Development of an Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) Laboratory for the Execution of Multidisciplinary Experiences in Students of a Private Mexican University

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents the development and initial deployment of an immersive virtual reality (IVR) laboratory in a private Mexican university, accompanied by a short qualitative survey of student perceptions. While the topic aligns with the journal Laboratories and reflects growing interest in immersive learning environments, the current manuscript falls short of the scientific rigor, methodological clarity, and analytical depth expected of an SCI-indexed journal article. At present, the paper reads more as a technical or institutional report rather than a research study.

1. The manuscript is largely descriptive. While the development of the IVR laboratory is well documented, explicit research questions or hypotheses are not clearly stated.
2. The evaluation relies solely on a short, non-validated qualitative survey with a small sample size (n = 28). No justification is provided for the sample size, nor is there any reliability or validity analysis of the survey instrument. The exposure time (approximately 10 minutes per participant) is very short to assess learning-related outcomes.
3. Some tables are duplicated or mislabeled (e.g., Tables 7 and 8 appear to contain identical content). Percentages are reported without raw counts, and in some cases the categories are unclear or overlapping.
4. Claims regarding learning improvement, motivation, and confidence are made based solely on students’ perceptions, without any objective learning measures or comparison groups.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to review our work. We have attached a document with our response to your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the development of an immersive virtual reality (IVR) laboratory at a private Mexican university. The study details the entire process from spatial planning (physical layout) to hardware selection, such as the HTC Vive Pro 2 and its tracking accessories. It also covers software integration across disciplines like engineering, medicine, and architecture, concluding with a preliminary user evaluation. This work demonstrates the potential of IVR technology for multidisciplinary integration in higher education and provides a practical implementation framework for other institutions. While the paper is well-structured, there is room for improvement regarding the rigor of experimental design, depth of data analysis, and the mechanical or psychological support for the conclusions. Specific comments are as follows:

1. In lines 73–74 and Figures 1 and 2, the authors proposed two laboratory layout options. Although Option 2 (suspended screens) was ultimately selected, the text lacks a comparative analysis of Option 1 and Option 2 regarding functionality, safety, and cost-effectiveness. It is suggested to clarify why Option 2 is better suited for the library Maker space—for instance, whether the suspension system effectively reduces safety hazards caused by cable entanglement.
2. In Table 2, the authors mentioned the selection of "Vive facial trackers". However, the professional software listed in Table 4 (such as AutoCAD, Revit, and Organon) does not demonstrate a need for facial expression interaction. The authors should clarify the specific application scenarios for the facial tracking function in the current experimental setup or whether it is merely reserved hardware for future expansion.
3. Line 142 mentions that "each participant had approximately 10 minutes to explore the virtual reality app". For extremely complex professional CAD/CAM software like Siemens NX or 3Dexperience mentioned in Table 4, 10 minutes may only be sufficient for basic observation and is inadequate for students to make a scientific evaluation of its "learning effect". The authors are requested to discuss whether this short experience time might cause bias in the learning effect feedback presented in Table 10.
4. The titles of the two tables in lines 158 and 165 are identical, both labeled "Table 7/8. Attractiveness elements percentages". However, lines 160–162 clearly state that the second table is intended to show feedback on "interface ease of use and difficulty". Please correct the title of Table 8 and verify whether the percentage data in Table 8 (e.g., "Being able to watch 21%") mistakenly replicates the data from Table 7, as the content appears entirely identical.
5. In Table 9, 39% of participants reported "Dizziness, Watery eyes, Visual problems, and Spatial problems". Considering that the high-performance HTC Vive Pro 2 was used as mentioned in Table 2, the authors should further discuss the potential reasons for such a high percentage of discomfort. Is it due to insufficient software optimization (low frame rates), issues with students' adaptation to VR for the first time, or the influence of laboratory ambient lighting?
6. Table 10 shows that 36% of students believe the lab makes it "easier to understand visual and spatial concepts". However, this conclusion is based entirely on the students' subjective perception (Item 7). To enhance the scientific rigor of the conclusion, it is suggested that the authors acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion section, such as the lack of objective assessment (e.g., comparing test scores between experimental and control groups).
7. In lines 208–210, the authors conclude that software such as Civil 3D and Flight simulator are "not as viable for both academic and industrial use". The text does not provide feedback data or evaluation criteria to support this specific conclusion; please clarify the basis for determining that these specific software packages are "not viable."
8. There is a spelling error in "Figura 4", which should be "Figure 4". Please carefully check the grammar and text throughout the manuscript for similar issues.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to review our work. We have attached a document with our response to your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
The article describes the design and implementation of an immersive virtual reality laboratory at a university, designed for teaching students from various fields, including engineering, medicine, and architecture. Studies involving students have shown that the laboratory increases motivation to learn and facilitates an understanding of spatial and visual concepts. Some users experienced short-term discomfort, such as dizziness. Based on their research, the authors conclude that immersive virtual reality has high educational potential and can effectively complement traditional forms of academic education.

The subject of the authors’ research is timely and aligns with the dynamic development of immersive virtual reality as a didactic tool in higher education. The studies address the real needs of universities related to interdisciplinary teaching, practical simulations, and increasing student engagement through modern technologies. 

The work contributes new knowledge mainly in the area of practical design and organizational guidelines for universities planning similar laboratories, although its theoretical contribution does not introduce new knowledge.

A weak point of the article is its experimental section and the way it is presented for analysis.

1. The applied empirical research methodology is insufficient to confirm the declared conclusions.

2. The small sample size and the lack of a control group limit the possibility of generalizing the results and formulating firm causal conclusions.

3. The analysis of the obtained results is typically descriptive and based on subjective student questionnaires, without objective measures of learning outcomes.

4. There is no statistical analysis beyond percentage shares of individual categories.

5. The work provides a limited theoretical contribution, as it essentially confirms conclusions already present in the literature on educational applications of immersive virtual reality.

In its current form, the article requires significant revisions.
The methodological section should be strengthened by clearly defining the research objectives.
The research samples should be expanded, and quantitative measures should be applied to support the described findings.

I hope that my comments will enable you to improve your publication.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and for taking the time to review our work. We have attached a document with our response to your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still think this work is a survey article rather than a scientific research paper

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you again for your kind comments. We are responding to your comments regarding the proposed article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully and thoroughly revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments and have provided reasonable explanations for all queries raised. I believe the authors have fully addressed all issues identified during the initial review. The quality of the article has been significantly improved, and it now meets the publication standards of your journal. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript for acceptance without further revision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you again for your kind comments and valuable contributions to our future work.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I appreciate the enormous amount of work you have put into launching this laboratory. Unfortunately, your responses to the issues I have raised are unsatisfactory. Moreover, your responses confirm my belief that my comments are justified.

Your work is an excellent application project involving the implementation of the laboratory. Unfortunately, the research and results presented in the article lack scientific validity. Here, I refer you to the content of my first review.

To sum up. If this were an assessment of an application article, your article would be excellent. However, as far as the evaluation of a scientific article is concerned, it unfortunately requires many improvements in terms of experiment preparation and analysis.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you again for your kind comments. We are responding to your comments regarding the proposed article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I accept the article in its current form.

Best regards