Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with a subject of extreme (and increasing) interest, both inside and outside the confines of the CH field, and this is arguably one of its main merits. However, a thourough checking and correction of English writing style and wording should be undertaken. There is the concrete risk that the reader may not be able to grasp some relevant elements of the review, or to misunderstand them altogether, due to wrong spelling or structure.

Apart from this, my sole suggestion is to clarify further, in the Introduction section, the scope and aims of the paper, specifically to state them as soon as it is feasible.

Author Response

The paper deals with a subject of extreme (and increasing) interest, both inside and outside the confines of the CH field, and this is arguably one of its main merits.

Comment#1 However, a thourough checking and correction of English writing style and wording should be undertaken. There is the concrete risk that the reader may not be able to grasp some relevant elements of the review, or to misunderstand them altogether, due to wrong spelling or structure.

Answer# The text has been corrected by a native English speaker

Comment#2 Apart from this, my sole suggestion is to clarify further, in the Introduction section, the scope and aims of the paper, specifically to state them as soon as it is feasible.

Answer# The scope and aims of the paper have been added to the introduction

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents the results of a survey of publications on the use of digital avatars. Therefore, the title and conclusions could be more specific.

Author Response

The article presents the results of a survey of publications on the use of digital avatars.

Comment#1 Therefore, the title and conclusions could be more specific.

Answer# The title and the conclusions have been changed.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Strengths

* The systematic review of literature was well conducted

* The discussion of trends over time with respects to virtual human application within the museum domain was very valuable.

* The results can inform future research directions of the field

Weakness

* The use of "avatar" to include agents is extremely confusing. While the authors do explain their rationale of using one paper's definition of avatar, the field's use of avatar to mean controlled by a real user has important distinctions of role, use, and technological support that is important to understand. I firmly recommend using the term avatar for *only* virtual humans controlled by a user and agent for computer controlled virtual humans. Simply taking one definition by one paper 17 years ago does not align with the current direction of the field nor the leaders in the field use of the term. Further helping the user understand which applications are avatars vs agents actually helps in the discussion and analysis of results. I would recommend the title be about "virtual humans" in museums and cultural heritage sites.

 

* The writing is extremely uneven throughout the paper seemingly written by various authors. The submission up to 3.2 is relatively well structured and easy to read. Sections 3.2 onwards was unstructured and did not follow a framework to discuss results or standard scientific logical structure to convey important findings. Please consult well-regarded survey papers to see structures to implement here. Currently, each paragraph is seemingly an isolated concept with no larger narrative or explanation or analysis.

 

Recommendations

The authors have the basis (good idea, start of a good literature search) for a survey article. I think the search terms need to be expanded because the terms used in the search are too limiting and not aligned with the field. Search strategy should be amended to include "virtual agent", "virtual human". "embodied conversational agent", "digital character", and "digital agent".

 

Because my recommendations require significant improvements, I would recommend rejection so that the authors take sufficient time to improve the submission. i would welcome reading an improved iteration of the work that has been significantly expanded from a survey article perspective as well as rewritten to be more logically structured.

 

minor:

Acronyms (ICT, CH) are used without previous definition

RQ1 “topology of VH” is unclear. As a computer graphics person, e.g., topology could mean the geometric complexity of a virtual character.

Overall RQ are not specific and clear enough

 

Search strategy - explain how libraries were chosen to search, also include how many publications were found in searches, and how many were excluded at each stage of refinement

 

For graphs, consider referencing color would limit b&w versions of the publication

Figure 1 is confusing w/ 7 different types of data being plotted w/ such low n

 

3.2 remove the “vs” connotation which makes no sense from a MR perspective.

Change “as mentioned”

For the field, discussion AR/MR/VR would be valuable before jumping in and how did you decide which category a system was labelled as? This is important to discuss.

The entire 3.2 are extremely confusing. Completely rewriting this sections as it seems written by different authors or a casualty of cut and paste.

 

Rivera-Guiteerrez did not conduct experiment in laboratory conditions. Also define your use of “laboratory conditions”.

 

One of the reasons for this clear trend relates to the fact that behavioural realism 242 may be better supported onsite <- unclear how this was determined

 

Avoid colloquialisms such as “safe conclusions”, “thin line”, etc.

Lots of run on sentences. Read “sense of structure” and also use grammarly pro

 

The use of therms “VR” “AR” and “MR” are confusing and not well defined. This lack of clear definition makes the analysis confusing

 

Unclear how “diachronic” is used in 295

 

Table 1, line 18 is incorrect. Rivera-guitierrez was in a museum

 

Discussion section is all over the place w/ no structure to the analysis

 

L532 - weighs users

 

Author Response

Strengths

* The systematic review of literature was well conducted

* The discussion of trends over time with respects to virtual human application within the museum domain was very valuable.

* The results can inform future research directions of the field

Weakness

Comment#1 * The use of "avatar" to include agents is extremely confusing. While the authors do explain their rationale of using one paper's definition of avatar, the field's use of avatar to mean controlled by a real user has important distinctions of role, use, and technological support that is important to understand.

I firmly recommend using the term avatar for *only* virtual humans controlled by a user and agent for computer controlled virtual humans. Simply taking one definition by one paper 17 years ago does not align with the current direction of the field nor the leaders in the field use of the term. Further helping the user understand which applications are avatars vs agents actually helps in the discussion and analysis of results.

Answer# In response to this comment, firstly, the title has been changed and throughout the paper the use of the term avatar has been limited to instances of virtual humans controlled by users. A distinction is therefore made between avatars and agents to improve clarity as suggested.  

Comment#2 I would recommend the title be about "virtual humans" in museums and cultural heritage sites.

Answer# Corrected

Comment#3 The writing is extremely uneven throughout the paper seemingly written by various authors. The submission up to 3.2 is relatively well structured and easy to read. Sections 3.2 onwards was unstructured and did not follow a framework to discuss results or standard scientific logical structure to convey important findings. Please consult well-regarded survey papers to see structures to implement here. Currently, each paragraph is seemingly an isolated concept with no larger narrative or explanation or analysis.

Answer# We have corrected the structure and the sections 3.2 onwards

 

Recommendations

The authors have the basis (good idea, start of a good literature search) for a survey article.

Comment#4 I think the search terms need to be expanded because the terms used in the search are too limiting and not aligned with the field. Search strategy should be amended to include "virtual agent", "virtual human". "embodied conversational agent", "digital character", and "digital agent".

Answer# Because my recommendations require significant improvements, I would recommend rejection so that the authors take sufficient time to improve the submission. i would welcome reading an improved iteration of the work that has been significantly expanded from a survey article perspective as well as rewritten to be more logically structured.

minor:

Acronyms (ICT, CH) are used without previous definition

Answer# Corrected

Comment#6  RQ1 “topology of VH” is unclear. As a computer graphics person, e.g., topology could mean the geometric complexity of a virtual character.

Answer# RQ1 concerns the typology. “What is the typology of avatars across time?”

Comment#7 Overall RQ are not specific and clear enough

Answer# RQ have been amended in accordance to the comment becoming more clear and specific.

Comment#8 Search strategy - explain how libraries were chosen to search, also include how many publications were found in searches, and how many were excluded at each stage of refinement

Answer# A paragraph has been added (opening paragraph of results section) including how many publications were found in searches, and how many were excluded at each stage of refinement. Moreover, a sentence explaining the reasons for choosing these digital libraries (last sentence of 2.3 section).

Comment#9 For graphs, consider referencing color would limit b&w versions of the publication. Figure 1 is confusing w/ 7 different types of data being plotted w/ such low n

Answer# We provided the information initially illustrates in a single graph in three different figures so that we could reduce the types of data to 5 or 3. Moreover we changed referencing colour in differing tones, so that the graph could be rendered in greyscale properly.

Comment#10 3.2 remove the “vs” connotation which makes no sense from a MR perspective.

Answer# Corrected

Comment#11 Change “as mentioned”

Answer# Deleted

Comment#12 For the field, discussion AR/MR/VR would be valuable before jumping in and how did you decide which category a system was labelled as? This is important to discuss.

Answer# We use the above terms AR/MR/VR in accordance with the way they are used by the authors of the papers surveyed

Comment#13 The entire 3.2 are extremely confusing. Completely rewriting this sections as it seems written by different authors or a casualty of cut and paste.

Answer# Section 3.2 has been extensively rewritten to improve its clarity, pertinence and cohesion.

Comment#14 Rivera-Guiteerrez did not conduct experiment in laboratory conditions. Also define your use of “laboratory conditions”.

Answer# Removed the “laboratory conditions”

Comment#15 One of the reasons for this clear trend relates to the fact that behavioural realism 242 may be better supported onsite <- unclear how this was determined

Answer# A sentence that elaborates on and supports the claim made has been added.

Comment#16 Avoid colloquialisms such as “safe conclusions”, “thin line”, etc.

Lots of run on sentences. Read “sense of structure” and also use grammarly pro

Answer# We have deleted sentences with such colloquialisms, and make the corrections proposed.

Comment#17 The use of therms “VR” “AR” and “MR” are confusing and not well defined. This lack of clear definition makes the analysis confusing

Answer# The terms were defined in 2.1

Comment#18 Unclear how “diachronic” is used in 295

Answer# We have deleted the “nevertheless fairly diachronic”

Comment#19 Table 1, line 18 is incorrect. Rivera-guitierrez was in a museum

Answer# Corrected

Comment#20 Discussion section is all over the place w/ no structure to the analysis

Answer# An opening paragraph relates the content of the discussion section with the analysis and findings’ description. Likewise links to the analysis have been added throughout the section. Moreover, the discussion section has been revised to improve coherence and foreground its connection to the rest of the article.

Comment#21 L532 - weighs users

Answer# The sentence has been changed to “that provides advice to visitors on issues such as weight loss”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc