A Survey on Computational and Emergent Digital Storytelling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is focused on wide survey about research and collection of scientific works related to computational, emergent, interactive digital storytelling tools and methods. All the works in this survey are divided into three main categories, as identified by their analysis. The study is really very broad and can be used as a good state of the art on the covered topics . The final discussion allows to understand the modern storytelling trends, with particular reference to artificial intelligence.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her effort in reviewing our manuscript and for his/her suggestion to be accepted. We hope that our paper will be useful to experienced researchers in the field and provide a starting point for those just starting out.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would suggest accepting the proposed paper. The Digital Storytelling is an important topic in the cultural heritage field and more institutions (academic and cultural as well) are adopting digital solutions for educative and research purposes. The paper is clear in exposition and provides not only a survey of published works on digital storytelling, tools systems and methodologies, but also an analysis of them and a wider consideration about the trends in the research field these works highlight. There are other recent studies on digital storytelling and authoring tools, for example
(2022) A Systematic Literature Review on Digital Storytelling Authoring Tool in Education: January 2010 to January 2020, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38:9, 851-867, DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1972608
but, for example in this case, they present a systematic review that focuses on their implementation in Education, while this proposed survey also includes the Cultural Heritage field and Healthcare.
In tables 1, 2, be consistent with the size of tick signs.
Line 177. Apart from works published after 2015 and the three categories highlighted, what are the other criteria for the works selection? Where were these works collected from? Did you use specific terms and further evaluation to reach your number?
Figure 4 and 5 are the same, but with different title and reference (i.e. 26 and 43). Please, change image.
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank the reviewer for his/her effort in reviewing our manuscript. We really appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions. In what follows, we try to address all the points raised in the review. It is our belief that the manuscript is now substantially improved after making the suggested edits, highlighted within the document by using colored text.
In tables 1 and 2, be consistent with the size of tick signs.
In both Tables 2 & 3 (ex Tables 1 & 2), the size of the checkmark (tick) is related to its weight, - its importance in the particular column it is placed in. This explanation has been added for both tables in the revised manuscript (lines 217-220 for Table 2, lines 225-226 for Table 3).
Line 177. Apart from works published after 2015 and the three categories highlighted, what are the other criteria for the works selection? Where were these works collected from? Did you use specific terms and further evaluation to reach your number?
The works presented in this survey have been primarily collected from major conferences related to digital storytelling. In the revised manuscript, Table 1 summarizes the said conferences. Additionally, a paragraph has been added (lines 167-174) that further discusses how the collected works have been retrieved.
Figures 4 and 5 are the same, but with different titles and references (i.e. 26 and 43). Please, change the image.
We would like to thank the reviewer for letting us know of this typo. The correct Figure 5 has been uploaded in the revised version of the manuscript.
