Designing for Life: A Socioeconomic View of Digital Learning Preferences in Cybersecurity, with Emphasis on Older Adults

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and timely question: what actually drives adults’ preferences for cybersecurity learning formats beyond age alone. The framing is strong, the empirical work is careful, and the use of ordinal logistic models is appropriate for the measurement structure. The paper is thorough, well referenced, and grounded in established theory. The contribution is clear: age matters, but broadband access and subjective well-being shape preferences just as much, sometimes more.

That said, the paper would benefit from tightening and clearer signposting. Many sections are rich in detail but run long, which makes it harder to follow the thread from theory to hypotheses to findings. A few focused adjustments would strengthen clarity without changing the substance:

(1) Narrow the literature review - The review is comprehensive, but at times it reads like a full scoping review. You can remove redundancy where multiple citations make the same point (for example, repeated explanations of how income or education relate to digital access). Distilling these sections will sharpen the theoretical line that leads to the hypotheses.

(2) Strengthen the alignment between hypotheses and findings - The hypotheses are clear, but the findings section becomes highly technical and coefficient-heavy. Brief summaries of what each model shows would help readers who are not quantitative specialists. For example, grouping outcomes (interactivity, VR/AR, gamification, narrative formats) and summarizing the pattern would make the results easier to digest.

(3) Revisit the interpretation of H1b - You correctly note that older adults did not show stronger interest in actor-based scenario videos. This is an interesting null finding. Framing this more directly as an unexpected result and briefly explaining what it means for future design work would improve the theoretical cohesion of the discussion.

(4) Clarify the practical implications - The discussion is strong, especially the points about scaffolding, predictability, and the need for clear payoff. You could go one step further by giving concrete examples. For instance: “For older learners, VR should be paired with stable controls, a guided walk-through, and a clear practical goal.” This makes the implications easier to act on.

(5) Light trimming for flow - While the English is clear, some paragraphs are dense. Shorter sentences and occasional consolidation would make the paper smoother to read.

Overall, this is a solid manuscript with a meaningful contribution. With some tightening and clearer signposting, it will be even stronger.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions! Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 2 for their valuable comments and recommendations. We replied to them and adjusted the manuscript accordingly. Please see our detailed reply attached.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf