Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a review of the literature on the activation of older people, with focus on

the integration of augmented reality tools in men's sheds where the activities involve crafts. ( this is what I understood but it is not clear)

 

The structure of this paper is very difficult to follow: Introduction should be written in such a way that all the important concepts for example Smart Cities, elderly people and their issues and how men's shed has played a role in dealing with these issues can be explained in introduction. What is the significance of smart city in this paper? What is universities of the Third Age, readers may not be familiar with these terms, some explanation is needed. At the end of introduction section it is important for the authors to explain what exactly they are doing with this paper, is there a knowledge gap and are they filling it if so what is that knowledge gap, and how are they filling that gap. Once this is explained the subsequent sections of literature review should have headings which explain what is being written in each of the sections. For example state-of-the-art is not an accurate description of anything, what is it the state of art for there must be some qualifying words so that readers can understand that this state-of-the-art belongs to what concept.

 

The authors have provided substantial information about the concept of men's shed and it plays a big part in this paper therefore deserves its own section and heading

 

Section 4:

 

“However, there is a need to supplement the presented theory

with resources in the field of data, information and knowledge about the design, construction and production of technical means made in men's sheds. In the opinion of the authors of the article, it is justified to support activity animators and their participants with means and methods enabling them to achieve the goals mentioned earlier in the article” What is the presented theory it is very difficult to follow Where exactly the authors have put forth a theory. The term gerontechnology is mentioned here, including smart city, how do these terms connect?  

 

The authors write” Mental well-being can be enhanced by supplementing augmented reality content with images, videos, and commentary that contribute to improving the senior's mood” everybody knows that but did this study conclusively prove that? If the authors feel that their results prove this then I don't see the results in the manuscript.  

 

This paper as it is written is very difficult to follow. Under conclusions it is stated " based on the conducted research" I do not see any conducted research were there actual participants involved? Was augmented reality added to the physical shed and therefore it helped them to perform some functions like metal work better? The authors are suggesting many recommendations what are these recommendations based on? The sections prior to conclusion have a lot of information but they are not focused towards the knowledge gap that this paper is aiming to fulfill.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs to be rewritten succinctly and meaningfully

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We have improved our paper. We are attaching a file with our answers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a conceptual and opinion-based paper. The author primarily synthesizes literature and government documents to propose a concept of integrating AR into men's workshops to support digital inclusion and active aging among the elderly. Essentially, this paper reflects the author's personal vision that emerges from reviewing existing literature. As the author acknowledges, it lacks empirical evidence.

Although the paper claims to employ qualitative research methods, the author does not clearly articulate the specific qualitative paradigm used, such as grounded theory, ethnography, narrative research, or phenomenological study. Instead, it reads more like a personal reflection. The research materials used by the author are predominantly textual, such as literature and government documents. Given these materials, we suggest that the author consider reprocessing them using a method like grounded theory to arrive at more rigorous and scientifically sound conclusions.

A scientific paper should minimally include three key elements: research topic, research method, and research conclusions. This manuscript is currently missing one of these essential components. Given the lack of a clear description of scientific methods, we recommend rejecting the manuscript at this stage. However, rejection does not preclude the author from continuing to explore this topic and deriving more valuable scientific insights. We also recommend that the author consider using more structured methods, such as grounded theory, to analyze the existing data and materials.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We have improved our paper. We are attaching a file with our answers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper contains some interesting ideas, but I have many concerns.

Minor corrections

There are writing inconsistencies: augmented reality is abbreviated as AR early in the manuscript, but subsequent sections continue to use the full term. Please standardize terminology (spell out augmented reality on first use, then use AR consistently throughout).

Major concerns

1. No empirical data, evaluation, or validation (fatal).
   The manuscript is purely conceptual and proposes a model without any pilot study, user testing, usability evaluation, or empirical evidence that AR in men’s sheds is feasible, acceptable, or beneficial. The authors themselves list empirical work as future research, which emphasizes that current claims about impacts on well-being and inclusion are speculative. I recommend at minimum a small pilot study (with recruitment details and sample size), usability tests with older adults, and reporting of concrete outcome measures (e.g., usability scores, acceptance metrics, and relevant cognitive or social outcomes).

2. Vague or insufficient technical implementation details.
   The proposed AR model and the metal-processing example outline conceptual operations and UI elements, but they lack engineering detail: there is no software architecture, no concrete hardware specifications beyond passing mentions of HoloLens 2 / tablet / phone, and no discussion of tracking/registration methods, interaction design, latency/accuracy tolerances, accessibility accommodations, data storage, or interoperability. For a manuscript that proposes a technical solution, this level of detail is inadequate. The authors should provide a concrete system architecture, sample UI mockups, technology choices with rationale, and either an implementation plan or a reference prototype.

3. Overgeneralized claims and limited critical discussion.
   The Discussion and Conclusions make broad claims regarding alignment with SDGs, Society 5.0, and likely well-being benefits that are not substantiated by evidence and are not bounded by limitations. The manuscript should moderate its claims, explicitly discuss limitations (e.g., variability in digital literacy, cost and infrastructure inequities, and cultural differences among men’s sheds), and present a plausible pathway from concept → prototype → evaluation → scale-up.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We have improved our paper. We are attaching a file with our answers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The revised paper has been modified and is now very long. The aims are added at the end of introduction but not clear. Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 are added or modified and somewhat improves the understanding of this paper. AR tools have been explained better and what equipment may be used is also explained. However, it took several reads for me to understand that in this study the authors have developed AR, tools focusing on the elderly men. The idea of these tools is to provide experiences that they would have had in men’s physical shed which is now not possible for them to have for many reasons which are explained. The authors hope the AR tool will improve life, experience, learning and health of the elderly men.

 

After reading the manuscript several times I have understood the following:

 

• The authors have developed AR content, and they have asked 7 experts to answer 10 questions about the usefulness of these tools in men's shed. The table only shows 7 questions.

 

• Were any of the senior man even involved in testing these AR tools, or is this study based entirely on the seven experts’ opinion?

 

• Did the seven experts try out these tools or was it only explained to them, if so how was it explained was it verbal or presentation or video?

 

7.2 Acceptance of AR technology how did they have any conclusion on this because they did not implement it to any seniors.

 

English needs improvement the phrase “more and more” is not good English

 

Is there anything different about these AR content compared to others that are already existing.

 

For this study and paper to be readable and useful my suggestion is to greatly reduce the length of the paper, don’t write about so many other things that are not relevant. Write only about AR and why the authors think it will be useful as a virtual man's shed experience. Since the AR itself is not a new concept as evidenced by the experts’ opinion, what is different about the contents in this AR from other available AR's. Need to explain clearly that this study is only about the content and the experts’ opinion about AR. Further research may be conducted by implementing it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs improvement phrases like "more and more" should not be used. Paper needs to be written succinctly. 

Author Response

We have corrected our paper according to the Reviewer's comments. We attach a file with our answers. The paper has also been reduced in terms of pages. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

Thank you, Reviewer, for accepting our changes. 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have correctly revised the manuscript. I recommend to accept the paper.

Author Response

Thank you, Reviewer, for accepting our changes. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is described as a review of the published literature on the activation of older people. The paper proposes an active aging model based on: health, continuing education, participation, safety. These models were explained in heading “2 Activation of seniors as a current need of modern civilization”. But these models are not described anywhere later in the paper.

If this paper is review of published literature the review has not been presented. The entire paper is a description of several articles in the literature that is available for anybody to read. How many articles were involved in this analysis, that would be the sample size. Were some types of articles included or excluded? How were these collected, were certain languages included or excluded?

There is no analysis of what was found in this literature review based on which a proposal is being made by the authors. There is no science or thesis which one can attribute to the backing of the proposals made by the authors. There are 100 references it appears that the authors expect the readers to read the references and connect it back to the conclusions derived by the author. If this paper is an analysis of existing literature on the topic of men's shed as a form of activating older people, there needs to be analytical data as part of the literature review. This can lead to the conclusions and the proposals made by the author none of this is available in this paper. It will be better if this paper is divided in the normal practice of introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion that way it will be clear why certain conclusions were reached, and other readers will be able to apply this in their own countries or organizations. In its current form it is not possible to see if the concepts and conclusions have any scientific backing. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the potential of deploying Augmented Reality (AR) in men’s sheds to support active aging and sustainable development in an aging population, a study of great importance that offers innovative solutions to the challenges of aging societies. However, the following improvements are recommended for the authors:

1. Enhance Theoretical Depth: Conduct a more in-depth study of the theories related to aging societies, smart cities, and AR technology. Elucidate their core concepts, historical development, and interrelationships to establish a robust theoretical foundation for the research.
2. Strengthen Argumentation: When arguing for the advantages of AR technology, incorporate real - world cases or data to illustrate its specific benefits for the health and well - being of the elderly. This will enhance the persuasiveness of the arguments.
3. Include Method Comparisons: Compare AR technology with other technological tools in terms of their effectiveness in promoting community participation and the health of the elderly. Highlight the unique value of AR technology in this context.
4. Diversify Data Collection: Use a variety of data - collection methods, such as questionnaires, in - depth interviews, and behavioral observations. This will provide a comprehensive understanding of the needs of the elderly and the effectiveness of AR technology applications.
5. Detail Application Scenarios: Elaborate on the specific ways AR technology can be applied in men’s sheds, such as in woodworking and metal - product manufacturing. Provide detailed operational procedures and technical specifications.
6. Analyze Technology Acceptance: Conduct an in - depth investigation into the potential and challenges of AR technology acceptance among the elderly. Consider psychological, physiological, and social factors, and propose targeted solutions to improve technology acceptance.