Virtually Connected in a Multiverse of Madness?—Perceptions of Gaming, Animation, and Metaverse
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with a timely and interesting research question, aiming at a characterization of peoples’ perceptions regarding gaming, animation and metaverse. However, the methodology used disqualifies this study for being published in an international journal. The qualitative and quantitative assessment of perception is not bound to any previous literature or methodological standards. What is the scientific base for the questions compiled in section 3 (page 6)? The data results are based on descriptive statistics, which is not very robust. Statements given in the discussion (e.g. “Our results show this by the participants when they refer to the Metaverse as a socialization concept and socialization promoter (Table 27 and 28) and by clearly stating that the Metaverse creates more fun (Table 30), therefore, a supporter of well-being.” (ll. 597-600)) cannot be taken from this data analysis. Moreover, why do you ask all these questions and compile the results in tables, when you do not refer to all data in your discussion? I do not see potential for a revision of this manuscript, as the lacks in methodology cannot be corrected at this stage.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
My reply is in the file attached.
Thank you for your attention.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. What are real-world applications of this work? In other words, how would the results be used in real life? The author shall give need case studies.
2. In the introduction section, include problem statement and explicitly mention the key contributions of the paper.
3. The authors are suggested to include following recent related works.
4. The performance of the proposed approach over existing methods should be better explained with more comparative study.
The writing of the paper needs a lot of improvement in terms of grammar, spellings and presentations. The paper needs a careful English polishing since there are many typos and poorly written sentences.
Author Response
My reply is in the attached file.
Thank you for your attention.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
* How author frame seven objective?
*How author interleated objective?
* In the background section How three keyword (Gaming, Animation, Virtual reality) used by author correlated their work.
* Please check the page no 4: line number 147 to 150 its misplaced..
*13 participants sufficient for evaluation?
* Any reviwe done for questiones framed? Whether all question understand by partcipant?
* How author frame Categories/Concepts ?
* In dicussion part start with Our findings, then why author citing references?
* conclusion two years mention 1992, 2018 what progress made between years?
*
Author Response
My reply is in the attached file.
Thank you for your attention.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
My reply is in the attached file.
Thank you for your attention.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
* Author respond all the queries.
* Section 3.30 data result can be represented in different form then its easy for reader.
