Effects of Social Robotics in Promoting Physical Activity in the Shared Workspace

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the author proposed a social robot and used it to promote physical exercise in a library environment. I believe overall the research methodology is valid and the problem is interesting. Below are some of my comments:

 

1. The authors should use Arabic numerals in line 84-88 for section numbers in order to be consistent with how these sections are named.

 

2. Figure 1-3 have low resolutions. Especially for Figure 2, it’s very difficult to read the text.

 

3. Line 144, what s Tencent meeting application (reference)?

 

4. Line 111 mentioned that the robot has a navigation system, but it actually relies on remote control during the study. The author need to clarify when describing the robot design.

 

5. The tasks for the user studies are artificially designed. The conclusion would be more persuasive if the study was conducted in a more natural setting.

Author Response

Point 1: The authors should use Arabic numerals in line 84-88 for section numbers in order to be consistent with how these sections are named.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer 1 for this detailed observation. We have modified the section numbers into Arabic numbers.

 

Point 2: Figure 1-3 have low resolutions. Especially for Figure 2, it’s very difficult to read the text.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer 1 for this suggeation. We have rearranged the figure content and exported the high-resolution images to make them more readable.

 

Point 3: Line 144, what s Tencent meeting application (reference)?

Response 3: We thank the reviewer 1 for this detailed observation. Tencent meeting is a remote meeting application (similar to Zoom). We have modified our pervious manuscript and added the reference [38] for explaining the Tencent meeting application.

 

Point 4: Line 111 mentioned that the robot has a navigation system, but it actually relies on remote control during the study. The author need to clarify when describing the robot design.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer 1 for pointing out this weakness. We have explained why and how we develop the prototype for a Wizard-of-Oz user study. To make it more clarify, we have revised the heading of subsection 2.2 to “Development of the Wizard-of-Oz Prototype”.

 

Point 5: The tasks for the user studies are artificially designed. The conclusion would be more persuasive if the study was conducted in a more natural setting.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer 1 for this insightful suggestion. We agree that our prior study was not conducted in the real world scenario. For our future work, we will conduct a field study in real world scenario where the robot will be used in everyday work routine in the shared workplace instead of a research setup. In the revised manuscript, we also added this sentence at the end of subsection 5.2 Limitations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well organized with proper structure and
length. The bibliography is sufficient and well given.
Specifically, the technical terms are explained in detail and the topic of the paper is clear and understandable.
The presented methodology and the results are clearly communicated, with the necessary background for the readers included in the paper.
The review of the state-of-the-art is sufficient. It includes references to other relevant studies that have been previously proposed for the
discovery of relations.
The novel contribution of the paper is highlighted, as well.
It includes a discussion about the results obtained by this work and the previous works on the analysis of the same or similar data.

Author Response

Point 1: The paper is well organized with proper structure and length. The bibliography is sufficient and well given. Specifically, the technical terms are explained in detail and the topic of the paper is clear and understandable. The presented methodology and the results are clearly communicated, with the necessary background for the readers included in the paper.The review of the state-of-the-art is sufficient. It includes references to other relevant studies that have been previously proposed for the discovery of relations.The novel contribution of the paper is highlighted, as well. It includes a discussion about the results obtained by this work and the previous works on the analysis of the same or similar data.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer 2 for the acknowledgment as well as the suggestion. We revised the manuscript carefully and believe it has been significantly improved as a result.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article provides sufficient background information, and overall is well-written. My major concern is that why there are 5 co-first authors? Please pay particular attention to issues of research ethics. Please consider substituting the T-test for t-test (e.g., line 232).

Author Response

Point 1: This article provides sufficient background information, and overall is well-written. My major concern is that why there are 5 co-first authors? Please pay particular attention to issues of research ethics.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the acknowledgment as well as the suggestion. The first five authors contributed equally to this paper, and we have decided to be indicated as co-first authors after a very thorough discussion without any conflict.

 

Point 2: Please consider substituting the T-test for t-test (e.g., line 232).

Response 2: We thank the reviewer 3 for this detailed suggestion. We have substituted the T-test with t-test. The changes were highlighted in the modified manuscript.