Time Travel to the Past of Bosnia and Herzegovina through Virtual and Augmented Reality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is a recreation of historical events and artifacts of Bosnia and Herzegovina using various VR/AR media technologies.

The study includes three case studies, namely the use of VR360 video to recreate the court proceedings of the "Nine dissidents", and the filming criteria consistent with previous studies. The Battle on Neretva VR is a 3D VR experience created using Unity to give visitors a sense of being in the battlefield. Finally, Sarajevo 5D uses augmented reality to recreate six cultural monuments or objects that are important to the memory of Sarajevo's past.

Although such hybrid VR and AR applications for museums and historical artifacts are not new and not technically innovative, this study pays attention to the overall user experience perceptions that have received less attention and analyze participant perceptions and feedback through qualitative research. However, this study pays attention to the overall user experience, which has received less attention and analyzes the participants' perceptions and feedback through qualitative research. The quantitative analysis uses the UTAUT model to measure the benchmarks for successful VR/AR applications and finally suggests that users are motivated to overcome operational problems when they apply VR/AR to experience stories.

In conclusion, this article describing the technical aspects of the application of digital reproduction of cultural heritage exhibited in museums is an interesting read, and although much of it appears to be the final report of a large project, the methodology and analysis of the results support the breakthroughs and findings of the research.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 had no requests for changes in the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for taking up an interesting topic of a ‘Time travel to the past of Bosnia and Herzegovina through virtual and augmented reality’.

In my opinion, the paper is valuable and presents an interesting practical solution, however, there are a few shortcomings worth improving.

The list of shortcomings to be removed is presented below:

1) It is very important to verify users' opinions on the proposed solutions, and therefore it is necessary to provide more details on the users' experience study.

- How large was the research sample under semi-structured interviews? /lines 455-469 /

- What were the variants of responses under the 5-point Likert scale? /lines 467-468/ Was it e.g. 1 for disagree and 5 for agree? Or maybe strongly disagree/strongly agree? or maybe another?

- What are the subscales for the questionnaire? /lines 500-506/

2) Figures 13 and 14 are illegible and require clarification to make them more readable. It is worth provide more legible data labels and present the content of individual items. The reader does not know what ED4 or IM7 or EE5 really means.

3) It is worth referring to the limitations of the presented solution. Do they exist and what are they?

4) The references format is not fully compliant with the journal's editorial requirements.

Congratulations on selecting an important topic and presenting an interesting solution. I strongly encourage you to improve the article.

Best regards,
The reviewer

Author Response

Point 1

It is very important to verify users' opinions on the proposed solutions, and therefore it is necessary to provide more details on the users' experience study.

- How large was the research sample under semi-structured interviews? /lines 455-469 /

Response1

- In this qualitative study we had 12 participants, but with different background and balanced age distribution, and we added this explanation in the text. (lines 480-484)

Point2

What were the variants of responses under the 5-point Likert scale? /lines 467-468/ Was it e.g. 1 for disagree and 5 for agree? Or maybe strongly disagree/strongly agree? or maybe another?

Response 2

We have asked participant to grade compliance with the statements with note that 1 is the lowest grade, and 5 the highest grade. (lines 493-498)

Point3

What are the subscales for the questionnaire? /lines 500-506/

Response 3

We have presented all subscales in the Table 1 including mean values and SD for all items of the questionnaire part with grading (page 15).

Point 4

Figures 13 and 14 are illegible and require clarification to make them more readable. It is worth provide more legible data labels and present the content of individual items. The reader does not know what ED4 or IM7 or EE5 really means.

Response 4

We have added full questionnaire with all items including the codes (ED for edutainment, IM for immersion and EE for Effort Expectancy) and respective statistics: mean values and SDs in Table 2 with detailed explanation in the caption of the table

Point 5

It is worth referring to the limitations of the presented solution. Do they exist and what are they?

Response 5

Added in Conclusions and lessons learned

Point 6

The references format is not fully compliant with the journal's editorial requirements.

Response 6

Checked and adjusted according to the template

Reviewer 3 Report

Request

No clear research background, and problem statement based on previous limitations;

lack of methodological information (how to interpret and how to measure the degree of each criteria);

lack of discussion based on previous literature;

incomplete conclusion

Introduction
The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. I think the research background is not clear.

The introduction needs to be revised and set up differently.

Authors should justify the importance of this study based on strong literature review and other sources. The bibliography must be implemented.

Learn more about paragraph 2.2

Furthermore authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses.
The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted.
Future research directions may also be mentioned.

Conclusion

Emphasize the importance of this study based on their significant findings.

Author Response

Point 1

Introduction
The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. I think the research background is not clear.

Authors should justify the importance of this study based on strong literature review and other sources. The bibliography must be implemented.

Response 1

The research problem statement based on previous limitations added to the introduction. Importance of the work is justified and literature review and bibliography improved.

Point 2

Learn more about paragraph 2.2

Response 2

Paragraph 2.2. expanded and improved

Point 3

lack of methodological information (how to interpret and how to measure the degree of each criteria);

Response 3

In the introductory part of Section 4 (User experience) we have added paragraphs (457-473) explaining motivation for two different methods we use (quantitative and qualitative) and explained also the objective of our evaluations and interpretation

Point 4

Furthermore authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses.
The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted.
Future research directions may also be mentioned.

Response 4

Added to the Conclusion

Point 5

Conclusion

Emphasize the importance of this study based on their significant findings.

Response 5

Added to the Conclusion

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report