The Contribution of Design Thinking to Museum Digital Transformation in Post-Pandemic Times
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper propose an argumentation about design thinking approaches for the museum design scenario in post-pandemic times.
The paper is well written but I have some concerns about it:
1) from a methodological perspective, the author performed a literature review over 4 digital libraries but did not presented this part of his research in a methodologically sound way. There are several approaches for literature reviews that can be adopted for identifying and describing rigorously the different stages a literature review should be made up of but none of them is mentioned in the paper
2) in my opinion, a subparagraph explicitly devoted to list and discuss the proposed research question is advisable and it should be placed immediately after the introduction
3) the paper would benefit significantly from the use of summarising tables and charts/schemas, which would also help the reader in identifying core propositions and analyses
4) there are some typos and several formatting errors (especially in the bibliography). Some of them are reported below but I strongly suggest the author to perform a thorough check over the entire manuscript. Some items in the references sector are highlighted in gray, without any apparent reason.
L40: typo at the beginning of the line
L48: Grohe and Dana references without the publication year
FN1: (page 2) be more explanatory in the corresponding footnote 1
L118: wrong reference format
L129: error in reference (year missing)
L158: page missing in reference
L159: typo? "(.)"
L240-245: different text formatting for references
For this considerations (especially point 2 and 3) I suggest a major revision for the paper.
Author Response
Please, read MS word file attached below with the response to your comments. Many thanks for them!
Marco
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting critical review of the challenges of digital transformation of CH institutions post-covid. Although HCD has long been common practice in a wide range of commercial applications, in reality it has never been truly implemented in the CH sector. The author discusses the challenges and benefits steming from the adoption of this approach.
The paper is well written and easy to read, the arguments are clear and relevant, and to the point on the aforementioned issues. A thorough proof reading is needed, mostly for missing references (for example line 118 and 129, 289, 398) and minor corrections (line 228 "see Funding" or 40 "-0booming".
My main suggestions for revision are the following:
1. More details should be provided on the methodology. How were these 5 challenges identified? which/how many of the selected publications identify them? And how were these 18 publications selected?
2. I would be interested to see more discussion about two issues:
a. the late adoption of HCD in this sector in comparison to others. What are the factors impeding this adoption? Have they really been addressed post covid?
b. what about evaluation, which is a central part for HCD? The author mentions repaid prototyping. How do cultural institutions approach evaluation? Do they thoroughly apporach it? Are they asking the right questions, to understand whether their digital offerings indeed succeed in visitor engagement? and if not why? A maybe useful reference is the musetch evaluation framework https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3297717, which, as this work does, seems to consider the whole ch institution ecosystem, beyond the technology and the visitor.
Author Response
Please, see MS Word attached below. Many thanks, for your comments! marco
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
