Game-Based Solutions and the Plastic Problem: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is promising since it discusses a specific area of gamification and the plastic problem. However, some recommendations are required to improve the manuscript.
The author included the proceeding papers in the analysis (e.g., Ekundayo et al., 2022; Laksmi et al., 2020). Please also mention in the "selection process" the type of publication to insert (e.g., journal articles, book chapters, proceedings). Why are these types of publications included and other types of publications excluded?
Tables 1 and 2 are not necessary to include in the main text but rather in the appendix. The readers want to see more in-depth analysis and discussion in the body texts. It is recommended to add a graphic to summarize the report of percentage elements in RQ1 and RQ2.
Reviewing 22 studies is shallow for the SLR since the nature of the SLR is qualitative, except if the article is a meta-analysis, whose nature is quantitative. The authors must explain a strong rationale for why the manuscript is limited for this analysis. If the review studies are few, the analysis must be more in-depth.
Researchers must mention the series of publications on SLR on gamification in the introduction; so many publications on SLR on gamification have been published. Please explain briefly what they researched, what they did not research, and how their research differs from current SLR research. Not just different in the Plastic Problem context. This will be a research gap for this study, since we can see that past SLR on gamification had some gaps.
The discussion is still superficial and looks like a summary of the findings. The author must be able to improve the discussion by critically interpreting the findings. A discussion should go beyond the conclusion section. The author must write the conclusion section concisely, not too long like the current format. The discussion section must be longer.
Professional English proofreading is required to improve the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we want to thank you for the very useful suggestions for revision. We have used your feedback to improve the quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your invitation to revise the paper and have closely considered the reviewer’s suggestions.
In this version, we have mainly made the following revisions:
- We restructured the introduction and the discussion to give a more robust rationale to the study and to mention other reviews related to the topic
- We explained the concept of gamification better
- We moved the previous tables and developed new ones to better illustrate RQs’ findings
- We developed better conclusions.
Below are the descriptions of our revision and the reply to all required changes. The new paper attached has the changes tracked.
Point 1 - The author included the proceeding papers in the analysis (e.g., Ekundayo et al., 2022; Laksmi et al., 2020). Please also mention in the selection process; the type of publication to insert (e.g., journal articles, book chapters, proceedings). Why are these types of publications included and other types of publications excluded?
Response 1: We clarified the type of publication included in the selection process. We excluded book chapters because more interested in documents explaining in depth the characteristics of the studies, while usually, book chapters synthesise an amount of research about the topic at issue.
Point 2 - Tables 1 and 2 are not necessary to include in the main text but rather in the appendix.
Response 2: We have updated and moved the tables in the appendix. The tables are now named Table A and Table B. Other tables have been inserted in the text to summarise some relevant findings.
Point 3 - The readers want to see more in-depth analysis and discussion in the body texts. Reviewing 22 studies is shallow for the SLR since the nature of the SLR is qualitative, except if the article is a meta-analysis, whose nature is quantitative. The authors must explain a strong rationale for why the manuscript is limited for this analysis. If the review studies are few, the analysis must be more in-depth
Response 3: In the “selection process”, we highlighted why we arrived to consider 22 papers. We also tried to expand the analysis of the papers selected and improved the discussion, presenting advantages and limitations emerging from the selected studies.
Point 4 - It is recommended to add a graphic to summarise the report of percentage elements in RQ1 and RQ2.
Response 4: We added some tables to highlight the elements and main findings regarding RQ1 and RQ2.
Point 5 - The discussion is still superficial and looks like a summary of the findings. The author must be able to improve the discussion by critically interpreting the findings. A discussion should go beyond the conclusion section. The discussion section must be longer.
Response 5: We have carried out more in-depth analysis of the papers included in the SLR, to better show results of the two RQs. We have also updated our discussion.
Point 6 - Researchers must mention the series of publications on SLR on gamification in the introduction; so many publications on SLR on gamification have been published. Please explain briefly what they researched, what they did not research, and how their research differs from current SLR research. Not just different in the Plastic Problem context. This will be a research gap for this study, since we can see that past SLR on gamification had some gaps.
Response 6: We have added publications on SLR on gamification in the introduction to introduce better and explain our specific research.
Point 7- The author must write the conclusion section concisely, not too long like the current format.
Response 7: We have reduced our conclusions.
Point 8 - Professional English proofreading is required to improve the manuscript.
Response 8: We have improved our English with the help of a mother language colleague.
Reviewer 2 Report
Gamification in relation to plastic is a very original and needed research topic, which has not been much covered yet. It is a great contribution to academia, however, there is a major issue that needs to be tackled, which is the conceptualization of gamification.
There is a need to better clarify terms and concepts. At the moment, gamification, game-based learning, educational games, serious games, virtual reality are being used as synonyms but there are important differences between these. If authors decide to use gamification as an umbrella concept for gaming strategies, this needs to be further clarified and adjustments need to be done in title (gamification approaches instead of gamification?), literature review, discussion, etc.
Besides this major issue, here are other comments:
-Further clarification on RQ2 - "whether they have been shown to be effective..." in relation to? this needs to be better define, and therefore, findings and discussion can be better structured in relation to the outcome (awareness, knowledge, attitude, behavior...)
-Further justification on why focusing on SDG 12
-Discussion: more reflection needed on research limitation and future research lines
-Citation: check out consistency of in-text citation (e.g. ref 19, 20, 21...
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we want to thank you for the very useful suggestions for revision. We have used your feedback to improve the quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your invitation to revise the paper and have closely considered the reviewer’s suggestions.
In this version, we have mainly made the following revisions:
- We restructured the introduction and the discussion to give a more robust rationale to the study and to mention other reviews related to the topic
- We explained the concept of gamification better
- We moved the previous tables and developed new ones to better illustrate RQs’ findings
- We developed better conclusions.
Below are the descriptions of our revision and the reply to all required changes. The new paper attached has the changes tracked
Point 1 - There is a need to better clarify terms and concepts. At the moment, gamification, game-based learning, educational games, serious games, virtual reality are being used as synonyms but there are important differences between these. If authors decide to use gamification as an umbrella concept for gaming strategies, this needs to be further clarified and adjustments need to be done in title (gamification approaches instead of gamification?), literature review, discussion, etc.
Response 1: We have clarified the terms gamification and serious games providing a better explanation and differentiation of concepts. Following, we have conducted a more specific analysis of the types of games employed in the reviewed studies, which is shown in the discussion and in table A – Appendix (since we have moved the tables in the appendix according to a reviewer’s suggestion while inserting other tables in the text to summarise some relevant findings). We decided to use as an umbrella concept the expression “game-based solutions” and made adjustments in the title, literature review, discussion, etc., accordingly.
Point 2 - Further clarification on RQ2 - they have been shown to be effective...in relation to? this needs to be better define, and therefore, findings and discussion can be better structured in relation to the outcome (awareness, knowledge, attitude, behavior...)
Response 2: We maintained the general expression in defining RQ2. However, in describing the results and in the discussion, we tried to better differentiate the effectiveness of game-based solutions according to different outcomes. We hope now it will be more clear.
Point 3 - Further justification on why focusing on SDG 12.
Response 3: We have clarified why we consider us psychologists as potential contributors towards such a specific SDG.
Point 4 - Discussion: more reflection needed on research limitation and future research lines.
Response 4: We have carried out more in-depth analysis of the papers included in the SLR, and we also updated our discussion including research limitations and future research lines.
Point 5 - Citation: check out consistency of in-text citation (e.g. ref 19, 20, 21.)
Response 5: We have corrected typos and mistakes of in-text citations and checked the consistency of the quotations. Thank you for being so helpful.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents a systematic review of the application of gamification to encourage the adoption of sustainable behaviour towards plastics. According to the authors, concepts such as gamification, game-based learning and serious games are considered synonyms.
As the article mixes concepts such as gamification, game-based learning and serious games. We advise the authors to review the definition of these concepts. Also, the discussion and conclusion should reflect this distinction.
To help with this distinction, we recommend:
- Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013
- Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
- Kapp, K. M., Blair, L., & Mesch, R. (2014). The Gamification of Learning and instruction Fieldbook - Ideas into Practice. EUA: Wiley.
- Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “Gamification.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments - MindTrek ’11 (p. 9). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040
- Marczewski, A. (2013). What’s the difference between Gamification and Serious Games? Gamified UK - Thoughts on Gamification and More. http://www.gamified.co.uk/2013/02/25/gamification-and-serious-games/#.VFJcTSsWSp
Verify the references in text
· “Soares and colleagues (2021)” (line 109)
· “Hartley and colleagues, (2018) [21]” (line 119)
· McNicholas and 123 Cotton (2019) [22] (lines 123-124)
· Malone (1980) (line 176)
· McGonigal (2011) (line 180)
Typos:
“The goal, he explains” (line 182) – Jane MacGonigal is a women…
“Maybe. Articles” (line 266) a ‘ missing.
Sugestion:
Table 1 and 2 – could be Annex
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we want to thank you for the very useful suggestions for revision. We have used your feedback to improve the quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your invitation to revise the paper and have closely considered the reviewer’s suggestions.
In this version, we have mainly made the following revisions:
- We restructured the introduction and the discussion to give a more robust rationale to the study and to mention other reviews related to the topic
- We explained the concept of gamification better
- We moved the previous tables and developed new ones to better illustrate RQs’ findings
- We developed better conclusions.
Below are the descriptions of our revision and the reply to all required changes. The new paper attached has the changes tracked
Point 1 - According to the authors, concepts such as gamification, game-based learning and serious games are considered synonyms. As the article mixes concepts such as gamification, game-based learning and serious games, we advise the authors to review the definition of these concepts. Also, the discussion and conclusion should reflect this distinction.
Response 1: We have clarified the terms gamification and serious games providing a better explanation and differentiation of concepts. Following, we have conducted more specific analysis of the types of games employed in the reviewed studies which is shown in the discussion, and in table A - Appendix. Also, adjustments have been done in title, literature review and discussion
Point 2 - Verify the references in text
Soares and colleagues (2021)” (line 109)
Hartley and colleagues, (2018) [21]” (line 119)
McNicholas and 123 Cotton (2019) [22] (lines 123-124)
Malone (1980) (line 176)
McGonigal (2011) (line 180)
Response 2: We have corrected mistakes of in-text citations, thank you for your help. We have also updated and moved those tables in the appendi
Point 3 - Typos:
“The goal, he explains” (line 182) – Jane MacGonigal is a women…
“Maybe. Articles” (line 266) a ‘ missing.
Response 3: We have corrected typos
Point 4 - Table 1 and 2 – could be Annex
Response 4: We have also updated and moved the tables in the appendix. The tables are now named Table A and Table B. Other tables have been inserted in the text to summarise some relevant findings.
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper "Gamification and the Plastic Problem: A Systematic Review” is interesting.
Plastic pollution is an urgent worldwide environmental issue affecting marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems. Half of the global plastic production is destined for items only used once.
a systematic review aims at synthesizing the current evidence about the use of gamification to encourage sustainable behaviors in relation to plastic.
This review mainly aims to awareness of plastic pollution among the general public. Although findings suggest that gamification can be promising in terms of engagement and motivation, and in increasing knowledge of the issue.
Author Response
Point 1 -The paper “Gamification and the Plastic Problem: A Systematic Review” is interesting. […] This review mainly aims to awareness of plastic pollution among the general public. Although findings suggest that gamification can be promising in terms of engagement and motivation, and in increasing knowledge of the issue
Response 1: Dear reviewer thank you for your appreciation of the manuscript. We made some change according to the suggestions of other reviewers. If you are interested, you can find the attached new version of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After the revisions, I would like to accept the paper in its form.
