Metaversity: Beyond Emerging Educational Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Evaluation:

Overall, your research paper addresses an important and emerging topic in education technology. With some minor improvements in clarity, organization, and depth of analysis, it has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the field.

*The font style does not conform to the journal format.

*Keywords should not duplicate words from the title.

*Keywords should be expanded.

*"The references should be thoroughly reviewed. For example, references 50, 53, and 54."

Title and Abstract:

"The title is Appropriate.

"Ensure that the abstract follows a logical structure. 

Introduction:

While the introduction touches on various aspects related to the impact of the pandemic on education and the potential role of technology, it could benefit from a clearer structure. You might want to create subsections for topics like "Challenges of Emergency Remote Education," "Positive Aspects of Technological Integration," and "The Role of Extended Reality and the Metaverse."

Furthermore, the limited number of references in the introduction section is also noticeable.

Materials and methods:

The section is well-organized with clear subheadings and explanations. It provides a comprehensive overview of the concepts and technologies related to the metaverse and metaversity."

Results:

While you've provided an overview of the research conducted by other authors related to the metaverse and education, it's essential to delve deeper into the findings and implications of these studies. Discussing how these findings relate to your research or the gaps you're addressing could provide more context.

Discussion:

Some sentences are quite long and complex. Break them down into shorter, more manageable sentences to improve readability. Additionally, aim for clarity in your explanations to ensure that the reader easily grasps your points.

Overall, your discussion is comprehensive and offers valuable insights into the metaverse's role in higher education. By addressing the above points, you can enhance the clarity, depth, and coherence of your discussion section.

Conclusion:

While the "Conclusions" section typically focuses on the positive aspects of the study, it's essential to acknowledge any limitations in your research. Mention any constraints or potential biases that could have influenced the findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to review an original article draft entitled "Metaversity: Beyond Emerging Educational Technology". It is a timely topic and a catchy title, however, the article has a number of drawbacks and requires serious revisions.

1. The abstract should contain clear information about the research problem, objectives, methodologies, findings and implications. The current version of the abstract seems vague and uninformative from an academic point of view. 

2. To enhance the introduction, I would recommend: 

Glebova, E.; López-Carril, S. ‘Zero Gravity’: Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Professional Intentions and Career Pathway Vision of Sport Management Students. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 807. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080807

3. (55-62) Research questions are formulated more like objectives, but not questions. It should be shaped better both stylistically and meaningfully. The idea is good, but it must be polished.

4. A review of the Theoretical basis looks very much like a "copy-paste", however, it should contain an information synthesis from different reliable sources. 

5. Methodology is my main concern. It seems to be a review article... or conceptual analysis? Please refer to the methodological literature and explain in detail all stages and material of this study, this is compulsory for academic articles

6. The weakness of a stable theoretical basis harms the discussion, it should be enhanced and sound more convincing and argumentative. 

7. The conclusion looks too general, it should rewritten in the spirit of "so what" and indicate academically sound findings 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading the article very much because, besides being relevant to the mission of the journal, I consider it very pertinent for being a study that contributes to the knowledge of the use of the so-called metaverse in the University, allowing the knowledge of the gaps present in the learning ecosystems.

The summary of the article is adequate and briefly explains the content of the study. 

The keywords are adequate.

The theme of the article "Metaversity: Beyond Emerging Educational Technology" corresponds to the content of the document.

The document is well structured, facilitating the understanding of the study. The theoretical background is based on the research questions that are not presented. Current and novel bibliography is provided in relation to the study problem and the stated objective.

Method: the methodology used based on the search for information in three main education databases (Wos, Scopus and Scielo) is adequate. However, the authors should make explicit the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the documents analysed. Authors should also make explicit the guiding questions (RQ).

Results: This reviewer considers that the results shown in terms of the study problem are relevant and adequately presented.

I consider that the author should comment on the possible lines of research opened up by his study, as well as the imitations presented by the study carried out.

In short, I consider that this is a good work that will contribute to the advancement of knowledge on the use of the so-called metaverse in the University.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the engaging manuscript. Undoubtedly, the cognitive problem addressed is significant. However, the abstract lacks a clearly defined aim of the article and 1-2 sentences summarizing the findings. In the text, the mention of the Covid-19 pandemic arises in the context of virus nomenclature. Wouldn't it be better to specifically refer to SARS-CoV-2 regarding the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic?

The introduction is quite brief. Insufficient research background and problem statement have been provided. It would be worthwhile to emphasize the cognitive gap, especially since a Review of Theoretical Bases has been conducted. This aspect is certainly missing here and needs to be addressed. In the figures presented in section 2, the author's discussion and comparison of different approaches are absent. The figures are placed within the text without a proper integration of various viewpoints on the concept of metaverse from the literature.

Section 2 is undeniably too generalized. Section 3 does not fulfill the role of a materials and methods section. Not much can be inferred from it in relation to the conducted study. It cannot be accepted in its current form. Section 3 is comparatively better, but similar to the previous point, figure 4 lacks proper commentary.

In subsections 4.3, references to relevant literature are missing. The discussion is insightful, and the conclusions are interesting. After refining the earlier sections, it would be beneficial to substantiate the manuscript with a more precise discussion, based on a broader literature review. The limitations need to be clearly outlined, and potential directions for future research should be highlighted, if formulated.

In summary, the text shows promise, but it remains too vague, inadequately commented upon, and lacks substantial reference to the literature. Furthermore, without a detailed description of the materials and methods section, the methodological value of this article cannot be assessed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

Thank you for your careful revisions. I think it publishes in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing my comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

After the authors made revisions to the article, it is evident that the quality of the content has significantly improved.