Participatory Detection of Language Barriers towards Multilingual Sustainability(ies) in Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Litre et al.

The authors unpack an interesting issue: language barriers that might impede progress towards reaching sustainability goals in Africa, although their argument is broader. A strength of this article is that it integrates views from many different disciplines including psychology, artificial intelligence, anthropology, and ergonomics. I enjoyed reading it and think that it a nice piece on the role of language on achieving sustainability goals. My particular expertise is on foreign language effects and therefore I limit my comments on this topic. I provide all relevant references in full at the end of each section.

1. Main comments

1A. The authors claim in various places that foreign language reduces moral engagement.

This claim is too sweeping. The studies show that the use of a foreign language can alter moral judgment by attenuating socio-cultural norms (e.g., Geipel et al., 2015a) and/or by reducing emotions (see Hayakawa et al., 2017). However, not all studies suggest that using a foreign language reduces moral engagement and indeed several suggest the opposite.

Most studies used sacrificial dilemmas (e.g., would you kill one to save 5?) that pit a deontological action (you should not violate the rights of an individual) with a utilitarian action (you should do what’s best for the majority). These studies showed that the use of a foreign language promotes utilitarian moral judgments, which in this context have been associated with System 1, analytic reasoning, rather than System 2, intuitive/emotional reasoning (see Joshua Green’s dual process theory for moral judgment, e.g., Greene, 2014). I am not sure that increased utilitarian judgment is synonymous with reduced moral engagement.

Other studies used vignettes that involve different types of violations such as purity violations (e.g., cutting one’s national flag into small pieces and using the pieces to clean the house, eating one’s dog after the dog was killed in an accident; Geipel et al., 2015b). These studies found that presenting the vignettes in a foreign language increased the permissibility of these actions. According to several theorists (e.g., Haidt, 2001) the condemnation of such actions are due to System 1, intuitive processes, and so these results suggest that foreign language use promotes less intuitive moral judgments.

Geipel et al. (2015b) also examined more common violations such as “Cut in line when in a hurry” and “Sell someone a defective car” and found that foreign language use increased judgments of moral permissibility for such actions. One way to interpret such findings is that the use of a foreign language distances people from sociocultural-moral norms perhaps because such norms were learnt in a linguistic context where the native language was spoken, and thus a native language prompts them more forcefully. A study that agrees with this perspective is research showing that both good-luck and bad-luck superstitions have reduced influence when situations involving bad-luck or good-luck elements are presented in a foreign language (Hadjichristidis et al., 2019). Just like moral norms are learnt in a linguistic environment where the native language is spoken, so are superstitious beliefs and behaviors.

Still other studies (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, 2021) used vignettes that pit an action that promotes self-profit (e.g., fail to deliver recommendation for rival, thus winning fellowship) to an ethical action (e.g., deliver the recommendation for the rival). These studies found that the use of a foreign language increased actions associated with self-profit. The authors suggest that this happens because making the right choice is associated with emotional moral signals triggered by the story. The idea is that the mere processing of information in a foreign language also triggers emotional signals – people are agitated when they have to read text in a foreign language – and as a consequence the emotional signals related to the ethicality of an action are lost/ blunted. Thus, participants receiving information in a foreign language follow less their intuitive moral compass. These results and interpretation fit quite well with the idea that foreign language use prompts reduced moral engagement.

Besides studies on moral judgment, there are also some behavioral studies on honesty. For example, some studies used tasks that allowed participants to gain more money by lying (e.g., they rolled a die and would get some reward based on what they rolled; participants rolled the die in private which gave them the opportunity to lie to receive more money). Bereby-Mayer and colleagues (2020) found that participants were overall more honest at reporting the outcome when the game was played in a foreign language, hence the title of their work “Honesty speaks a second language”. Alempaki and colleagues found similar results (foreign language use increased honesty for late Chinese-English bilinguals but had no impact for late German-English bilinguals) and had a more nuanced view: foreign language increases honesty when the culture associated with the foreign language is perceived to be more honest than the language associated with the native language. For more data and a still different view, see also Gai and Puntoni (2021).  In general, these results go against the idea that foreign language use reduces moral engagement.           

Solution: The authors could discuss some of this research and suggest that foreign language alters moral judgment and therefore it might affect behavior towards achieving sustainability goals (in place of the more specific/ directional claim that using a foreign language reduces moral engagement).

References

Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015a). The foreign language effect on moral judgment: The role of emotions and norms. PLoS ONE, 10(7). Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131529

Hayakawa, S., Tannenbaum, D., Costa, A., Corey, J. D., & Keysar, B. (2017). Thinking more or feeling less? Explaining the foreign-language effect on moral judgment. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1387–1397. Doi: 10.1177/0956797617720944

Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Surian, L. (2015b). How foreign language shapes moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 8–17. Doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.001

Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (Neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics, 124(4), 695–726. doi: 10.1086/675875.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. Doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

Hadjichristidis, C., Geipel, J., & Surian, L. (2019). Breaking magic: Foreign language suppresses superstition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 18–28. Doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1371780

Caldwell-Harris, C. L., & Ayçiçeği-Dinn, A. (2021). When using the native language leads to more ethical choices: Integrating ratings and electrodermal monitoring. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 36(7), 885–901. Doi: 10.1080/23273798.2020.1818266

Bereby, M. Y., Hayakawa, S., Shalvi, S., Corey, J. D., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2020). Honesty speaks a second language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(2), 632–643. Doi: 10.1111/tops.12360

Alempaki, D., Doğan, G. & Yang, Y. (2021). Lying in a foreign language? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 185, 946-961. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.10.027

Gai, P. J., & Puntoni, S. (2021). Language and Consumer Dishonesty: A Self-Diagnosticity Theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(2), 333–351. Doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucab001

1B. Foreign language use and risk perception.

In page 6, “3. What we Know”, first paragraph, the authors state that the use of foreign language reduces risk perception and cite several works. However, the only research that I am aware of that directly examined this claim directly is research by Hadjichristidis et al. (2015) and a very recent study by Geipel et al. (2022). Geipel et al. (2022) examined COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Hong-Kong participants and found increased willingness to vaccinate when the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination were described in a foreign language – English – than in their native language, Chinese.

References

Hadjichristidis, C., Geipel, J., & Savadori, L. (2015). The effect of foreign language in judgments of risk and benefit: The role of affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 21(2), 117–129. doi: 10.1037/xap0000044

Geipel, J., Grant, L. H., & Keysar, B. (2022). Use of a language intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 253. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04249-w

Solution: The authors could revise this section.

2. Minor comments.

->Page 2, line 62. “For example, it would allow exploring…; the embedded stereotypes and biases about what sustainability **is?**…”

->Page 3, line 86. “and political debates**,** by bringing…”

I suggest dropping the comma.

->Page 4. The authors discuss the issue of informing illiterate people. I guess that for these people information should be conveyed orally. There is a recent study showing that people perceive novel technologies as less risky / more beneficial when they hear about their advantages and disadvantages than when the read about them. Since this paper is about language barriers, the authors may wish to briefly state that the modality in which information is conveyed – orally or via printed text – could also affect judgment, decision and behavior.

Reference

Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., Savadori, L., & Keysar, B. (2022). Language modality influences risk perception: Innovations read well but sound even better. Risk Analysis. Doi: 10.1111/risa.13917

->Page 5, line 20. I could not find the reference for Thorsby & Petetskaya (2016) in the reference section.

->Page 7, second paragraph, last sentence, “It impacts on our inferences, respect of norms (REF1), honesty (REF2), and …..

Here some suggestions for additional references:

REF1

Bond, M. H., & Tat-Ming Lai. (1986). Journal of Social Psychology, 126(2), 179.

REF2

Alempaki, D., Doğan, G. & Yang, Y. (2021). Lying in a foreign language? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 185, 946-961. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.10.027

Bereby, M. Y., Hayakawa, S., Shalvi, S., Corey, J. D., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2020). Honesty speaks a second language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(2), 632–643. Doi: 10.1111/tops.12360

Gai, P. J., & Puntoni, S. (2021). Language and Consumer Dishonesty: A Self-Diagnosticity Theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(2), 333–351. Doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucab001

->Page 10, Discussion. The whole discussion is heavily based on NLP -- I suggest providing a more comprehensive coverage of the topics.

Author Response

June 16^th, 2022

Dear Reviewer 1,

First, we would like to thank you immensely for your detailed and constructive comments on the foreign language effect, which contributed greatly to improve our review paper. We re-structured our manuscript to better attend your suggestions and to incorporate the timely and updated literature that you recommended. Our answers to the main points you raised are in italics.

1. Main comments

1A. The authors claim in various places that foreign language reduces moral engagement.

This claim is too sweeping. The studies show that the use of a foreign language can alter moral judgment by attenuating socio-cultural norms (e.g., Geipel et al., 2015a) and/or by reducing emotions (see Hayakawa et al., 2017). However, not all studies suggest that using a foreign language reduces moral engagement and indeed several suggest the opposite.

Solution: The authors could discuss some of this research and suggest that foreign language alters moral judgment and therefore it might affect behavior towards achieving sustainability goals (in place of the more specific/ directional claim that using a foreign language reduces moral engagement).

What we did: We nuanced our affirmation about the foreign language effect on foreign languages (using “alters” instead of “reduces”) and cited diverging research results on the topic, offering alternative explanations for them. We also used many of your comments to update our section ‘Literature Review – What we know’ (and we wish we knew your name to cite your work on the foreign language effect directly!)

1B. Foreign language use and risk perception.

In page 6, “3. What we Know”, first paragraph, the authors state that the use of foreign language reduces risk perception and cite several works. However, the only research that I am aware of that directly examined this claim directly is research by Hadjichristidis et al. (2015) and a very recent study by Geipel et al. (2022). Geipel et al. (2022) examined COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Hong-Kong participants and found increased willingness to vaccinate when the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination were described in a foreign language – English – than in their native language, Chinese. Solution: The authors could revise this section.

What we did: We revised this section to better explain that diminished risk perceptions can have both positive and negative effects on sustainability decision-making (positive in the case of reducing vaccine hesitancy and in reducing the aversion to new technologies, and negative in the cases of climate change, when perceiving climate change as less risky can lead to inaction to combat it). Additionally, we followed your suggestion of citing the recent work of Geipel et al. (2022) and added the citation of Multilingua's Special Issue (39/5 of 2020: "Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic".

On dishonesty and the capacity to lie, we added the following references, as suggested:

• Alempaki, D., Doğan, G. & Yang, Y. (2021). Lying in a foreign language? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 185, 946-961. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2020.10.027
• Bereby, M. Y., Hayakawa, S., Shalvi, S., Corey, J. D., Costa, A., & Keysar, B. (2020). Honesty speaks a second language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(2), 632–643. Doi: 10.1111/tops.12360
• Gai, P. J., & Puntoni, S. (2021). Language and Consumer Dishonesty: A Self-Diagnosticity Theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(2), 333–351. Doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucab001 

2. Minor comments.

->Page 2, line 62. “For example, it would allow exploring…; the embedded stereotypes and biases about what sustainability **is?**…”

->Page 3, line 86. “and political debates**,** by bringing…”

I suggest dropping the comma.

What we did: edits done. We also revised the whole manuscript’s grammar and style.

->Page 4. The authors discuss the issue of informing illiterate people. I guess that for these people information should be conveyed orally. There is a recent study showing that people perceive novel technologies as less risky / more beneficial when they hear about their advantages and disadvantages than when the read about them. Since this paper is about language barriers, the authors may wish to briefly state that the modality in which information is conveyed – orally or via printed text – could also affect judgment, decision and behavior.

What we did: great suggestion! We used the issue of orality in different sections of the text and even mentioned (citing a reference) the experience of the GNCode, which creates corpora for NLP using radio archives (since the languages they explore, like Poular in Guinea, are mostly oral).

Reference

Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., Savadori, L., & Keysar, B. (2022). Language modality influences risk perception: Innovations read well but sound even better. Risk Analysis. Doi: 10.1111/risa.13917

What we did: Reference added.

->Page 5, line 20. I could not find the reference for Thorsby & Petetskaya (2016) in the reference section.

What we did: Reference deleted (no longer needed).

->Page 7, second paragraph, last sentence, “It impacts on our inferences, respect of norms (REF1), honesty (REF2), and …..

What we did: we included the references, even if distributed along the manuscript (which was completely rewritten).

->Page 10, Discussion. The whole discussion is heavily based on NLP -- I suggest providing a more comprehensive coverage of the topics.

What we did: We provided a more comprehensive coverage of NLP related topics, better explaining, for instance, what NLP is, as well as defining what ‘low resource languages’ are and its relation to NLP. We also discussed in more detail what embedded biases in NLP models are, and how they can be detected and tackled. We did our best to avoid jargon to keep the issue accessible to a wider audience.

Thank you once again for your enriching comments and the precious literature you shared with us.

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is quite commendable, as far as its topic and its 'ideal' aim. 

However, the methodology and the approach applied by the Authors are quite 'awkward' and, actually, weak (even 'inexistent'), in themselves. 

Is this really meant to produce any significant result? 

Or is it just to write and publish a paper? 

An article like this, focused on a very relevant issue, which has difficult, when not impossible, solution, should produce / highlight a very 'applied' approach, taking into account the real world and all the connected limitations, and producing something very effective, and truly original, to be accepted as a 'plan' / 'proposal', rather than a simple 'paper'. 

That said, the writing of the article is not bad, the English language is almost always up to standards, although, here and there, a careful reader can spot some 'falls of style'. 

Sections 1 and 2 are ok, as an Introduction (and a little more), quite comprehensive. However, from here already, the reader has the uncomfortable impression that this paper talks about everything and nothing at the same time (look at all the disciplines mentioned together, which can be associated with each other, surely, but also no - then, some disciplines are very solid and quite 'targeted', while others, like Sociolinguistics, are already, in themselves, about everything and nothing at the same time); the Authors put together a cauldron of mixed stuff, which, in the end, results quite unconvincing. 

There is also an entire paragraph / small section repeated twice, and several repetions and redundancies are evident here and there, over the pages. 

Sections 3 and 4 are relatively ok, quite interesting. 

The problem, at the level of format, is that they are quite confused and/or confusionary. 

It would be better, for the sake of readability, to have an Introduction in itself, which is only an introduction (comprehensive and well explained), and a solid literature review (in a dedicated section entitled "Literature Review"), with all the works used for and cited in this paper, briefly analyzed and commented, to provide the readers with a very clear and quite 'tidy' outline of the current panorama of studies and relevant documents. In its current 'shape', the literature review is scattered here and there, over the paper, and that is not properly up to academic standards. 

Before section 5, Discussion, a clearer / more schematic section listing the Results or Findings or Highlights of the study / analysis should be provided - it might be a sort of 'summary' of 'what above', or a 'reasoned analysis' of the main issues which, then, will be discussed (indeed) in the Discussion section. 

This would definitely make the paper more consistent and also easier to be 'digested', even by a non-specialized audience. 

The Discussion in itself is too short - the paper seems 'cut' after section 4, like if the Authors were in rush to 'close' it. Indeed, besides the needed 'Results section', the discussion has to be enhanced and expanded significantly, to be accepted as a true discussion on such important issues (and their possible solutions / analyses). 

Moreover, this paper has not a Conclusion, and that is very bizarre, in an academic publication. I mean, the Authors write, in the end of the Discussion, "To conclude [...]", but why not to conclude with a proper Conclusion, which is the most normal thing, in an academic article? The Conclusion should summarize issues, findings, and proposals of the paper and highlight further the value of the paper itself in its panorama of studies. To tell the truth, it seems that section 5, Discussion, is 'treated' by the Authors as the Conclusion of the paper, and that is, simply, inappropriate. 

All in all, the paper is terrific, in its topic, but shows a lot of flaws, especially at the level of format, and is, sadly, quite 'empty'. 

After a robust re-writing, at the level of format, and a really strong enhancement, at the level of contents and ideas, it could definitely be reconsidered. 

Thank you very much. 

Author Response

June 17^th, 2022

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your comments regarding our article on participatory NLP to detect and address language barriers towards multilingual sustainability(ies) in Africa. We have taken careful consideration of all your remarks and have, accordingly, re-written and re-structured the whole manuscript.

We were especially happy to see that you consider our proposed theme ‘a very relevant and terrific issue’ and we share your concerns that the foreign language effects on sustainability policy implementation in Africa ‘has difficult, when not impossible, solution’. We discuss this challenge in our completely rewritten Discussion and we conclude (in our new Conclusion) that this difficulty should not deter the world from trying.

In that regard, we propose some ideas for change, including the need to seriously consider alternative epistemologies and African social representations about sustainability when designing the post 2030 global agendas. We also suggest (and we believe this is the main ‘novelty’ of our article) that participatory, grassroot, African-led natural language processing can be vital to overcome language barriers to sustainable transformations.

Regarding your suggestion that the challenge of language barriers should ‘produce / highlight a very 'applied' approach, taking into account the real world and all the connected limitations, and producing something very effective, and truly original, to be accepted as a 'plan' / 'proposal', rather than a simple 'paper', we have re-discussed our proposal about the use of participatory NLP in more detail. We hope this will contribute to showing the feasibility (and the limitations) of using participatory NLP as an instrument to close the digital gap through meaningful artificial intelligence use.

Regarding the 'falls of style' that you have detected in our manuscript, we thank you again for your timely remark and confirm that we have revised the English style in the whole manuscript.

You also mention that after sections 1 and 2, ‘the reader has the uncomfortable impression that this paper talks about everything and nothing at the same time (look at all the disciplines mentioned together, which can be associated with each other, surely, but also no - then, some disciplines are very solid and quite 'targeted', while others, like Sociolinguistics, are already, in themselves, about everything and nothing at the same time); the Authors put together a cauldron of mixed stuff, which, in the end, results quite unconvincing.’, we tried to better explain why interdisciplinary and transdisciplinarity approaches are necessary to address complex, wicked problems such as global unsustainability.  

We need to humbly disagree with your remark that Sociolinguistics is a discipline dealing ‘with everything and nothing at the same time’. We believe, to the contrary, that Sociolinguistics has much potential to tackle serious risk communication challenges in multilingual regions, including the ones related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Global South. Sociolinguistics can contribute to effective humanitarian and risk communication by including local knowledges and grassroots practices not only as objects of investigation but in its epistemologies. Sociolinguistics is currently diversifying its knowledge base and the academic voices producing that knowledge base; and seeks to re-enter dialogue with policy makers and activists. In case this is of interest, we cite a special issue on the role of Sociolingustics during the COVID-19 pandemic (none of us were involved, directly or indirectly, with this publication): Piller, Ingrid, Zhang, Jie and Li, Jia. "Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic" Multilingua, vol. 39, no. 5, 2020, pp. 503-515. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1515/multi-2020-0136

We have corrected the repeated paragraph / small section repeated twice, and corrected redundancies. 

We carefully followed your recommendations to radically improve the structure of our review article, and re-wrote the Introduction, revised and re-organised the Literature Review (which had been included under the section title ‘What we know’) and rewrote the Discussion, also adding a Conclusion.

We hope that after this robust re-writing, at the level of format, and a strong enhancement, at the level of contents and ideas, our review article has been substantially improved.

Thank you very much. 

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper tackles an important problem, the global Norths dominance in setting and implementing sustainability goals, from an unjustifiably ignored perspective, the use of "global languages" instead of local ones in Africa. The merit of this paper lays in calling our attention to the practices of connecting sustainability efforts and projects in Africa to global colonial languages such as English or French and thus missing the African understandings and insights as well as not reaching the general public in Africa beyond the colonially educated elite. 

The paper, in essayistic style, discusses a sociolinguistic and a language political topic, but remains somewhat naive and outdated in these fields. On the one hand, the references to language policy appear old, such as Kaplan & Baldauf, 2001. Instead I would begin consulting with sources such as Spolsky 2021 Rethinking language policy. On the other hand some important sources are missing, such as discussing Covid-19 from a language perspective without Multilingua's Special Issue (39/5): "Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic" appears very superficial. In addition, the terms "Global language" and "foreign language" are not defined, or connected to previous research literature in any way. Such a discussion would improve the quality of the argument a great deal.

Author Response

June 14^th, 2022

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your very constructive and timely comments on our review article about participatory NLP detection of language barriers to sustainability in Africa.

As you said, our review article seeks ‘to tackle the issue of the global Norths dominance in setting and implementing sustainability goals, from an unjustifiably ignored perspective, the use of "global languages" instead of local ones in Africa.’

We are happy to learn that you consider that the merit of our paper ‘lays in calling our attention to the practices of connecting sustainability efforts and projects in Africa to global colonial languages such as English or French and thus missing the African understandings and insights as well as not reaching the general public in Africa beyond the colonially educated elite.’. It is our goal to raise international attention about this hidden challenge.

Regarding your suggestion to include new references on sociolinguistic and policies, we consulted the fascinating book of Spolsky 2021’ Rethinking language policy’ that you recommended, and we cited Spolky’s enlightening comments regarding the need to take culture and the environment into account when designing language policies.

We have cited and discussed, as you also suggested, the Multilingua's Special Issue (39/5), ‘Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic’. We were especillay interested in the article by Piller, Ingrid, Zhang, Jie and Li, Jia ("Linguistic diversity in a time of crisis: Language challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic" Multilingua, vol. 39, no. 5, 2020, pp. 503-515. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1515/multi-2020-0136) showcasing that Sociolinguistics has much potential to tackle serious risk communication challenges in multilingual regions, including the ones related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Global South. We cited their conclusion that Sociolinguistics can contribute to effective humanitarian and risk communication by including local knowledges and grassroots practices not only as objects of investigation but in its epistemologies and agree with the authors’ statement that Sociolinguistics needs to diversify its knowledge base and the academic voices producing that knowledge base, while seeking to re-enter dialogue with policy makers and activists.  

Regarding our COVID-19 communication discussion in multilingual environments, we also cited a very recent publication by very recent study by Geipel et al. (2022). Geipel et al. (2022) examined COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Hong-Kong participants and found increased willingness to vaccinate when the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination were described in a foreign language – English – than in their native language, Chinese (Geipel, J., Grant, L. H., & Keysar, B. (2022). Use of a language intervention to reduce vaccine hesitancy. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 253. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-04249-w

Finally, we have defined the concepts of ‘global’ and ‘foreign’ languages, as well as ‘low resource languages’.

We thank you once again for your constructive review.

The authors.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors did a lot of work, and the paper has been noticeably improved. 

  In itself, it is quite significant, more significant than a lot of stuff I have to read and review. 

  Therefore, after these enhancements, the article can be considered for publication. 

  Possibly, a follow-up, in due time, might be appropriate and useful. 

  Thank you very much. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the paper can be accepted now