Extended Reality Technologies: Transforming the Future of Crime Scene Investigation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In short, the paper begins with a promising hypothesis for the potential of Extended Reality (XR) in forensic science, but in this case, the introduction is not sufficient in crafting a correct and specific research problem. Although, it presents the broad applicability of XR technologies towards enhancing objectivity and reproducibility, it fails to create a critical problem and does not provide a clear, unique reason for conducting a new systematic review. In addition, there is little attempt at thematically organizing the existing literature or evaluating their methodological limitations. Furthermore, while a number of devices and software packages are mentioned, the review does not provide an ultimate sketch of what has already been explored and what still awaits research. As a result, the purportedly existing research gap remains unclear. This is further compounded by the addition of obsolete or peripheral citations in some sections, and this dilutes the academic rigor of the argument.

Methodologically, the authors aver the use of the PRISMA methodology but fail to provide procedural transparency. Although inclusion and exclusion criteria are enumerated, the rationale on which the choice thereof is made is not fully justified. The methodological report falls short of detailing how inter-rater reliability procedures other than the Cohen's Kappa statistic were conducted and does not explain how thematic coding or results synthesis was accomplished. The data gathering process particularly within the systematic review process is also severely flawed. Although the paper claims literature analysis from large databases, it is predominantly reliant on descriptive counting rather than formal thematic extraction. The majority of the cited applications and devices are merely described in the absence of critical appraisal of source study designs, sample sizes, or use settings. In addition, the use of commercial software platforms and technologies without peer-reviewed differentiated findings from promotional declarations deconstructs the scholarly foundation of the evidence base. The data thus appear to be aggregated and not analytically winnowed.

The paper is also plagued by integrative analytical deficiencies. Instead of making cross-study comparisons or identifying patterns, contradictions, or gaps in the data, authors simply list technological advancements and case deployments. There is no evaluation of the effectiveness of XR for forensic use in terms of quantifiable outcomes like accuracy, quality of training, or admissibility. While the paper reports tables and graphs, the paper does not interpret such findings in any critical manner or situate them within broader theoretical or forensic practice contexts. The level of analysis is therefore superficial and observational in character. At last, the conclusion section is astute but lacks critical thought. The authors reiterate the revolutionary status of XR technologies without going on to fully highlight the shortcomings of their review itself. The ethical, legal, and practical problems discussed are broad and diverse and typically generalized without looking back at specific studies or evidence. Further, the recommendations are more theoretical than pragmatic and lack clear blueprints for future research agendas, standardization drives, or policy initiatives.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the paper is acceptable and generally comprehensible, but it still exhibits frequent issues with some sentence structure, awkward phrasing, and occasional grammatical errors that may affect its readability. In addition, the writing style tends to be overly descriptive and repetitive, lacking the clarity and precision expected in academic discourse.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your detailed comments have been instrumental in improving the quality, depth, and clarity of our work. Below, we address each of your observations point by point, with the corresponding changes implemented in the revised version.

Comment 1

In short, the paper begins with a promising hypothesis for the potential of Extended Reality (XR) in forensic science, but in this case, the introduction is not sufficient in crafting a correct and specific research problem. Although, it presents the broad applicability of XR technologies towards enhancing objectivity and reproducibility, it fails to create a critical problem and does not provide a clear, unique reason for conducting a new systematic review.

Response 1

A more detailed description of the research problem has been incorporated at the beginning of the introduction. In this revised version, it is emphasized that, despite the progress in the development, use, and implementation of XR technologies in educational and forensic simulation contexts, there remains a notable lack of empirical studies evaluating their actual impact on the quality of investigations, their evidentiary validity, and their ethical and legal integration into real judicial processes. This limitation underscores the need to critically explore how these technologies—by offering greater precision and accessibility—can effectively support forensic professionals in the advancement of their investigative work.

Comment 2

In addition, there is little attempt at thematically organizing the existing literature or evaluating their methodological limitations.

Response 2

To enhance the organization and understanding of the findings, Figure 6 has been included. This figure provides a graphical synthesis of the categorized content, allowing for a structured visualization of the main areas of analysis addressed in the review.

Comment 3

Furthermore, while a number of devices and software packages are mentioned, the review does not provide an ultimate sketch of what has already been explored and what still awaits research. As a result, the purportedly existing research gap remains unclear. This is further compounded by the addition of obsolete or peripheral citations in some sections, and this dilutes the academic rigor of the argument.

Response 3

It has been verified that the majority of the references used correspond to the past five years, thereby ensuring the currency of the scientific evidence. However, a select number of relevant references from the past decade have been included to enrich the theoretical context and adequately support specific foundational aspects of the study.

Comment 4

Methodologically, the authors aver the use of the PRISMA methodology but fail to provide procedural transparency. Although inclusion and exclusion criteria are enumerated, the rationale on which the choice thereof is made is not fully justified. The methodological report falls short of detailing how inter-rater reliability procedures other than the Cohen's Kappa statistic were conducted and does not explain how thematic coding or results synthesis was accomplished.

Response 4

A more detailed description has been included regarding the justification for the selected documents, the procedures used to ensure inter-rater reliability, and the calculation of Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Additionally, the process of thematic coding and the synthesis of results are clearly described.

Comment 5

The data gathering process particularly within the systematic review process is also severely flawed. Although the paper claims literature analysis from large databases, it is predominantly reliant on descriptive counting rather than formal thematic extraction.

Response 4

A more detailed description has been included to justify the selection of the documents included in the review, as well as the procedures applied to ensure inter-rater reliability. The calculation of Cohen’s Kappa coefficient has been specified as the measure of agreement. In addition, the process of thematic coding and the methodology used for the synthesis of results are now described more clearly.

The research questions outlined in the methodology were used to guide the extraction of specific information from the included documents. These questions were:

    RQ1. What are the main technological developments based on using VR, AR, and MR technologies that have been applied in forensic investigation?

    RQ2. How have AR, VR, and MR contributed to improving forensic investigation?

    RQ3. What challenges and limitations have arisen in the implementation of VR, AR, and MR technologies in forensic investigation?

    RQ4. What future developments related to VR, AR, and MR are anticipated to improve forensic investigation?

    RQ5. What impact do VR, AR, and MR technologies have on the accuracy and efficiency of forensic evidence collection, analysis, and presentation in court?

These questions guided the synthesis of information, which is presented in the table located in Spreadsheet 9 of the dataset uploaded to MendeleyData, cited in [10], and available via the following DOI: 10.17632/P7DJ4H7HWY.1

Below is a screenshot of the spreadsheet where the corresponding information was synthesized.

6. Comentario

The majority of the cited applications and devices are merely described in the absence of critical appraisal of source study designs, sample sizes, or use settings. In addition, the use of commercial software platforms and technologies without peer-reviewed differentiated findings from promotional declarations deconstructs the scholarly foundation of the evidence base. The data thus appear to be aggregated and not analytically winnowed.

Response 6

The tables related to virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) devices have been updated to include a specific reference to their compatibility with forensic applications, based on the number of studies or applications that report their use in this field. Likewise, devices that do not demonstrate verified compatibility or have not been mentioned in the literature related to the forensic context have been removed, in order to ensure the relevance and accuracy of the information presented.

Comment 7

The paper is also plagued by integrative analytical deficiencies. Instead of making cross-study comparisons or identifying patterns, contradictions, or gaps in the data, authors simply list technological advancements and case deployments.

Response 7

The writing has been revised and improved to more clearly highlight the patterns, emerging trends, contradictions, and gaps identified in the analyzed data, thereby strengthening the critical depth of the discussion.

Comment 8

There is no evaluation of the effectiveness of XR for forensic use in terms of quantifiable outcomes like accuracy, quality of training, or admissibility. While the paper reports tables and graphs, the paper does not interpret such findings in any critical manner or situate them within broader theoretical or forensic practice contexts. The level of analysis is therefore superficial and observational in character.

Response 8

The systematic review did not identify specific studies that directly evaluate the effectiveness of XR technologies in forensic contexts. The article presents technological developments organized by thematic areas; however, this limitation reveals a critical gap in the current literature and highlights the need for future research to address this issue in greater depth. In this regard, the present scoping review is limited to identifying and categorizing existing findings, without the possibility of deeper analysis due to the lack of available empirical evidence.

Comment 9

At last, the conclusion section is astute but lacks critical thought. The authors reiterate the revolutionary status of XR technologies without going on to fully highlight the shortcomings of their review itself. The ethical, legal, and practical problems discussed are broad and diverse and typically generalized without looking back at specific studies or evidence. Further, the recommendations are more theoretical than pragmatic and lack clear blueprints for future research agendas, standardization drives, or policy initiatives.

Response 7

The conclusion section emphasizes the main limitations of the present study, explicitly acknowledging its scope and constraints. Additionally, the analysis has been enriched with a deeper reflection on the ethical and legal aspects related to the implementation of XR technologies in the forensic field, thereby strengthening the relevance and academic rigor of the contribution.

Comment 10.

The quality of English in the paper is acceptable and generally comprehensible, but it still exhibits frequent issues with some sentence structure, awkward phrasing, and occasional grammatical errors that may affect its readability. In addition, the writing style tends to be overly descriptive and repetitive, lacking the clarity and precision expected in academic discourse.

Response 10

The manuscript has been carefully revised to improve sentence structure and eliminate phrases that hindered clarity. In addition, the text’s readability has been optimized, and unnecessary repetitions have been removed in order to enhance the coherence, clarity, and academic quality of the content.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This journal aimed to do a systematic review of the extended reality (XR) development technology, including Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR), and evaluate the effects, challenges, and prospects of XR in forensic investigation. XR has big potential for transformation in forensic field investigations, but it needs advanced research to overcome the challenges, such as technological limitations, high-cost implementations, ethical issues, and acceptability of the technologies. If these problems can be solved, this paper has the potential to be published in the MDPI Technologies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your detailed comments have been instrumental in improving the quality, depth, and clarity of our work. Below, we address each of your observations point by point, with the corresponding changes implemented in the revised version.

Comment 1

This journal aimed to do a systematic review of the extended reality (XR) development technology, including Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR), and evaluate the effects, challenges, and prospects of XR in forensic investigation. XR has big potential for transformation in forensic field investigations, but it needs advanced research to overcome the challenges, such as technological limitations, high-cost implementations, ethical issues, and acceptability of the technologies. If these problems can be solved, this paper has the potential to be published in the MDPI Technologies.

Response 1

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments. We sincerely appreciate your recognition of the article’s potential and have carefully considered your recommendations.

In response to your feedback, we have strengthened the manuscript by expanding the discussion on the main challenges associated with the implementation of XR technologies in forensic investigation.

We have more clearly highlighted the key findings, limitations, challenges, and the acceptability of the technologies used in forensic applications. Additionally, the tables of XR headsets have been updated to include a specific reference to their compatibility with forensic applications, in order to reinforce the findings more precisely—following the recommendation of another reviewer.

We have also incorporated a more in-depth and critical reflection in the conclusions regarding ethical concerns, including data privacy, the risk of evidence manipulation, and the potential influence of virtual reconstructions on judicial decisions.

Furthermore, the description of the methodology has been improved, with a more detailed explanation of the article selection process and the agreement between evaluators, supported by the calculation of Cohen’s Kappa coefficient.

We believe these revisions enhance the academic rigor and practical relevance of the article, and we sincerely hope it now meets the expectations for publication in MDPI Technologies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their replies, and the replies satisfy me. I would like to recommend the publication of the current manuscript in the journal.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the fact that the paper gives an overall and descriptive account of the XR technologies in forensic investigation, there are certain imperative elements that impair its academic credibility and integrity. First and foremost, the introduction, although descriptive in nature, lacks an appropriately articulated problem statement that precedes it and fails to explicitly state the reasons why an updated review is necessary. Meanwhile, the novelty or original contribution of the work is not well articulated since it does not state in clear terms what literary shortcomings it would aim to fill. In addition, the theoretical placement would also be more rewarding by earlier incorporation of conceptual controversies and ethics concerns in the manuscript in terms of placing the technological rhetoric within the broader scholarly issues. In the literature review, a temptation is to lay out tools, devices, and apps without evaluating and/or comparing them in any detail. This results in a failure of synthesis, with no actual discussion of limitations, research bias, or conflicting findings from previous work. Consequently, the review is quite a technical survey rather than a scholarly assessment, and important questions about the technologies' effectiveness, validity, and scalability are not raised. Methodologically, the article does indeed outline the studies' inclusion process but does not document the search terms or database queries used that were full to reduce openness and reproducibility.

Also, the quality assessment of the papers included is restricted to just a binary grading table and not qualitative assessment. 17 major reference papers are covered in the review, and that may not be sufficient given the pace at which and the expansiveness to which XR. is expanding in forensic science. Adding to this deficiency, the paper does not provide a full list of included studies, reducing the transparency and clarity of the selection process. In addition, the process of data synthesis and extraction is not fully described as there is no mention of how themes were interpreted, coded, or reached. Although the authors also reference 56 other project-based sources, there is no explanation of how they were integrated into the analysis or sorted out from the main sample. The results section, although lengthy, is too repetitious and descriptive and diminishes its readability and analytical force. While figures are informatively charted, they are not provided with interpretive analysis that might help the reader identify overall trends or cross-cutting themes across platforms and tools. Neither thematic nor statistical synthesis is provided to investigate correlations between categories of XR technology and resulting forensic findings. The conclusion summarizes previous sections and misses the opportunity to provide a conceptual model, propose a systematic research agenda, or iron out the wider theoretical implications of the findings. Ethical and legal challenges are mentioned, but their discussion is very brief and does not include specific suggestions for mitigation or regulation. Similarly, the future prospects chapter, though forward-looking, is nearer in type to inspirational projection than empirical trends or analytical criticism. As a way to close the overall scholarly contribution of the paper, authors can start with stating research questions or hypotheses more clearly.

More comparative and analytical literature review should be conducted, which in this case, a descriptive stock list is not helpful would lend depth to analysis. Giving an overview of the work covered in the research, such as in an appendix or table, would be helpful to the transparency and readability. Creation also of a conceptual framework for setting different types of XR technology against different forensic findings could be of immense value in structure and understanding. Further thoughtful consideration of technical, legal, and ethical limitations is also needed to place the findings in the context of practical limitations. Finally, rather than concluding with blanket recommendations, the authors should make specific and thoughtful recommendations for future research in order to inform the substantive development and ethical use of XR technologies in forensic science.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The vocabulary used in the paper is largely lucid and clear with the correct usage of technical terminology of ER and forensic science. Therefore, there are a few instances of redundancy, non-idiomatic phrases, and overly long and complicated sentences, which can be improved through stylistic modification for ease of flow and accuracy. Certain parts, particularly in results and literature review, lean slightly towards descriptive writing that can be even stronger and more engaging through variation in word choice and sentence length. On the other hand, transitions between concepts occasionally also are sudden, harming narrative coherence at times. Otherwise, the paper is readable, which intense language editing would make it more explicit, tone more academic and professionally refined.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The presented article deals with the use of XR technologies in forensic investigation. It is a review work that systematically collects the results published in the given field. The authors adhere well enough to the chosen PRISMA methodology for selecting essential published works in the given field.

I appreciate that the presented article covers several areas related to the issue, while analyzing in detail the individual imaging methods used (AR, VR, MR) and the ways of using these techniques from collecting evidence to teaching and presenting evidence in court.

The work is written relatively fluently, it is possible to identify key requirements in the given field and on its basis it is possible to identify the possibilities of using technologies in the given field.

I have no specific comments on the text itself. 

However, it would be appropriate to subject the text to linguistic proofreading and check the occurrence of Spanish language expressions in the English text.

Small comments:

1. Usually AR, VR, XR, MR are used without full-stop.
2. page 4 - line 112 - R.A., R.V. change to VR and AR
3. page 10 - line 320 - change VR goggle to AR goggle
4. page 12 - lines 376-381 are in Spanish, please translate to English
5. page 13 - Table 5 - header - translate Tecnología XR to English (same with ARCore y ARKit (A.R.) in first column)
6. page 14 - line 420 add full stop
7. References - translate "Accedido" and all other Spanish words in references excluding titles to English

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Extended Reality (X.R.) technologies, which include Virtual Reality (V.R.), Augmented Reality (A.R.), and Mixed Reality (M.R.), are playing a critical role in the revolutionization of forensic investigations, particularly in the areas of crime scene reconstruction, evidence processing, and professional training. The paper presents a comprehensive examination of the advancements in X.R. technologies within the realm of forensics. The PRISMA® methodology, which was sourced from reliable databases, was implemented to evaluate a variety of scientific articles. The findings indicate that X.R. technologies enhance accuracy, efficiency, collaboration, and training expenses, all while preserving crime scene data. However, technological limitations, implementation costs, and ethical dilemmas remain as constraints. In exchange for resolving those problems, this research may be published in MDPI technologies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf