectives are organized into five
Working Groups (WGs), each aligned with specific areas of interest:
heritage, chemical characterization, archaeology, environmental
history, and future perspectives of PoTaRCh materials.
A key aspect of the Action is its support for stakeholders outside the
scientific community who possess knowledge of PoTaRCh products
through their use in industries such as production, education, and the
promotion of forests' natural and cultural heritage. In doing so, the
Action brings together stakeholders with diverse activity profiles,
including museums, state forests, the forestry industry, associations
dedicated to preserving traditions, and the tourism sector.
The EU-PoTaRCh Action adheres to the three key principles of COST’s
inclusiveness policy: participation of inclusiveness target countries,
gender balance, and the involvement of young researchers, including
in leadership positions.
Keywords
Cultural heritage, history, archaeology, forest by-products, bio-
economy, chemical compostion, physical properties
This article is included in the COST Actions
gateway.
This article is included in the Forest and
Forestry Sciences gateway.
London, UK
Anna Sandak, InnoRenew CoE Livade, Izola,
Slovenia
University of Primorska, Glagoljaška, Slovenia
2.
Any reports and responses or comments on the
article can be found at the end of the article.
Open Research Europe

Page 2 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

Corresponding authors: Magdalena Zborowska (magdalena.zborowska@up.poznan.pl), Jeannette Jacqueline Lucejko (
jeannette.lucejko@unipi.it)
Author roles: Zborowska M: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing;
Brózdowski J: Conceptualization, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing; Starlander J: Conceptualization, Supervision,
Writing – Review & Editing; Woitsch J: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Ribechini E: Conceptualization,
Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Ion RM: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Nelle O: Conceptualization,
Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Deforce K: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Varga A:
Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Szabó P: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Badea E:
Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Tintiner-Olifiers J: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review &
Editing; Tikka K: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Lucejko JJ: Conceptualization, Project Administration,
Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Framework Programme for Research & Innovation as
part of the COST Action CA22155 Network for forest by-products charcoal, resin, tar, potash as supported by the COST Association
(European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright: © 2024 Zborowska M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite this article: Zborowska M, Brózdowski J, Starlander J et al. Network for forest by-products charcoal, resin, tar, potash
(COST Action EU-PoTaRCh) [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176
https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.18160.2
First published: 13 Aug 2024, 4:176 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.18160.1
Open Research Europe

Page 3 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

Amendments from Version 1
The revised version is more concise and contains specic
information on the activities of the EU-PoTaRCh Action. Thanks
to the reviewers’ suggestions, we have removed several awkward
terms and/or inaccuracies that could have been misleading or
misunderstanding. This has resulted in better readability and
uency of the text. The Plain abstract has been corrected, which
is written in a more accessible language. A language correction
has also been made to improve the understanding of the text.
Better quality Figure 3 has also been introduced. The changes in
the aliations of the co-authors result from the fact that in the
rst version of the article the aliation was sent from the e-COST
system, and after correction it turned out that in the case of
individual co-authors the change of their aliation occurred after
they started the Action.
Any further responses from the reviewers can be found at
the end of the article
REVISED
Thematic scope of the COST Action EU-PoTaRCh
The COST Action EU-PoTaRCh creates a dynamic network
focused on the enduring and evolving uses of Europe’s key
forest by-products: potash, tar, resin, and charcoal (PoTaRCh).
Rooted in traditional forestry practices, these natural resources
are valued for their unique chemical, biological, and therapeutic
properties.
The scientific mission of this initiative is to demonstrate how
these by-products have historically driven community devel-
opment, boosted economic vitality, and influenced biodiver-
sity and climate. By tracing their use from past to present,
EU-PoTaRCh seeks to understand the social and environmen-
tal roles of PoTaRCh materials, promote sustainable economic
development, and draw valuable lessons for the future.
A core aspect of EU-PoTaRCh is its support for stakehold-
ers passionate about PoTaRCh products and their cultural
heritage. These stakeholders include experts involved in pro-
duction, education, and promotion. The Action unites a diverse
array of partners—museums, state forests, the forestry indus-
try, tradition bearers, and the tourism sector—to address various
needs and foster collaboration.
The initiative also emphasizes inclusivity by engaging countries
with a rich history of PoTaRCh development, ensuring
gender balance, and promoting young researchers into
leadership roles. By adhering to these principles, EU-PoTaRCh
not only preserves the legacy of forest by-products but also
promotes innovation and sustainability, enhancing cultural
and economic resilience across Europe.
Potash, tar, resin, and charcoal (PoTaRCh) are four materi-
als closely connected in their production and of extraordinary
importance for societal resource use, representing the most
significant non-timber forest products in Europe (Figure 1).
Their production methods overlap and are intrinsically linked.
All of these products, including extractives such as tannins,
flavonoids, alkaloids, and phenols, are potentially critical resources
in the context of renewable materials and the bio-economy.
Understanding the diverse production methods from the past,
along with their positive and negative impacts on societies and
environments across various regions of Europe since prehis-
tory, is essential. This knowledge will not only support the
current preservation of (bio)cultural heritage but also inform
future strategies for sustainable raw material supply.
To date, no comprehensive research has been conducted across
the natural, social, applied, and humanities sciences to fully
understand the scale and impact of PoTaRCh production on
communities and societies, its significance for the natural
environment, or its relevance to the modern economy, both
at the continental and global level. As a result, there has
been a grassroots initiative from scientists, tradition bearers,
museum professionals, producers, and association representa-
tives to launch a COST Action aimed at addressing this chal-
lenge. In this article, we are pleased to introduce the COST Action
EU-PoTaRCh.
COST inclusiveness policies in EU-PoTaRCh
Steps towards successful COST inclusiveness policies have
already been implemented. To date, EU-PoTaRCh includes
partners from 30 COST member countries, including 17 Inclu-
sion Target Countries (ITCs), as well as partners from Mexico,
Morocco and South Africa. ITC representatives constitute 57%
of our members. The Action has achieved gender balance,
with a similar participation rate of men and women, despite
the topic traditionally being male-dominated. We are also
actively working to attract young researchers, whose par-
ticipation is a priority for EU-PoTaRCh, as the initiative is
primarily addressed to them (Figure 1). Our success is evident
in the fact that our network includes 163 academic institutions
in Europe and around the world, which guarantees broad,
deep and multi-faceted PoTaRCh research. (Figure 2)1.
Building the capacity of EU-PoTaRCh
EU-PoTaRCh sets itself ambitious tasks aimed at expanding
the network and building the potential of the Action2:
- Mentoring and promotion of young researchers, particu-
larly from Inclusiveness Target Countries (ITCs), where many
active tradition bearers reside. Young researchers have the
opportunity to seamlessly combine research with practical
applications.
- Creating an interdisciplinary collaborative network that
unites excellence in history, archaeology, natural sciences,
and technology across Europe, fostering joint research on
forest by-products to broaden and exchange knowledge and
expertise.
- Establishing a network focused on the future prospects of
PoTaRCh within the context of the bioeconomy and forest
transformation. A significant outcome of this effort will
be the publication of a White Paper for policymakers and
international organizations, aimed at unlocking the innovation
potential of European society.
Page 4 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

Figure 1. Symbols of potash, tar, resin, charcoal and logo of EU-PoTaRCh Action doi:10.18150/O75Y0C.
Figure 2. 1st General Meeting of Network for forest by-products charcoal, resin, tar, potash (COST Action EU-PoTaRCh), 5–7
March, 2024, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague Czech Republic.
- Providing opportunities for interdisciplinary cooperation
among scientists, practitioners (tradition bearers), museums, and
enterprises involved in the bioeconomy, forest transformation,
and tourism. This collaboration will lead to the develop-
ment of a European plan for the protection of both tangible
and intangible PoTaRCh heritage.
- Disseminating knowledge and experiences gained through
EU-PoTaRCh activities to the wider public via publications
(reports and articles), workshops, conferences, an accessi-
ble and user-friendly website, social media, and other media
channels.
The above objectives are pursued through various activities
organized within the Action:
- Meetings, workshops, and conferences are arranged for
all Action members, with a focus on key EU-PoTaRCh deliv-
erables. These events may be tailored for specific groups
(e.g., individual working groups) or open to all members.
- Short-Term Scientific Missions (STSM) grants, Inclu-
sion Target Countries (ITC) Conference grants, and Dis-
semination Conference (DC) grants are available for all
Action members. These initiatives aim to promote international
collaboration and knowledge sharing.
- Training schools provide intensive courses on EU-PoTaRCh
topics, hosted by participating institutions. These schools pri-
marily benefit young researchers from across Europe but
are open to all interested participants.
- Webinars are organized, offering EU-PoTaRCh members
the opportunity to present their ideas, research, experiences,
projects, or viewpoints.
- We initiate and assist in organizing joint research projects,
finding partners for scientific projects, publications,
outreach, and promotional activities related to PoTaRCh.
Additionally, we offer financial support for open access
publications.
Page 5 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

All these efforts promote cooperation, networking, knowledge
sharing, and research and development within the framework
of the EU PoTaRCh Action.
Description of the Working Groups in EU-PoTaRCh
All objectives of the EU-PoTaRCh Action are pursued through
the activities of five Working Groups (WGs) each focus-
ing on different approaches to the past, present, and future of
PoTaRCh, all strongly interconnected and unified under
the heritage aspect2. WG 1 compiles detailed definitions of
traditional skills, knowledge, and technologies, along with
their current applications. WGs 2, 3, and 4 represent various
scientific approaches: laboratory analytics, archaeology, and
environmental history, respectively. Finally, WG 5 evaluates
future perspectives. (Figure 3).
The production processes of PoTaRCh materials show both
similarities and differences that have not yet been fully identi-
fied and described at European level, includingtheir areas of
application. These processes can be traced thanks to archaeo-
logical research and historical written sources. Their survival
is primarily ensured by local producers (especially in ITC and
outside Europe), non-governmental organizations and associa-
tions dealing with the protection of intangible cultural heritage.
Therefore objectives of WG1 (HERITAGE) are:
• Identifying the cultural heritage related to PoTaRCh,
• Developing and implementing the measures to protect
both tangible (historical places of production) and intan-
gible (traditional knowledge) cultural heritage related to
PoTaRCh at European level,
• Promoting the PoTaRCh heritage and ensuring its pres-
ervation for the future, while strengthening the social
and economic position of the tradition bearers,
• Identifying the measures and policies related to
PoTaRCh that can benefit the tourism industry as well
as local and regional development.
The characterization of PoTaRCh materials enables the
identification of their chemical and structural composition,
monitoring of compositional changes over time, detection of
decomposition products, and analysis of interactions with envi-
ronmental factors such as soil. This detailed understanding
offers extensive opportunities to determine the sources and
types of raw materials for PoTaRCh production, production
conditions and methods, and storage and usage methods. Con-
sequently, this knowledge allows for a comprehensive inter-
pretation of PoTaRCh’s impact on communities, the economy,
and the environment on both regional and global scales.
Therefore, WG2 (ANALYTICAL CHARACTERIZATION) works
with:
• Exploring the origins and traditional technologies through
compositional analysis of PoTaRCh materials.
• Developing chemical and analytical approaches to
characterize PoTaRCh materials, utilizing techniques from
analytical and archaeological chemistry, and encompassing
both organic and inorganic material characterization.
The production of charcoal and tar has left significant traces
in the soil across many European cultural landscapes, while
Figure 3. Network of Working Groups connections UE-PoTaRCh doi:10.18150/O75Y0C.
Page 6 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

the production of potash is more challenging to trace archae-
ologically and often survives only in field names. Despite
significant research identifying and assessing historical pro-
duction sites, there is a lack of coordinated research at the
European level. Therefore, WG3 (ARCHAEOLOGY) focuses
on:
• Identifying the archaeological remnants of PoTaRCh
production sites in the soil ("soil monuments"),
• Designing and implementing a standardized methodo-
logical approach for data exploration, validation, and
characterization across Europe,
• Identifying and documenting the presence and absence
of PoTaRCh sites and complexes in European cultural
landscapes, while also understanding the contributing
factors.
The environmental history of PoTaRCh, including the rela-
tionship between the environment, society, sustainable devel-
opment and the socio-ecological system along with related
changes from the local to the global level, remains largely
unknown. The production technology of PoTaRCh is influ-
enced, among other factors, by natural conditions. PoTaRCh
production technology has not yet been systematically com-
pared on a local to European scale within the context of the
natural environment. Therefore, WG4 (ENVIRONMENTAL
HISTORY) has the following task:
• Reconstructing and investigating the short- and long-term
consequences of PoTaRCh production and use on
socio- ecological systems in Europe and beyond,
• Identifying human and non-human actors, examine
knowledge transfer among producers and across different
fields, investigate transportation and mobility aspects,
and political and economic dimensions to promote
sustainable management of natural resources,
• Comparing PoTaRCh production technologies on various
scales, from local to European.
COST Action EU-PoTaRCh asks the question: how can
PoTaRCh products contribute to global challenges related to
reducing reliance on fossil carbon sources? There are a few
renewable sources of chemicals that can effectively com-
pete with fossil sources, and PoTaRCh products represent a
potentially promisingalternative. WG5 (FUTURE PERSPEC-
TIVE) explores how trade in forest by-products can meet
global challenges, facilitated bythe following tasks:
• Assessing the future economic prospects of the PoTaRCh
heritage,
• Defining current and potential future products and
methods relevant to the bioeconomy,
• Highlighting potential threats and challenges stemming
from tradition and history
Conclusions
We anticipate that in the coming years, the COST EU PoTaRCh
Action will represent a significant milestone in the extensive
history of PoTaRCh products. However, realizing this goal
hinges entirely on the dedication and active involvement of
current and prospective Action members. We hope that this
article has inspired you to consider joining us in fostering
a broader and more resilient network for PoTaRCh.
Data availability
No data are associated with this article.
References
1. For more information about COST.
Reference Source
2. For more information about COST Action CA22155.
Reference Source
Page 7 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

Open Peer Review
Current Peer Review Status:
Version 2
Reviewer Report18 October 2024
https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.20122.r45204
© 2024 Tamburini D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Diego Tamburini
The British Museum, London, England, UK
The authors have addressed most comments and I find the text improved. I have no further
comment.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: I am an analytical chemist working on the characterisation and identification
of organic materials in a cultural heritage context. I felt like I could assess all parts of the letter.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Version 1
Reviewer Report11 September 2024
https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.19629.r43523
© 2024 Sandak A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Anna Sandak
1 InnoRenew CoE Livade, Izola, Livade, Slovenia
2 University of Primorska, Glagoljaška, Koper, Slovenia
Dear authors, please find my comments below
Open Research Europe

Page 8 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

Abstract and Plain Language Summary provide the same information. Most of the sentences are
repeated. Is there a reason for having both?
You wrote: “COST Action EU-PoTaRCh weaves a dynamic network focused on the timeless and evolving
uses of Europe’s key forest by-products: potash, tar, resin, and charcoal (PoTaRCh). These natural
treasures, rooted in traditional forest practices, are celebrated for their unique chemical, biological, and
therapeutic properties”.
I’m not sure if I understand correctly the author’s intention – what do you mean by the celebration
of potash, tar, resin, and charcoal?
Please standardize the grammatical style of the WG1 objectives. Currently, three different styles
are being used: "identification…, develop…, promoting…". Choose one of these styles for
consistency. The same applies to WG2, and it may be beneficial to maintain a uniform style across
all WGs.
Double check the paragraph that introduces WP5, some words are menged
You stated that “EU-PoTaRCh not only preserves the legacy of forest by-products but also drives
innovation and sustainability, enhancing cultural and economic resilience across Europe”, which is very
ambitious. This COST action has been active for almost one year but I’m sure you already faced
some challenges. I’ve prepared a few questions that may guide further discussion and reflection
related to four aspects:
Identified Barriers and Mitigation Strategy: Have you encountered significant barriers that could
impede progress toward the COST action objectives? If so, what strategies are in place to mitigate
these challenges?
Innovation and Sustainability: How specifically will this COST action drive the innovation and
sustainability you mentioned? Are there particular areas or technologies where you see the most
potential?
Contribution to the Circular Bio-Economy: What is the planned approach to supporting the
development of a circular bio-economy? How does EU-PoTaRCh intend to influence this transition,
particularly through the use of forest by-products?
Informing Future Strategies: How will this initiative contribute to the development of future
strategies for sustainable raw material supply? Are there any key outputs or learnings that could
shape future policy or industrial practices?
I hope these questions will stimulate further discussion and refine the project’s direction as it
continues to evolve.
Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether
existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is
explained)
Partly
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?
Yes
Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately
Open Research Europe

Page 9 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

supported by citations?
Yes
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-
specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)
Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to
follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to
implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: wood science and technology, material science
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Reviewer Report30 August 2024
https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.19629.r43528
© 2024 Tamburini D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Diego Tamburini
The British Museum, London, England, UK
The open-letter “Network for forest by-products charcoal, resin, tar, potash (COST Action EU-
PoTaRCh) by Zborowska et al. presents the objectives and activities of this COST Action in a good
way. The authors summarise the scope and relevance of the Action and promote the activities
related to it in a convincing way. I find the letter mostly well-written and organised and I only have
few suggestions to possibly improve its quality.
The Abstract and Plain Language Summary only include the aims of the COST action, but not much
on the plans to achieve these aims. These are described later, but probably mention this in the
abstract would make it more complete.
A few additional suggestions for the abstract/summary:
Extractives could probably be replaced by “plant extractives” to make it clearer
“along the time” does not sound the most appropriate here. Similarly, in the plain language
summary, terms like “over the ages” are quite vague. The abstract also does not give a sense of
the chronological scale that the research intends to cover. This should be clarified.
Communities are mentioned, but which communities? This part can be better written. “their” also
refers to different things, making the reading confusing.
“impact on biodiversity and climate throughout time.” This is slightly obscure at this point. Also
Open Research Europe

Page 10 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

“throughout time” is not the most appropriate here.
The authors distinguish between the “scientific objective” and the “general aim”. I found it slightly
confusing. Why is one scientific and the other general?
Terms like tradition/traditional are also used. I would encourage the authors to be careful about
this or maybe try and find a way to define what they mean by tradition/traditional. It tends to get a
sense of something that belongs to the past and has not changed, as opposed to modern “non-
traditional” practices, but all this can be quite controversial and heritage institutions are trying to
avoid this term. “Tradition bearers” is also used and I wonder if there is an alternative to this term.
Some of the above comment also apply to the main text. This is generally clear and gives a better
sense of the intentions and activities of the action. A few points follow.
While I agree that “no comprehensive research has been conducted across the natural, social,
applied, and humanities sciences…” some research is indeed available albeit not comprehensive. I
would probably tone down this sentence. Generally, it would also be nice to mention an example
of this topic being researched and conclusions being helpful to address the challenges presented,
even if at a smaller scale of course.
“despite the topic traditionally being male-dominated.” Is there evidence for this? It sounds slightly
forces as it is presented now.
“as the initiative is primarily addressed to them (Figure 1).” I don’t see how Figure 1 refers to
young researchers. Maybe this is a typo?
Some of the aims listed in “Building the capacity of EU-PoTaRCh” section feel slightly repetitive. For
example, 2 and 4, but also some of the others. I wonder if these could be presented in a stronger
way. Also, I think there is some confusion between objectives and activities. Some activities are
presented in the objectives.
Some language issues are present in the description of WG2, especially around the bullet points.
The three bullet points also sound very similar to me. Could these be combined in a single point or
maybe two?
“Global” is often used throughout the article, but the focus being Europe, is global really
appropriate in this context? European scale is sometimes mentioned and I found it more
appropriate.
The actions and activities of WG5 remain slightly vague. This part of the article could possibly be
strengthened, maybe with an example? The sentence “There are a few renewable sources of
chemicals that can effectively compete with fossil sources, and PoTaRCh products represent a
potentially promising alternative.” could be expanded on. What few renewable sources of
chemicals are the authors referring to? How are PoTaRCh products promising? Maybe referring to
some already available research on this could be helpful to strengthen the argument.
I think generally the letter could benefit from some bibliographical references putting it in context
a bit more.
The bullet points of WG5 are quite vague too.
The conclusions could be strengthened too, maybe summarising the key messages of the Action.
Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether
existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is
explained)
Yes
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?
No
Open Research Europe

Page 11 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately
supported by citations?
Partly
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subject-
specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)
Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to
follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to
implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate)
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: I am an analytical chemist working on the characterisation and identification
of organic materials in a cultural heritage context. I felt like I could assess all parts of the letter.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have
significant reservations, as outlined above.
Author Response 20 Sep 2024
Magdalena Zborowska
Review Diego Tamburini Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your reviews of the article, I
hope that the changes introduced will improve its value and make it more accessible to readers.
On behalf of authors, Magdalena Zborowska The open-letter “Network for forest by-products
charcoal, resin, tar, potash (COST Action EU-PoTaRCh) by Zborowska et al. presents the
objectives and activities of this COST Action in a good way. The authors summarise the
scope and relevance of the Action and promote the activities related to it in a convincing
way. I find the letter mostly well-written and organised and I only have few suggestions to
possibly improve its quality.

Comment: The Abstract and Plain Language Summary only include the aims of the COST
action, but not much on the plans to achieve these aims. These are described later, but
probably mention this in the abstract would make it more complete. A few additional
suggestions for the abstract/summary:
Extractives could probably be replaced by “plant extractives” to make it clearer
“along the time” does not sound the most appropriate here. Similarly, in the plain language
summary, terms like “over the ages” are quite vague. The abstract also does not give a
sense of the chronological scale that the research intends to cover. This should be clarified.
Answer: Abstract has been improved according to suggestions.

Comment: Communities are mentioned, but which communities? This part can be better
written. “their” also refers to different things, making the reading confusing.
Open Research Europe

Page 12 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

“impact on biodiversity and climate throughout time.” This is slightly obscure at this point.
Also “throughout time” is not the most appropriate here.
Answer: Text has been improved according to suggestions.
Comment: The authors distinguish between the “scientific objective” and the “general aim”.
I found it slightly confusing. Why is one scientific and the other general?
Answer: Text has been improved according to suggestions
Comment: Terms like tradition/traditional are also used. I would encourage the authors to
be careful about this or maybe try and find a way to define what they mean by
tradition/traditional. It tends to get a sense of something that belongs to the past and has
not changed, as opposed to modern “non-traditional” practices, but all this can be quite
controversial and heritage institutions are trying to avoid this term.
Answer: The term "traditional" is deeply ingrained in the subject matter of EU-PoTaRCh, and it is
challenging to describe phenomena and actions without using it, even if it is not fully defined.
However, the authors have removed the term where its inclusion was not essential and where its
removal did not alter the meaning of the sentence.
Comment: “Tradition bearers” is also used and I wonder if there is an alternative to this term.
Answer: A more precise term might be "promoters/advocates/lovers of tradition." However,
"tradition bearer" is a well-established term with universal recognition. Despite its awkwardness,
we have retained it in certain places in the text where it is most appropriate.
Some of the above comment also apply to the main text. This is generally clear and gives a
better sense of the intentions and activities of the action. A few points follow.

Comment: While I agree that “no comprehensive research has been conducted across the
natural, social, applied, and humanities sciences…” some research is indeed available albeit
not comprehensive. I would probably tone down this sentence. Generally, it would also be
nice to mention an example of this topic being researched and conclusions being helpful to
address the challenges presented, even if at a smaller scale of course.
Answer: The purpose of the article was to outline the goals of the Action, describe our approach,
and explain the rationale, without delving into the current state of knowledge. Given the broad
scope of the Action, it is challenging to select literature from such diverse scientific areas without
favoring a particular field, which we aimed to avoid in this overview article. As part of the Action,
we plan to develop several review publications focused on different areas of interest as defined by
the working groups. These reviews will be supported by a comprehensive range of literature
sources. 
Comment: “despite the topic traditionally being male-dominated.” Is there evidence for
this? It sounds slightly forces as it is presented now.
It is not forced. It is true that the Action, thanks to our efforts, manages to maintain gender
balance. What is more, the scientific community is also represented by both sexes. One
producer community, … is represented mainly by men.
Answer: While the EU-PoTaRCh Action has made strides in maintaining gender balance within the
scientific community, we recognize that the situation is different outside of it. Specifically, in
sectors such as production and among tradition bearers and association members, there is a
predominance of men. Given that one of the core principles of all COST Actions is to promote
Open Research Europe

Page 13 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

gender balance, we believe it is important to address this imbalance in non-scientific
environments as well. Our articles aim to highlight our efforts to address this issue and
accurately reflect the current gender disparities. Therefore, we will use the term that best
describes the existing situation.
Comment: “as the initiative is primarily addressed to them (Figure 1).” I don’t see how
Figure 1 refers to young researchers. Maybe this is a typo?
Answer: Of course it is mistake. We rejected this information in text. 
Comment: Some of the aims listed in “Building the capacity of EU-PoTaRCh” section feel
slightly repetitive. For example, 2 and 4, but also some of the others. I wonder if these could
be presented in a stronger way.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback. The points do indeed overlap and differ mainly in nuances.
As a result, I combined points 4 and 5 without compromising the clarity of the text. Points 2 and 4
address different objectives: point 2 focuses on networking among scientific disciplines, while
point 4 pertains to networking in non-scientific environments. Therefore, I have kept these two
points separate. 
Comment: Also, I think there is some confusion between objectives and activities. Some
activities are presented in the objectives.
Answer: Thank you for your observation. We appreciate your attention to the distinction between
objectives and activities. While certain goals are indeed achieved through specific actions—such
as using training schools and STSMs to mentor and promote young researchers, and organizing
meetings, workshops, and conferences to foster interdisciplinary cooperation—this approach is
central to the COST Action. For this reason, we prefer to keep the text as is. However, we will
ensure that the distinction between objectives and activities is made clear where possible.
Comment: Some language issues are present in the description of WG2, especially around
the bullet points. The three bullet points also sound very similar to me. Could these be
combined in a single point or maybe two?
Answer: Thank you for your comment, in fact the last point contains the above, so it can be
deleted.
Comment: “Global” is often used throughout the article, but the focus being Europe, is
global really appropriate in this context? European scale is sometimes mentioned and I
found it more appropriate.
 Answer: You’re right that the term “global” can be challenging. While it is easier to focus on
Europe, where most of our members are based, we cannot overlook the global nature of the
issues related to PoTaRCh. Environmental changes, such as those affecting the climate due to
PoTaRCh production, have global implications. Similarly, historical economic and social
changes—such as PoTaRCh production in Europe and Africa and its subsequent trade in the
United States—were global in scope. Despite having less detailed knowledge about other
continents compared to Europe, we will strive to study PoTaRCh on a global scale because it is a
topic with worldwide relevance.
Comment: The actions and activities of WG5 remain slightly vague. This part of the article
could possibly be strengthened, maybe with an example? The sentence “There are a few
Open Research Europe

Page 14 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024

renewable sources of chemicals that can effectively compete with fossil sources, and
PoTaRCh products represent a potentially promising alternative.” could be expanded on.
What few renewable sources of chemicals are the authors referring to? How are PoTaRCh
products promising? Maybe referring to some already available research on this could be
helpful to strengthen the argument.
Answer: Thank you for comment. As we mentioned previously, we try not to quote other articles in
this article, it is only intended to provide general information about the campaign, encouraging
you to look for more information on the website or in review articles.
Comment: I think generally the letter could benefit from some bibliographical references
putting it in context a bit more.
Answer: We have already explained our idea.
Comment: The bullet points of WG5 are quite vague too.
The conclusions could be strengthened too, maybe summarising the key messages of the
Action.
Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback. While we believe the bullet points in WG5 are
specific and align with the objectives of the Action, we understand that they might seem
somewhat unclear. We will review them to ensure they are more precise and effectively convey the
intended details. Additionally, we will work on strengthening the conclusions by summarizing the
key messages of the Action to provide a clearer and more impactful overview.
Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider
whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose
of the letter is explained)
Yes
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions? No Are all factual
statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported
by citations?
Partly
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all
subject-specific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained)
Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to
follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to
implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the
debate)
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Open Research Europe

Page 15 of 15
Open Research Europe 2024, 4:176 Last updated: 18 OCT 2024