Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The VR Landscape in Education: A Non-Technical Guide for Researchers and Practitioners

As discussed in this article, for teachers who lack the necessary skills, often complex and advanced, identifying and evaluating suitable virtual reality applications can be a very complex task.

In this article, some options available for use in the educational world are presented. As the authors comment, it is not intended to be an exhaustive overview, but a first approach to these different options, which would facilitate a first decision on what to use in the educational context.

In principle, the subject matter and the effort made is commendable, although the final result still needs to be much more elaborate.

As the subject of this journal is Applied Sciences, perhaps the content of the article presented is not the most appropriate and should be focused on social sciences or education. There is no mention of the applications of virtual reality in applied sciences such as engineering, for example. Just look at the Journal Rank: JCR - Q1 (Engineering, Multidisciplinary) / CiteScore - Q1 (General Engineering), to frame the subject matter of this journal.

The title should focus more on the purpose, i.e. education. It is too generic and confusing, creating expectations that are too high in terms of the content finally shown. If the use is in social sciences it should be shown.

The bibliographical references should be completed with a more exhaustive search for teaching applications in different fields and at different levels.

The introduction is well presented, commenting on the problem that many teachers who wish to use virtual reality programmes in the classroom may encounter, and the lack of knowledge on the part of teachers in this area. This raises the problem of choosing the right material and software in each particular circumstance. For all these reasons, a review of the general literature on the subject is presented, as well as a market analysis of software solutions.

Although it is true that there are currently a multitude of companies and tools available, the authors themselves comment that they present some search results that could help in the choice of the most appropriate tool.

Methodology: In a first phase, the search in Google Scholar is narrowed down using logical operators, and then a generic search in Google.

In a research project it is not appropriate to search for related information only in this generic search engine, and not to do so in different databases of recognised prestige and widely used in the scientific community, such as IEEE-Explorer, Scopus, Elsevier... , the search would be very reduced and of poor quality. This more exhaustive search would give us information on how this technology has been applied in the classroom and what tools have been used. This article would be very incomplete without an overview of applications.

The avatar section is too large and could be reshaped without the images taking up so much space individually. Figures 6 to 10 could be presented as a table, taking up less space and dispersion in the final text. These figures should be described in the text and only a couple of them should be presented as examples. Several can be placed on the same line. Moreover, it adds little.

Figures 13 and 14 contribute nothing. What the image conveys should be described in the text, eliminating these figures.

Section 4.7 of Contentlibrary is too generic and should specify, much more, what it is, what they are expected to have included and what they really incorporate,...

Discussion:

In this section it is described that the work has been focused on the field of education and more specifically on social matters, but in no previous section has it been specified which are the characteristics that the software should fulfil in order to be applicable in this field. Section 3 attempts to specify something about these criteria, but it should be much more specific depending on the final application for which it is intended.

Proposed modifications:

1.- Consider whether it is appropriate to modify the title of the article.

2.- Broaden the search for references to teaching applications related to different fields and different levels, subsequently focusing on social sciences, which is what this article is about.

3.- Use appropriate databases in the search, such as Scopus, Elservier, Ieee explorer, Orcid, as well as generic ones, such as the Google scholar search engine.

4.- To comment on different applications in different fields, on previous experiences with their respective bibliographical references.

Remodelling the avatar section, reducing the length, being more concise and eliminating some of the superfluous graphics presented.

6.- Eliminate figures 13 and 14 by introducing in the text what you wish to transmit, as these would contribute little.

7.- Section 4.7 of Contentlibrary is too generic and should specify, much more, what it is, what is expected to be included and what is really included.

8.- Specify in the corresponding section the characteristics required of the virtual reality application software, depending on the application and final destination we want.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current abstract does not adequately highlight the main aspects of the study. The author should focus on the research design and key findings while condensing background information and conclusions. For instance, instead of emphasizing the broad integration of Virtual Reality (VR) in education, the abstract should succinctly present the methodological approach, such as the four-phase snowball search for VR software providers (p. 5), and summarize key findings, including the identification of ten relevant VR providers and their varying approaches to communication, avatar customization, and content delivery (p. 9-15).

In the introduction section, while the discussion of VR’s potential is relevant, it lacks references to recent studies that explore the impact of digital technology on learning. The author should incorporate studies such as Shadiev et al. (2024), which discuss the role of interactive 360-degree video technology in cognitive development, and Shadiev, Reynolds, and Li (2024), which highlight digital technology’s contribution to sustainable teaching and learning. Additionally, the last two paragraphs of the introduction, which reiterate points already covered, should be removed. Instead, a new concluding paragraph should be added, emphasizing the research design, innovations, and significance of the study, such as how it provides an action-oriented guide for selecting commercially available VR solutions.

The literature review requires a more critical approach to the discussion of research on VR in education. While the author presents various studies (p. 6-8), the section primarily summarizes existing work rather than evaluating the strengths, limitations, and gaps in current research. In particular, the section on the Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL) (p. 6) could benefit from a discussion on how this model has been applied in empirical studies and what gaps remain in its practical implementation. Furthermore, given that the paper focuses on the VR landscape in education, additional elaboration on research progress in this area is necessary, particularly concerning the evolution of SocialVR environments and AI-driven interactions (p. 9).

The methodology section would be clearer with subheadings such as "Research Design," "Data Collection," and "Data Analysis." This would help structure the detailed account of the four-phase research approach (p. 5), which involved literature reviews, expert consultations, provider searches, and software evaluations. Breaking this information into distinct sections would improve readability and clarity.

The discussion section requires restructuring for better logical coherence. Currently, it presents findings in a fragmented manner, making it difficult to follow the connections between different aspects of the study. The author should organize this section into three dimensions: (1) stating the research findings, such as the classification of VR and SocialVR applications (p. 9); (2) comparing these findings with existing studies, particularly those that discuss the effectiveness of VR-based social skills training (p. 7-8); and (3) explaining the significance of these comparisons in relation to VR’s role in education.

The conclusion should also follow a structured format, covering three main aspects: summarizing key research findings, discussing study limitations, and proposing future research directions. For instance, the conclusion could reiterate that the study identified ten VR providers with distinct technical and content-related features (p. 10-15). It should then acknowledge limitations such as the study’s focus on commercial providers rather than open-source solutions (p. 16). Finally, the author could suggest areas for future research, such as exploring the effectiveness of AI-driven VR training environments for social skills development (p. 17).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It could be revised a bit. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After review by the authors, this article can be published.

Author Response

Comment 1: After review by the authors, this article can be published.

Response1: Thank you for your Response. We will review the article and upload the new manuskript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my previous comments.