Digital Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Arabic Textbooks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This study used qualitative and quantitative methodologies to analyze a collection of Arabic textbooks using Edumeres Toolbox. It is required to organize the approach, the stages, and the intended outcomes into a process flow diagram or flowchart in order to make the research purpose clearly understood. As a result, the reviewer advises the authors/writers to include the flowchart and outline the approach and stages employed in the research.

2. It is required to gather test data (Arabic words that will be utilized to be analyzed or tested) from previous research or a variety of sources/organizations that study Arabic language before performing the analysis. The reviewer advises the authors/writers to gather the test data into a table, and also include its sources.

3. It is better to convert the screenshot into a table so that the results. The reviewer advises the authors/writers to compile the findings into a table.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you for your time used in reading our paper and in giving your precious insights. All changes were entered in revision mode

Point 1

This study used qualitative and quantitative methodologies to analyze a collection of Arabic textbooks using Edumeres Toolbox. It is required to organize the approach, the stages, and the intended outcomes into a process flow diagram or flowchart in order to make the research purpose clearly understood. As a result, the reviewer advises the authors/writers to include the flowchart and outline the approach and stages employed in the research.

Response 1

We add in the paper the architecture of the system, the main functionalities, and a process flow diagram to make the research purpose clearly understood.

Point 2

It is required to gather test data (Arabic words that will be utilized to be analyzed or tested) from previous research or a variety of sources/organizations that study Arabic language before performing the analysis. The reviewer advises the authors/writers to gather the test data into a table, and also include its sources.

 

Response 2

We improve explain the case study workflow

Point 3

t is better to convert the screenshot into a table so that the results. The reviewer advises the authors/writers to compile the findings into a table.

Response 3

In the system, all results are extractable in excel and researchers can also use them for other manipulations and graphs. For the paper we did not do this in order to enhance the data visualization part of the system and because in general when you have a massive analysis of a quantity of data this allows the researcher to do further research. What is presented here is only a pilot case that actually allowed us to demonstrate how we can customize a DH system and how it can be developed to meet the needs of researchers.

We will consider for a future paper a more focused analysis of the case studies as this suggestion has shown us.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has two parts with very few connections between them. The first three sections present a very general description of Digital Humanities topics; the next section introduces Edumeres and then the fifth section is, what I consider, the core of the paper. There is nothing new in the first part of the paper, but the case study is useful indeed to publicize Edumeres. Edumeres has been described in detail in other papers; being a  rich  toolset for the Digital Humanities more researchers need to be aware of its functionalities. I recommend that the first part be shortened and made relevant (discuss other research tools and how they compare to Edumeres) to what is presented in the second part. The second part should be expanded. I have given detailed recommendations in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for addressing all the suggestions. The suggestions have been addressed for this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

this paper is now ready for publication. In particular, I like what the authors did with section 4.