Topic Recommendation to Expand Knowledge and Interest in Question-and-Answer Agents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic recommending strategies. From a general point of view the paper is well written and organised. Some minor hints are necessary for supporting the scientific added value of the proposed reaserch work. In the methodology section authors should provide, before going into the specific stages details, some more lines regarding the global approach, together with a graphical flowchart, could support the explanation of the theoretical framework. Regarding the experimental validation some more lines on experimental settings could support a more deep analysis of the proposed method performances 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for allowing us to resubmit this manuscript.

We took your advice and revised the manuscript by adding figure and modifying expressions. (We highlighted changes in manuscript.)

The following is a list of results after reflecting the modifications.

 

(1) Adding supplementary explanation for experimental setting.

(1)-1. In the aspect of database configuration, we explained in more detail each themes and subjects.

- In the manuscript : Please refer to Figure 2.  

Figure 2. Database configuration : theme and subject

 

(1)-2.Regarding the experimental setting, we added information on the established database and a description of the system.

- In the manuscript :

“The following table is the participant's demographic information, and the experiment was conducted on most of the people who have never visited the museum or are not familiar with it. Therefore, the possibility that prior knowledge will affect the experimental results was excluded.”

“In the model comparison, the number of times the user checked the question-answer set was regarded as turn-taking, and the results of logging were compared.”

Table 1. Participant’s demographic and background information

 

(2) Adding visual aids for intuitive understanding of experimental settings.

We visualized the overall process, including experimental setting, user study procedure and result analysis.

- In the manuscript : Please refer to Figure 3. “Overall process, including experimental setting, user study procedure and result analysis, is visualized in Figure 3.”

Figure 3. Experiment process flowchart

   

(3) Issues regard manuscript.

This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Also, manuscript was corrected through Editage program (https://www.editage.co.kr/).

 

We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by MDPI Applied Sciences.

Best regards,

YeoGyeong Noh et al.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. I do not think the method is well described. The Methodology section is too simple and should be rewritten.

2. The results are lack and not fully presented.

3. Some notations should be explained, for example, M, SD, and so on.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for allowing us to resubmit this manuscript.

We took your advice and revised the manuscript by adding figure and modifying expressions.

(We highlighted changes in manuscript.)

The following is a list of results after reflecting the modifications.

 

(1) Adding supplementary explanation for experimental setting.

(1)-1. In the aspect of database configuration, we explained in more detail each themes and subjects.

- In the manuscript : Please refer to Figure 2.  

Figure 2. Database configuration : theme and subject

 

(1)-2.Regarding the experimental setting, we added information on the established database and a description of the system.

- In the manuscript :

“The following table is the participant's demographic information, and the experiment was conducted on most of the people who have never visited the museum or are not familiar with it. Therefore, the possibility that prior knowledge will affect the experimental results was excluded.”

“In the model comparison, the number of times the user checked the question-answer set was regarded as turn-taking, and the results of logging were compared.”

Table 1. Participant’s demographic and background information

 

(2) Adding visual aids for intuitive understanding of experimental settings.

We visualized the overall process, including experimental setting, user study procedure and result analysis.

- In the manuscript : Please refer to Figure 3. “Overall process, including experimental setting, user study procedure and result analysis, is visualized in Figure 3.”

Figure 3. Experiment process flowchart

 

(3) Notations are explained.

- In the manuscript : “We notated mean value with M and standard deviation with SD.”

   

(4) Issues regard manuscript.

This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Also, manuscript was corrected through Editage program (https://www.editage.co.kr/).

 

We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by MDPI Applied Sciences.

Best regards,

YeoGyeong Noh et al.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx