From Framework to Reliable Practice: End-User Perspectives on Social Robots in Public Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a relevant and timely topic and presents a well-designed pilot study on the deployment of social robots in public spaces. Overall, the manuscript is clearly structured and demonstrates a strong engagement with recent literature in human–robot interaction, ethics, and security.

One of the main strengths of the work is the real-world deployment and the focus on end-user perspectives, which adds practical value beyond purely conceptual or expert-driven evaluations. The effort to operationalise the SecuRoPS framework in a concrete setting is particularly welcome, and the inclusion of an open-source repository is a useful contribution that supports transparency and reproducibility.

That said, there are a few points where the manuscript could be strengthened. Although the objectives of the study are understandable, the paper would benefit from stating the research questions more explicitly. Making these questions clearer would help readers better follow the logic of the study and the link between the methodology, results, and discussion.

In addition, the quantitative analysis is mainly descriptive. This is reasonable given the exploratory nature of the pilot study, but a short justification of this choice, or a brief reflection on the limitations of the quantitative approach, would improve the methodological clarity.

The discussion is generally solid and thoughtful; however, some sections could go a bit further in linking the empirical findings to broader theoretical implications, particularly regarding accessibility and inclusivity as ongoing design challenges rather than isolated issues.

Finally, while the English is generally clear, there are some long and dense sentences that could be simplified to improve readability. Addressing these minor points would further strengthen an already valuable contribution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and correct, although some sentences are quite long and dense and could be simplified to improve readability.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful review of our manuscript and for the constructive and thoughtful feedback provided. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in evaluating our work. Your comments have helped us improve the clarity, methodological transparency, and theoretical grounding of the paper. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each of your comments, indicating where corresponding revisions have been made in the manuscript.

 

Comment 1: Clarify research objectives/research questions

“…That said, there are a few points where the manuscript could be strengthened. Although the objectives of the study are understandable, the paper would benefit from stating the research questions more explicitly. Making these questions clearer would help readers better follow the logic of the study and the link between the methodology, results, and discussion.”

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. To improve clarity and strengthen the logical connection between the methodology, results, and discussion, we have now explicitly formulated four research questions.

• Location: Section 1 (Introduction), lines 67–76
• Details: Research Questions (RQ1–RQ4) now explicitly address user perceptions of safety, accessibility, trust, and reliability in SecuRoPS-aligned public deployments.

 

Comment 2: Quantitative analysis is mainly descriptive

“… In addition, the quantitative analysis is mainly descriptive. This is reasonable given the exploratory nature of the pilot study, but a short justification of this choice, or a brief reflection on the limitations of the quantitative approach, would improve the methodological clarity.”

Response:
We agree with the reviewer and have now explicitly justified the use of descriptive quantitative analysis, given the exploratory nature of the pilot study and the modest sample size.

• Location: Section 3.6 (Data Management and Analysis), lines 269–274
• Details: We clarify that descriptive statistics are appropriate for early-stage, in-situ HRI studies aimed at informing design and deployment practices rather than testing causal hypotheses.

 

Comment 3: Strengthen theoretical implications for accessibility and inclusivity

“… The discussion is generally solid and thoughtful; however, some sections could go a bit further in linking the empirical findings to broader theoretical implications, particularly regarding accessibility and inclusivity as ongoing design challenges rather than isolated issues.”

Response:
We have expanded the discussion of accessibility and inclusivity, framing them as persistent sociotechnical design challenges rather than isolated findings.

• Location: Section 5.2, Accessibility and Inclusivity as a Persistent Sociotechnical Challenge, lines 386–402
• Details: Accessibility is now discussed as a lifecycle property affecting system legitimacy, perceived reliability, and equitable public service provision.

 

Comment 4: Improve readability and sentence density

“… Finally, while the English is generally clear, there are some long and dense sentences that could be simplified to improve readability. Addressing these minor points would further strengthen an already valuable contribution.”

Response:
We have revised the manuscript to simplify long or dense sentences while preserving technical accuracy.

• Location: Throughout Sections 1 (Introduction), 3 (Methodology), and 5 (Discussion)
• Details: Sentence restructuring and paragraph segmentation were applied to improve readability without reducing analytical depth.

 

Once again, we thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback, which has significantly strengthened the manuscript.

Sincerely,
The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a timely and well-motivated pilot study on the deployment of a social robot in a real public setting, explicitly grounded in the SecuRoPS framework. A key strength of the work lies in its in-situ end-user evaluation, moving beyond conceptual or expert-driven assessments toward real-world interaction data. The manuscript is clearly written, theoretically informed, and carefully aligned with contemporary discussions on ethical, secure, and trustworthy social robotics. The inclusion of an open-source GitHub repository further enhances the paper’s practical value and reproducibility.

However, several key aspects of the work require further clarification, expansion, or revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication:

1. Some terminology (e.g., “ethical transparency,” “reliability,” “trust”) is used interchangeably across sections; a short definitional clarification early in the paper would improve conceptual consistency.
2. The structure of the Discussion is thorough but lengthy; some subsections could be condensed to improve focus and readability.
3. While the paper convincingly demonstrates a real-world deployment aligned with SecuRoPS, the manuscript would benefit from a sharper articulation of what is scientifically new beyond validation. At present, the contribution risks being perceived primarily as an applied case study. The authors should more explicitly distinguish whether the novelty lies in (a) methodological operationalisation of SecuRoPS, (b) new empirical insights into user trust and accessibility, or (c) a reusable deployment pattern for public-space robots. Strengthening this positioning—particularly in the Introduction and Conclusion—would help readers clearly understand how this work advances the state of the art rather than confirming expected outcomes.
4. For applications of robot, Some ideas in the articles can be used as reference, including Mastering the complex assembly task with a dual-arm robot: A novel reinforcement learning method, and Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey. Note that if you refer to relevant literature, please add citations appropriately.
5. The quantitative results are largely descriptive and remain at the level of percentage reporting. While this is acceptable for a pilot study, the paper would be significantly strengthened by deeper analysis. For example, the authors could explore relationships between prior robot experience and trust ratings, or compare staff versus student responses. Even basic non-parametric comparisons or confidence intervals would enhance analytical rigor and better justify the claims made in the Discussion. Without this, some interpretations appear more narrative than evidence-driven.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your detailed and insightful review of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time you dedicated to evaluating the work and the constructive nature of your feedback. Your comments helped us sharpen the paper’s conceptual clarity, strengthen its scientific positioning, and improve analytical rigor. Below, we respond point by point to each comment and indicate where revisions were made.

 

Comment 1: Terminology used interchangeably (trust, ethical transparency, reliability) “… However, several key aspects of the work require further clarification, expansion, or revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication:

Some terminology (e.g., “ethical transparency,” “reliability,” “trust”) is used interchangeably across sections; a short definitional clarification early in the paper would improve conceptual consistency.)”

Response:
We appreciate this observation and have added explicit definitional clarifications early in the manuscript to ensure conceptual consistency.

• Location: Section 1 (Introduction), lines 61–66
• Details:
• Trust is defined as users’ subjective confidence in the robot’s intentions and behaviour.
• Ethical transparency refers to the visibility and clarity of data practices and decision logic.
• Reliability is conceptualised as consistent and dependable performance across users and contexts.

 

Comment 2: Contribution risks being perceived as only an applied case study

“While the paper convincingly demonstrates a real-world deployment aligned with SecuRoPS, the manuscript would benefit from a sharper articulation of what is scientifically new beyond validation. At present, the contribution risks being perceived primarily as an applied case study. The authors should more explicitly distinguish whether the novelty lies in (a) methodological operationalisation of SecuRoPS, (b) new empirical insights into user trust and accessibility, or (c) a reusable deployment pattern for public-space robots. Strengthening this positioning—particularly in the Introduction and Conclusion—would help readers clearly understand how this work advances the state of the art rather than confirming expected outcomes.”

Response:
We have strengthened the articulation of the manuscript’s scientific novelty across multiple sections.

• Introduction: Section 1, contribution list, lines 77–91
• Discussion: Section 5, lines 364–370
• Conclusion: Section 6, lines 516–534

Clarified novelty includes:

1. A reproducible method for operationalising lifecycle governance frameworks in public deployments.
2. New empirical insights into trust, accessibility, and perceived reliability from end users.
3. A reusable open-source deployment pattern for proprietary social robot platforms.

 

Comment 3: Discussion is thorough but lengthy

“The structure of the Discussion is thorough but lengthy; some subsections could be condensed to improve focus and readability.”

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. We revised the Discussion section to improve focus and readability while preserving analytical depth.

• Location: Section 5 (Discussion), lines 353–505
• Details:
• Redundant phrasing across trust, transparency, and privacy subsections was condensed.
• Long paragraphs were restructured to improve flow.
• Subsections were refined to maintain a clearer link between empirical findings and broader theoretical implications.

 

Comment 4: Suggested references on robotics applications

“… For applications of robot, Some ideas in the articles can be used as reference, including Mastering the complex assembly task with a dual-arm robot: A novel reinforcement learning method, and Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey. Note that if you refer to relevant literature, please add citations appropriately.”

Response:
We thank the reviewer for these relevant suggestions and have incorporated them selectively.

• Dual-arm reinforcement learning study:
• Location: Section 1 (Introduction), lines 43–50
• Purpose: Used as a contrasting example of technical robustness in structured industrial settings versus sociotechnical reliability challenges in public spaces.
• Social robot navigation survey:
• Location: Section 5 (Discussion), lines 458–472
• Purpose: Supports analysis of reliability, adaptivity, and interaction consistency in public environments.

 

Comment 5: Request for deeper quantitative analysis

“… The quantitative results are largely descriptive and remain at the level of percentage reporting. While this is acceptable for a pilot study, the paper would be significantly strengthened by deeper analysis. For example, the authors could explore relationships between prior robot experience and trust ratings, or compare staff versus student responses. Even basic non-parametric comparisons or confidence intervals would enhance analytical rigor and better justify the claims made in the Discussion. Without this, some interpretations appear more narrative than evidence-driven.”

Response:
To address this comment, we introduced exploratory comparative analysis while remaining consistent with the pilot nature of the study.

• Location: Section 4.3, Exploratory Comparisons, lines 296–307
• Details:
• Comparison of prior robot experience with trust and usability perceptions
• Comparison between staff and student responses on privacy and interaction pacing
• Results are explicitly framed as indicative rather than inferential, avoiding over-claiming.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful comments, which have materially improved the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the manuscript.

Sincerely,
The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My concerns have been addressed, and I appreciate the authors' careful attention to my previous comments and the substantial efforts put forth in revising the manuscript. I am pleased with the updated version, which now provides comprehensive insights and valuable conclusions.