Empirical Research on the Metaverse User Experience of Digital Natives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title - please replace them in the way to reflect the article ideas and not just be redundant
- The abstract should reflect briefly (in very short - very concise and very conclusive) the gap in existing research and the innovative approach brought by this paper. “For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work... The abstract should be an objective representation of the article...” – please aligned with the requirements of the journal’s template (the information introduced in abstract is valuable, but some of it needs to be reformulated)
- Please specify the source of each figure and each table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other sources, if it’s the case). Besides this, the quality of some images (e.g. Figure 1, Figure 4 and so on) is really poor - please fix this problem
- In order not to abound with abbreviations and explanations between brackets in abstract or in article’s body, I recommend (is not a must) placing the explanation of all / each character(s) or abbreviation(s) (e.g. for each parameter, attribute and so on, like MW, EVW, UX, ROBLOX, accompanied by a few explanatory words…) in appendix, at the end of the article. The article must be easy to understand, both for specialists and for those less familiar with the subject. Please check the consistency and accuracy of each of them, both in the text and in the figures / tables.
- The section of introduction should include (even briefly at the end of the chapter): the context of the study, which are the main results presented in short, which is the originality of this paper, the main implication policy of these results and a description of the structure of the paper, detailing the role of each section of the paper. Some of them are missing - please fill it accordingly
- The “Theoretical / Literature Review” should include in more detail the gap in existing literature (by reference to the objectives of the research) and the innovative aspects brought by this paper (analysis for existing literature and the novelty and originality brought by this paper should be highlighted) - please detail the gaps in the existing literature (partially done) and state more clearly / more explicitly the manner in which the article addresses these gaps
- The hypothesis / hypotheses should be more specific (e.g. hypothesis1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the beginning of Materials and Methods chapter or at the end of Theoretical / Literature Review) and should reflect statement/s validated or invalidated by the research in Results and Discussions chapter
- - The Methodology needs to be detailed more clearly / more explicitly – „The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited” – please aligned with the requirements of the journal’s template. Besides this, I looked for additional materials at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/xx, but the message is "Error 404 - File not found" - please solve this problem
- Please detail the methodology in terms of choosing specific metaverse providing companies for analysis, certain metaverse services and research methods used for reaching the objectives of the research. Please explain which individuals are used for testing and how the testing occurred – both in terms of using the metaverse services and discussions with the users (qualitative research). Please explain the usefulness of timing for performing certain actions in the metaverse and relevance of time for actions.
- I recommend that the "concrete" proposals with "practical" applicability and if possible... "measurable" be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection at the end of the Discussion area). Actually, it would be interesting if the study would present some aspects more clearly related to the practical application of the study (examples) and its results (where could be applied, how could be applied and so on). Thus, please detail further the interpretation of the data analysis performed and its implications by reference to the scope of the research.
- I appreciate if you’ll bring up the (or some) limitations of the study and (as clearly as possible) future directions of evolution / research
- Some of the References (not so many) are not filled correctly, in accordance with the publication's requests - please fix the issue
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
On behalf of the authors, we thank you for these detailed corrections and constructive suggestions.
We will accurately complement the 12 feedbacks you have made in this metaverse usability evaluation research manuscript. It is expected that through this, we will be able to discuss the implications of the research results with more readers in the future. (All the details of responses are attached)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with interesting problems concerning the use of the metaverse by digital natives. Since the investigations are designed and implemented thoroughly, the paper should be published. However, a more concise diction is recommended to clarify the assertions and conclusions.
Some typos and hints
Line Hint
3 Native->Natives
6 @gamil->@gmail
16 he->the
31 growning->growing
56 standadized->standardized
97 oriendted->oriented
113 They->they
177 could be seemed->could be considered
183 is complied with->complies with
188 to the made evaluation made by experts->to the evaluation made by experts
197 improve image quality of Figure 1
220 of mobile->of mobiles / mobile devices
235 Table 1: increase clarity of layout
288 listening to ASMR->please explain ASMR (Accelerating seismic moment release, American Society of Mining and Reclamation, surely not!)
299 MBTI->please explain (Myers-Briggs type indicator, surely not)
334 conudcted->conducted
386 succefully->successfully
571 could be considered considered->could be considered
631 confict->conflict
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, it is an honor to meet you through the MDPI Manuscript feedback system. Thank you for such detailed corrections and constructive suggestions.
It's a great help to us for learning about the value of exploratory research on metaverse usability testing. I am also looking forward to being able to discuss the implications of the research results with more readers in the future by supplementing your suggestions.
Of course, as you said, 15 word relevance corrections, 2 English abbreviations, and 2 image and table corrections were immediately reflected. I am glad that the points you pointed out have made the paper more complete. Thank you for taking the time to review this article in detail.
In the not-too-distant future, I hope that it will be finally published in this [Sustainability] with feedback from other reviewers as well. We hope that this article will contribute to the academic field of new media, new values, and sustainability related to the extended reality.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presented empirical research on the metaverse user experience of digital native. It is an interesting study in a relevant area. The presentation is satisfactory. Revision is suggested for this paper. The authors may give more discussions and literature reviews.
Interaction context mining for actively pushing suggestions in the Metaverse is critical for enhancing the User Experience. This point could be enhanced with more discussions in the implications and suggestions subsection. For instances, combining granular computing technique with deep learning for service planning under social manufacturing contexts; mining and matching relationships from interaction contexts in a social manufacturing paradigm.
The digital twins may be an important aspect related with IA and System. The use of digital twins in industrial Metaverse could be categorized into two phases. In the system design phase, digital twin directly conducts validation and test that can quickly locate the malfunction and inefficiency reason, rule out the mistakes, and test the practicability of physical solution in execution. For instance, digital twins-based smart manufacturing system design in Industry 4.0: a review; digital twins-based remote semi-physical commissioning of flow-type smart manufacturing systems. In the system operation, how to update the online parallel controlling in the cyber model and feedback on the adjustment instructions to the physical system is a key enabling technology. For instance, digital twin-driven rapid reconfiguration of the automated manufacturing system via an open architecture model; digital twin-driven joint optimisation of packing and storage assignment in large-scale automated high-rise warehouse product-service system. This point could be enhanced with more discussions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
It is an honor to meet you through the MDPI Manuscript feedback system. First of all, thank you for these detailed corrections and constructive suggestions.
It was found that the concept, value, and utility of the digital twin you mentioned is very closely related to the metaverse ecosystem. Therefore, I and the co-author will supplement the contents that were not included in the Manuscript. As a result of searching for previous studies, there are many references that actually clarify the relationship between the metaverse and the digital twin, so the most relevant article was also cited.
In particular, it is meaningful to be able to examine in depth the possibility of applying the industrial aspect of Metaverse in terms of ‘System Design’ and ‘System Operation’ that you emphasized. Regarding the IA and System usability evaluation of Metaverse, which we verified through Delphi methodology, in actual work, we can proceed with the usability evaluation of Digital Twin in the future. Therefore, in the discussion part of the Manuscript, these conceptual implications and the possibility of industrial expansion were mentioned together. It is encouraging that this allows us to continue the richer discussion of this Manuscript we have seen with our readers.
Thanks again for your valuable correction suggestions. Finally, I hope that this journal published in [Sustainability] will contribute to the academic fields of sustainability, metaverse, digital twin, and virtual environment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The abstract of the paper is very vague and does not specify clear contributions
Also, I am missing the main discussion on why this study has been conducted and what will be its implications to the community for a sustainable environment
I advise authors to rewrite the abstract in the following format
Background 3 lines (Already written)
Problem Statement 3 lines
Proposed Solution 3 lines and
Who will get benefit from the proposed usability framework
Right now abstract is imprecise
This paper is not carefully written, figures are not cited properly. The structure of the paper is extremely poor.
Also, list the related work with comparison in section 2 for your proposed usability evaluation and other published works. This should be a new and separate section
Explain the structure of the paper.
Add future work in conclusions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, it is an honor to meet you through the MDPI Manuscript feedback system. On behalf of the authors, we thank you for these detailed corrections and constructive suggestions.
I will accurately complement the suggestions you have made with grateful interest in metaverse usability evaluation research. It is expected that through this, we will be able to discuss the implications of the research results with more readers in the future.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of the authors, we thank you for these detailed corrections and constructive suggestions.
We have improved the research questions, hypotheses, methods, and the empirical results state more clearly. Also, we’ve been supported English editing service for better Manuscript.
It is encouraging that your “Accept” decision of this Manuscript to the honorable journal Sustainability. We hope that the published revised Manuscript in [Sustainability] will contribute to the academic fields of sustainability, metaverse, digital twin, and virtual environment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Still, the abstract is not clear. For example, the authors wrote, “This paper intends to examine the suability of these major user” which major users. The abstract is not consistent. Write the abstract in one paragraph.
Also, the introduction section starts with a subsection. Figure 1 is not cited.
Presented Results only show usability evaluation without any major model contribution. What is the impact of this usability test on the real world?
Discussion should be a separate section
Also, Add a related work section
In addition, the conclusion should be written also in a single paragraph without sub-sections
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
On behalf of the authors, we thank you for these detailed corrections and constructive suggestions. The abstract was briefly summarized in one paragraph and only the main points were extracted. As you said in the first round, it has been shortened to a total of 13 lines.
Also, we’ve corrected as the introduction section starts with a subsection. The source in Figure 1 is directly indicated. In addition, 'Discussion' and 'Related Works' contents are also presented in separate sections. Here, we also specify what the impact of this usability test you mentioned on the real world is. It was revealed that there are two major contributions from the academic and practical aspects of the main model of the existing usability evaluation shown by the results of this study.
Each of this feedback will be supplemented and developed into a more complete article. Once again, we, all the authors would like to thank for taking the time to review this article in detail.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have addressed my call comments.
Add the comparison of previous works with your contribution only.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Following the comments of the reviewer, it was an opportunity to think more deeply about the contribution of this study compared to previous studies. We would appreciate your comments and suggestions.
As the value of this study, we have previously mentioned that this usability evaluation was conducted from a digital native perspective, and that empirical usability opinions were evaluated and summarized for actual services rather than prototypes.
In addition, in the detailed item evaluation, we derived the point that it would be good to inherit the good usability with the current GUI or user initiative of the universal metaverse platform. On the other hand, we also summarized practical implications that improvement is needed in information architecture and system settings usability.
In the 'Minor Revision' given this time, we added a paragraph to the 'discussion' section to provide a perspective that can comprehensively explain this, making the discourse of this study richer.
It is expected that it will be able to provide meaningful insights to the interactive world readers who encounter the Sustainability Journal. Once again, on behalf of the author, I would like to thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
