Design and Evaluation of a Web- and Mobile-Based Binaural Audio Platform for Cultural Heritage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking up an interesting topic of Design and Evaluation of a web- and Mobile-based Binaural Audio Platform for Cultural Heritage.

In my opinion, the paper is overall valuable and presents a useful practical solution, but also is characterized by several shortcomings.

The list of shortcomings to be removed is presented below:

• The aim of the paper - which according to the authors' statement /lines 538-539/ was ‘the design, development and evaluation of a series of web and mobile applications - the PlugSonic Suite - implemented as part of the PLUGGY project’ - should be clearly presented in the abstract, as well as in the introduction section. A clear presentation of the purpose of the paper makes it easier to read.
• The very important part concerning the evaluation of the system's functionality requires some clarification. Authors should provide additional information on the following issues:
  1. Details on the scale of System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire
  2. Details on net promoter score (NPS)
  3. Details on the items of the questionnaire questions which results are presented in Table 3. I would like to dispel my doubts as to whether it is an example of the Likert scale.
• The limitations of the system described should be indicated transparently in the conclusions section.
• The text is quite extensive. it is not necessary to repeat the same figures twice (figures 3 and 4 vs figures A1 and A2). Moreover, figure 8 is also redundant as it does not add much to the text.

In my opinion, the text is a valuable contribution to this interesting subject but it needs removing a few shortcomings. 

Best regards,

The reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present the design choices, and the user involvement processes, as well as a final evaluation conducted with inexperienced users on three tasks (creation, curation a experience), and the found that Plug Sonic is indeed a simple, effective and yet powerful tool.

 Major Concerns

#1 Introduction and background is large enough, please resume.

#2 10% plagiarism detected from http://export.arxiv.org/list/cs/new?show=500&skip=87 solved it.

#3  On task results it is difficult to asses without a other group or control data from other study

#4 Sample size was really poor.

#5 Conclusion section must be a really short conclusion.

Minor Concerns

#6 L19 Please expand ICT.

#7 Excess info of PLUGGY study, must resume and state principal issue.

#8 L63 It seem like authors were selling something, change the speech.

#9  Figure 1 does not really show the link between social platform structures, re done it.

#10 Disagree with L102, please find references of this issue.

#11 Why history text in line 106.

#12 From L110 – L127, please simplify the text. It is hard to read.

#13 In section 2.2 you need really explain the link with the topic or resume / delete it.

#14 Reduce aims into three bullets.

#15 Clean screenshot figure and remove task bar and desktop sections.

#16 It is possible to explain with a photo or figure the soundscape curation section.

#17 short conclusion section into paragraph

#18 state limitations and future lines of research previous to conclusion

#19 In figure 2A change number spots in order colors in order to clarify this figure.

#20 Update rerefers earlier than 2005

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for following my comments. In my opinion, the paper has gained in quality.

Regards,

the Reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an accept from my part.