Beyond Seasickness: A Motivated Call for a New Motion Sickness Standard across Motion Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very well written paper regarding the need for novel standard(s) for assessment and prediction of motion sickness. Standards are living bodies and the paper describes natural process of change with appropriate objective reasoning. However, I have some major and minor remarks that Authors should address.
Major comment:
1) The title is "A proposal", but I do not see any concrete proposal. The text of the paper refers to the relevant scientific reasoning for abandoning the current standard. Please, either rename the title (instead of a proposal, one can use an urge, need, etc.) or (even better), please consider adding a bulleted specific actions that may be incorporated in the extended standard with short explanations how they can close the gaps in the current standard and what could be done today as a proposal (even if it is just a disclaimer incorporated in the current standard such as its limitation to the seasickness case). Also, I suggest to Authors to emphasize that Knowledge gaps are given as a call for future research that will shape the standard even further to answer the current needs.
Minor comments
1) The paper structure is excellent, but it would be even better if Authors use more subtitles to emphasize the content. For example, after the line 53 a title "1.1 Origin and historical background of ISO 2631-1 standard" or similar could follow. After line 79 or similar a title "1.2 The limitation of the current standard" may be appropriate. Similar applies to adding a subtitle to the "Individual susceptibility to motion sickness" part, etc.
2) Please, consider adding a short text below "3. Methodological considerations" as currently a title is immediately followed by subtitle. Similar applies to the "4. Knowledge gaps"
3) There are some minor typos such as "70 %" as it should be "70%" in line 364. Please, correct this.
Author Response
This is a very well written paper regarding the need for novel standard(s) for assessment and prediction of motion sickness. Standards are living bodies and the paper describes natural process of change with appropriate objective reasoning. However, I have some major and minor remarks that Authors should address.
Major comment:
1) The title is "A proposal", but I do not see any concrete proposal. The text of the paper refers to the relevant scientific reasoning for abandoning the current standard. Please, either rename the title (instead of a proposal, one can use an urge, need, etc.) or (even better), please consider adding a bulleted specific actions that may be incorporated in the extended standard with short explanations how they can close the gaps in the current standard and what could be done today as a proposal (even if it is just a disclaimer incorporated in the current standard such as its limitation to the seasickness case). Also, I suggest to Authors to emphasize that Knowledge gaps are given as a call for future research that will shape the standard even further to answer the current needs.
Reply: We could not agree more and have now added a text box at the end of the paper summarising a proposed list of research topics as a prerequisite for a scientific basis of the new standard. Also we have changed the title, aimed at better fitting the content and purpose of the paper.
Minor comments
1) The paper structure is excellent, but it would be even better if Authors use more subtitles to emphasize the content. For example, after the line 53 a title "1.1 Origin and historical background of ISO 2631-1 standard" or similar could follow. After line 79 or similar a title "1.2 The limitation of the current standard" may be appropriate. Similar applies to adding a subtitle to the "Individual susceptibility to motion sickness" part, etc.
Reply: To further emphasize the content we have added an introductory paragraph, partly using some text originally located further below. Also we have added ample subheadings also having reordered different paragraphs at some places.
2) Please, consider adding a short text below "3. Methodological considerations" as currently a title is immediately followed by subtitle. Similar applies to the "4. Knowledge gaps"
Reply: We have now consistently added short texts before each first subsection.
3) There are some minor typos such as "70 %" as it should be "70%" in line 364. Please, correct this.
Reply: We have corrected these typos.
Reviewer 2 Report
Main comments
The paper presents a review of publications concerned with motion sickness and offers the short comings in the current International Standard on motion sickness. I offer my comments on the manuscript.
The line numbers below correspond to those on the draft manuscript.
Comments
Should the ampersand (&) or ‘and’ be used for references in the text? Such as ‘Keshavarz & Golding’ and ‘O’Hanlon and McCauley’.
Line 76
Change “… Reed & Diels …” to “… Reed et al …”.
Line 84
Check spelling of Rollnick (or Rolnick). Compare with the references.
Line 369
Change “… remaing …” to “… remaining …”.
Line 396
For the reference ‘Kuiper et al’, is the paper dated 2020a or 2020b?
Line 421
Reference ‘Salter et al. 2019’ is not included in the references list.
Author Response
Main comments
The paper presents a review of publications concerned with motion sickness and offers the short comings in the current International Standard on motion sickness. I offer my comments on the manuscript.
The line numbers below correspond to those on the draft manuscript.
Comments
Should the ampersand (&) or ‘and’ be used for references in the text? Such as ‘Keshavarz & Golding’ and ‘O’Hanlon and McCauley’.
Reply: The references should be cited by numbers. We kept to the full citations to prevent mistakes and offered to replace these by numbers when the paper would be accepted.
Line 76
Change “… Reed & Diels …” to “… Reed et al …”.
Reply: See previous reply.
Line 84
Check spelling of Rollnick (or Rolnick). Compare with the references.
Reply: Corrected, thank you.
Line 369
Change “… remaing …” to “… remaining …”.
Reply: Corrected, thank you.
Line 396
For the reference ‘Kuiper et al’, is the paper dated 2020a or 2020b?
Reply: Although there was no reference to Kuiper in line 396, we have checked all references to him, concluding these were the intended ones.
Line 421
Reference ‘Salter et al. 2019’ is not included in the references list.
Reply: Included now, thank you for noting this omission.
Reviewer 3 Report
1) The authors analyze in sufficient details the numerous publications devoted to various studies of motion sickness. However, all this information has the character of qualitative description. There is a lack of quantitative estimates. For example, when assessing the effect of vibrations on a person, it is necessary to estimate characteristic frequencies, intensity levels, exposure time, directions of displacement and acceleration vectors, etc. The same concerns to estimating the impact of other factors.
2) It is necessary to describe (at least briefly) the results obtained by the cited authors, and, most importantly, to perform a comparative analysis of these results.
3) The authors propose to remove motion sickness from the current ISO 2631-1 and develop instead a new standard. This seems quite obvious and reasonable. However, first it is necessary to justify which criteria from the current standard should be removed altogether, which ones should be retained, and which ones should be re-introduced. Without this, the statement about the incompleteness of this standard seems unfounded.
4) The authors' proposal to consider their manuscript as the beginning of a discussion about the development of a new standard should be welcomed and approved.
Author Response
1) The authors analyze in sufficient details the numerous publications devoted to various studies of motion sickness. However, all this information has the character of qualitative description. There is a lack of quantitative estimates. For example, when assessing the effect of vibrations on a person, it is necessary to estimate characteristic frequencies, intensity levels, exposure time, directions of displacement and acceleration vectors, etc. The same concerns to estimating the impact of other factors.
Reply: Although we agree there is literature on quantitative effects, we have decided not to review these in detail. The reason is that the paper is not intended to be a review but rather a search for reasons to propose a new standard (which then may/should include these observations). Also including these elaborations would make the paper rather lengthy and distract from the main aim of our paper. Although this also holds for the impact of the other factors, we have implicitly included that impact by limiting our survey to those factors we believe to have the highest impact. Moreover, even if that can be debated, the paper does not intend to be complete, but rather a motivation to do something along the lines set forth.
2) It is necessary to describe (at least briefly) the results obtained by the cited authors, and, most importantly, to perform a comparative analysis of these results.
Reply: see our previous reply.
3) The authors propose to remove motion sickness from the current ISO 2631-1 and develop instead a new standard. This seems quite obvious and reasonable. However, first it is necessary to justify which criteria from the current standard should be removed altogether, which ones should be retained, and which ones should be re-introduced. Without this, the statement about the incompleteness of this standard seems unfounded.
*Reply: Both the introduction and the discussion explicitly mention the other factors included in ISO 2631-1, i.e., health perception and comfort, motion sickness being the last factor that in we propose to remove from the current ISO 2631-1 standard and to develop a new dedicated and enhanced international standard on motion sickness in all of its manifestations.
4) The authors' proposal to consider their manuscript as the beginning of a discussion about the development of a new standard should be welcomed and approved.
Reply: Thank you for your support!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have addressed all my comments thoroughly and successfully. I propose to accept the manuscript as is.
