Creating Digital Twins to Celebrate Commemorative Events in the Metaverse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Add Missing Information:

• Include key results in the abstract (like SUS score 88.39)
• Explain how collision triggers work with a simple example

 

Typing Errors: There are several typing mistakes throughout the text that need correction. For example, on line 560, it currently reads "See Table 2The 10 questions are detailed in Table 2..." - there should be a period and space between "Table 2" and "The".

 

Questionnaire Organization: The questionnaires used in this study (IPQ - Igroup Presence Questionnaire and SUS - System Usability Scale) should be removed from Tables 1 and 2 and moved to the appendix at the end of the paper.

 

 

Figure 24 Corrections: The relationship shown in Figure 24 needs two fixes: first, it should be written as an equation, and second, you need to add a reference citation in the text where this figure is mentioned. (The SUS formula is wrong - it shows "Q1 to Q2" but should include all 10 questions (Q1-Q10))

 

 

Replace Unclear Figures: Figure 13 (textures) is too unclear - use a clearer image. Review all figures throughout the paper as many have similar clarity issues that need fixing.

Streamline Design Figures: Many of the design-related figures in the paper don't add much scientific value and take up unnecessary space. I recommend combining these images into 2-3 summary figures and using the freed-up space for more statistical analysis and findings related to the questionnaire results.

Explain Missing Details:

• Show how you calculated IPQ percentages like "92.86%"
• Explain the SUS score range (74-100) and mention any outliers
• Describe how textures were resized to 1024x1024 pixels

 

 

Statistical Analysis Addition: The paper needs to include proper statistical analysis of the questionnaire data using standard software like SPSS or R. This should include relevant statistical tables and analyses such as ANOVA testing.

 

 

 

Author Response

• Include key results in the abstract (like SUS score 88.39)
  • (inserted in the summary, line 19)
• Explain how collision triggers work with a simple example
  • (explained in line 421)
• Typing Errors: There are several typing mistakes throughout the text that need correction. For example, on line 560, it currently reads "See Table 2The 10 questions are detailed in Table 2..." - there should be a period and space between "Table 2" and "The".
  • (corrected in line 562)
• Questionnaire Organization: The questionnaires used in this study (IPQ - Igroup Presence Questionnaire and SUS - System Usability Scale) should be removed from Tables 1 and 2 and moved to the appendix at the end of the paper.
  • Appendix created with the 2 tables
• Figure 24 Corrections: The relationship shown in Figure 24 needs two fixes: first, it should be written as an equation, and second, you need to add a reference citation in the text where this figure is mentioned. (The SUS formula is wrong - it shows "Q1 to Q2" but should include all 10 questions (Q1-Q10))
  • Corrected

• Replace Unclear Figures: Figure 13 (textures) is too unclear - use a clearer image. Review all figures throughout the paper as many have similar clarity issues that need fixing.

  • Figures 9-15 and 23 have been modified.
• Streamline Design Figures: Many of the design-related figures in the paper don't add much scientific value and take up unnecessary space. I recommend combining these images into 2-3 summary figures and using the freed-up space for more statistical analysis and findings related to the questionnaire results.
  • Figures 26-29 have been compacted.
    The results of the IPQ questionnaire and the subscales have been enlarged.

• Explain Missing Details:

  • Show how you calculated IPQ percentages like "92.86%"
    • In lines 545-551, it specifies which questions correspond to each subscale.
      In lines 608-636, it is redefined where the obtained percentages come from.
  • Explain the SUS score range (74-100) and mention any outliers
    • The range of 74-100 refers to the A classification of the questionnaire, the highest we can obtain. Outliers were found in questions Q2, Q4, and Q8, which were discarded.
  • Describe how textures were resized to 1024x1024 pixels
    • This process is carried out directly in Unity, using the texture baking technique. line 445
  • Statistical Analysis Addition: The paper needs to include proper statistical analysis of the questionnaire data using standard software like SPSS or R. This should include relevant statistical tables and analyses such as ANOVA testing.
    • The data has been analyzed with SPSS Statistics and new graphs have been obtained.
  •  
  •  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work analyzes the convergence between metaverse, virtual reality, and digital twins in translating celebratory events into virtual form. This study uses digital twin from Ferrándiz building and Carbonell in Alcoi university to celebrate 50th anniversary of the university school of industrial technical engineering joining into Universitat Politècnica de València. This research evaluates the first user (student and lecturer) experience in this virtual environment, also highlighting the potential and challenges for changing social interaction and learning in this digital era. After fixing all the problems, this paper has a big opportunity to be published in the MDPI Computers journal.

1. I think it’s better to add more theoretical bases for the background of this work.
2. It’s better to put the figure near its explanation, so that when the readers read the explanation need more time to find the image. Locate the figure near their explanation. It will help the reader understand the process by seeing the picture.
3. In line 641, it's claimed that there are 40 random users of ages between 16 to 70, what qualifications that used for choosing the user.
4. By using this qualitative research method, it would be better to discuss the ideal number of participants used in providing responses.
5. It’s better to give a table that contains the user’s response, so the reader will know t
6. In conclusion, it is advisable to provide further details regarding the benefits of this research.
7. For the results and discussion section, it’s better to add some information about the limitations when doing this work and further applications that can be related to this paper.
8. To create a comprehensive study of your study, it would be better to combine this article with other recent studies, such as virtual content generation [Optics Letters Vol. 48, Issue 11, pp. 2809–2812 (2023)], the procedure of transforming analog impulses into digital data [Laser & Photonics Reviews, Vol. 17, Issue 6, 2200814 (2023)], and see-through head-mounted displays (Photonics Research, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 21–32 (2022)].

Author Response

Comments 1: 

1. I think it’s better to add more theoretical bases for the background of this work.

Response 1: Theoretical foundations such as presence theory, immersion and realism models, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and spatial cognition in virtual environments have been added.

Comments 2.

1. It’s better to put the figure near its explanation, so that when the readers read the explanation need more time to find the image. Locate the figure near their explanation. It will help the reader understand the process by seeing the picture.

Response 2: In Overleaf editing, we always place the image after the paragraph that references it; however, the editor positions images to fit the page layout, which can result in page breaks between images and text. Figures can be quickly accessed through their hyperlinks.

Comments 3: 

1. In line 641, it's claimed that there are 40 random users of ages between 16 to 70, what qualifications that used for choosing the user.

Response 3: Explained in line 647. Out of all the event attendees, 40 showed interest and tested the digital twin. After completing the experience, they were invited to answer the questionnaire.

Comments 4:

1. By using this qualitative research method, it would be better to discuss the ideal number of participants used in providing responses.

Response 4: Based on the data obtained from the ANOVA table, we understand that the sample is sufficient for the statistical analysis.

Comments 5: 

1. It’s better to give a table that contains the user’s response, so the reader will know t

Response 5. New figures with analytical data from the questionnaire results have been added (Figures 32, 33, and 34).

Comments 6: 

1. In conclusion, it is advisable to provide further details regarding the benefits of this research.

Response 6: From lines 731 to 745, new benefits to the research have been provided.

Comments 7: 

1. For the results and discussion section, it’s better to add some information about the limitations when doing this work and further applications that can be related to this paper.

Response 7: Limitations encountered during the study have been included (lines 698–720).

Comments 8: 

1. To create a comprehensive study of your study, it would be better to combine this article with other recent studies, such as virtual content generation [Optics Letters Vol. 48, Issue 11, pp. 2809–2812 (2023)], the procedure of transforming analog impulses into digital data [Laser & Photonics Reviews, Vol. 17, Issue 6, 2200814 (2023)], and see-through head-mounted displays (Photonics Research, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 21–32 (2022)].

Response 8: Included in the conclusion as future lines of research: combining these results with virtual content generation and HMD devices with transparent displays (line 783).

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Section 2 has way too much unnecessary content that is not proper for an academic paper.

The digital twin design approach might be useful for practitioners, but it has no scientific value.

You need to remove Figures 1 to 3 and Figures 5 to 23, or at least reduce them to 2-3 figures. Right now, these figures are just showing software details that don't add anything to the research.

Sections 2.1 to 2.5 should be summarised into one brief "Design Approach" section. These parts are more about practical details than actual science, so they are unnecessary in a manuscript. After the summarised section, jump straight to sections 2.6 and 2.7, where your real scientific work is.
Your results and analysis after those sections are acceptable, but you could expand them a bit more.

Once you clean up those extra figures and merge the early sections, the structure of your work will be similar to a proper academic paper.

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Section 2 has way too much unnecessary content that is not proper for an academic paper.

The digital twin design approach might be useful for practitioners, but it has no scientific value.

You need to remove Figures 1 to 3 and Figures 5 to 23, or at least reduce them to 2-3 figures. Right now, these figures are just showing software details that don't add anything to the research.

Response 1: Figures 1 to 23 have been reduced, and the 4 figures that we have considered most relevant to this section have been retained.

Comment 2: Sections 2.1 to 2.5 should be summarised into one brief "Design Approach" section. These parts are more about practical details than actual science, so they are unnecessary in a manuscript. After the summarised section, jump straight to sections 2.6 and 2.7, where your real scientific work is.

Response 2: Sections 2.1 to 2.5 have been summarized within the "Design Approach" section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf