Acoustic Quality of the External Environment: Indications on Questionnaire Structure for Investigating Subjective Perception

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I have already done a review of this paper; I made a comparison between the old version and this submitted now. I found that the introductory part has been adequately reviewed by the authors, now the goals of the paper are clear. Unfortunately there is no logical sequence of the topics which are still very interesting, the authors have to reformulate the topics covered in a more effective way.

5) Add the department of the University

Section 2 must be improved.

-       In this section you introduce the methods, so since it is a work on the preparation of a questionnaire, as the title states, I imagine you will describe the methodology for preparing the structure of a questionnaire.

-       Psychological perspective is crucial but require specific skills for addressing adequately

-       Reference 15 does not deal with the psychological aspects linked to a questionnaire, it would be advisable to refer to texts recognized by the scientific community

-       To prepare the reader for the considerations that the authors intend to formulate, it would be appropriate to introduce the topic in a more specific way. It would be appropriate to refer to specific texts that have dealt with the subject specifically from a psychological point of view.

-       I suggest to the authors to change the name of the section, in fact I have not found a description of the survey methodology. Instead, it is a bibliographic review of some works that have used questionnaires in the acoustic field.

-       Nor is it a section in which the authors described how they carried out that review of the state of the art which made it possible to propose indications on how to prepare a valid questionnaire. That is, I can't find a logical consequence.

Section 3 must be improved.

-       Also in this case, but above all in this case I suggest to the authors to change the name of the section, it is not about the presentation of results, but as the name says it is about general observations.

-       Add references to support the general structures of the questionnaire summarized in Figure 1

-       It would be appropriate to compare the different administration methods highlighting pros and cons, it would also be appropriate to highlight that in the case of remote administration then the compilation takes place autonomously without the possibility of asking for explanation (autocompilation).

-       It would be worth highlighting the difficulties that have to be faced in formulating the questionnaire.

-       That is, the differences between the formulation of a questionnaire that must be administered in presence and those instead that arise when the questionnaire is intended for remote administration.

-       The section dealing with user preparation for the questionnaire must be improved. For example, for a questionnaire dealing with acoustic aspects it is necessary to evaluate the acoustic abilities of the subject, for example through an audiometric test. It is not enough to say that preparation is necessary, the authors must offer considerations on how to do it correctly.

Section 4 must be improved.

-       Also in this case, but above all in this case I suggest to the authors to change the name of the section, it is not about the presentation of results

-       In this section you deal specifically with the questionnaires in the acoustic field. I have not found a section in which you explain how to relate the questions formulated with the questionnaire to the noise measurements carried out with suitable instruments.

-       Obviously, the characterization of the acoustic sources in the place where the questionnaire is to be administered represents a fundamental step in understanding the type of sounds to which the user is exposed.

-       It would be appropriate to describe how the typology of sources determines the typology of measures to be carried out.

-       Furthermore, how the type of sources characterizes the type of questions to be included in the questionnaire

-       Figure 2 must be improved: The text is too small and appears blurry, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of information.

-       Check the format of the text at the end of the section

Section 5 must be improved.

-       Sections 5 and 6 can be merged by changing the title

-       The use of virtual reality is certainly a powerful tool that is made available to us, however it would have been useful to discuss the pros and cons of using this tool.

-       Make a comparison with traditional and virtual methodologies, describing in detail how the questionnaires change according to the type of administration

Reference

-       25 and 59 are duplicated

Author Response

We have included all the responses to the reviewer's comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This is a very interesting paper, and I have only comment for the methods section. Particularly, Figure 1 could be a part of any social science-based discipline rather than a specific glance to sound/noise aspects. So, I suggest that this figure and surrounding explanations should be based on sound/noise.

Author Response

We have included all the responses to the reviewer's comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors addressed all reviewer's comments with attention and modified the paper with the suggestions provided. The new version of the paper has improved both in the presentation and in the contents 

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

Figures should be prepared in better resolution/quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

the paper examines the state of the art of the acoustic quality of the external environment.

In the paper would be appropriate to add some further indications in the paragraph on future developments.

Thanks for your attention

Reviewer 3 Report

Section 1 must be improved.

-       Authors should emphasize contribution and novelty, the introduction needs to clarify the motivation, challenges, contribution, objectives, and significance/implication. 

-       You must properly introduce your work, specify well what were the goals you set yourself and how you approached the problem.

-       What are the advantages of the proposed work in comparison to already existing ones? This must be clear in the text. Please compare the proposed work with other existing ones.

-       In the surveys administered to users, the preparation and the way in which the questions are asked plays a fundamental role, it would be advisable to introduce this aspect

Section 2 must be improved.

-       Psychological perspective is crucial but require specific skills for addressing adequately

-       Reference 14 does not deal with the psychological aspects linked to a questionnaire, it would be advisable to refer to texts recognized by the scientific community

-       To prepare the reader for the considerations that the authors intend to formulate, it would be appropriate to introduce the topic in a more specific way. It would be appropriate to refer to specific texts that have dealt with the subject specifically from a psychological point of view.

Section 3 must be improved.

-       Add references to support the general structures of the questionnaire summarized in Figure 1

-       It would be appropriate to compare the different administration methods highlighting pros and cons, it would also be appropriate to highlight that in the case of remote administration then the compilation takes place autonomously without the possibility of asking for explanation (autocompilation).

-       It would be worth highlighting the difficulties that have to be faced in formulating the questionnaire.

-       That is, the differences between the formulation of a questionnaire that must be administered in presence and those instead that arise when the questionnaire is intended for remote administration.

-       I did not find a section dealing with user preparation for the questionnaire. For example, for a questionnaire dealing with acoustic aspects it is necessary to evaluate the acoustic abilities of the subject, for example through an audiometric test.

Section 4 must be improved.

-       In this section you deal specifically with the questionnaires in the acoustic field. I have not found a section in which you explain how to relate the questions formulated with the questionnaire to the noise measurements carried out with suitable instruments.

-       Obviously, the characterization of the acoustic sources in the place where the questionnaire is to be administered represents a fundamental step in understanding the type of sounds to which the user is exposed.

-       It would be appropriate to describe how the typology of sources determines the typology of measures to be carried out.

-       Furthermore, how the type of sources characterizes the type of questions to be included in the questionnaire

-       Figure 2 must be improved: The text is too small and appears blurry, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of information.

-       Check the format of the text at the end of the section

Section 5 must be improved.

-       Sections 5 and 6 can be merged by changing the title

-       The use of virtual reality is certainly a powerful tool that is made available to us, however it would have been useful to discuss the pros and cons of using this tool.

-       Make a comparison with traditional and virtual methodologies, describing in detail how the questionnaires change according to the type of administration

Add information required by the journal as:  Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, etc

- Reference

-       Check the format of the reference it must be coherent with the journal format

-       Remove the [], only numbered list

-       14 check the format is only a link add more information (see the journal template)

-       24 and 60 are duplicated

-       55 check the text format

Reviewer 4 Report

There have been some improvements compared to the previous version, but no substantial change in my opinion, as the edits implemented by the authors are mostly "cosmetic" in nature but did not address the underlying issues that had been mentioned during the previous round of review.

This is not a systematic review, nor a particularly disruptive commentary paper. In my view, it does not provide any substantial advancement or in-depth insight. That is, we would not learn anything from reading this paper that is not either already known, or easily accessible via other previously published works.

For instance, for a very good systematic review of the topic that the authors are trying to cover, see Engel et al., 2018 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40726-018-0094-8) - the fact that this paper is not even cited in the current review is very telling in my opinion of the quality and relevance of this work.

For most of the content of the paper, I read it, and I see no reference to "sound". That is: most of the content is generalistic common sense, and not topic-specific.

In essence, I am still convinced that this contribution is spurious and unnecessary in its current state.