Determining the Key Drivers for the Acceptance and Usage of AR and VR in Cultural Heritage Monuments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article provides an innovative approach on AR and VR in a cultural tourism experience. The argument should only be pulled through to the title of the journal title, namely Sustainability by indicating the importance of preserving and enhancing cultural tourism (monuments)for future generations. Minor editorial in text references to be attended to in the use of & and or and, as well as the consistent use of brackets and full stops. The results proved to be valid and reliable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks for your review and comments.

Please see the attachement.

 

XW, MS, SS

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for such an intersting contribution.

The idea behind the paper is very interesting and the industry should be grateful to such research. The paper is well written and structured.

However, I would kindly ask authors to consider few points that I could see as the possible improvement that will make the paper even better.

The literature overview is well structured with a pointed subsection. Due to its length, I would suggest adding a tabular overview at the of the section that would highlight the main influences from the most important papers.

Also, I think that more attention should be paid when describing related work. From my point of view, papers 30, 31, and 35 are really interesting, and their influence should be explained in at least a few more sentences.

It would be interesting to compare this study with some similar studies related to some other field of use (manufacturing support systems, medical information systems, etc).

Overall, the introduction, literature review, and material and methods are clearly written, informative, keep the reader's attention, and could turn on the positive scientific discussion.

The next sections mentioning results, discussion, and conclusion, are in the same line as the system background and description.

The authors gave a significant effort to create questions and to extract results. However, the discussion of the reliability of results could be updated. Is the number of the interviewed users relavant, or too low? Is there a way to compare this reasearch with other similar researches (not necessary to the same type of the VR supported system)?

When accumulating points from the answer, what would be the impact of the predefined weights of the specific question (i.e. should the answers from HM be equaly measured as the ones from PV or HT)?

Author Response

 

Many thanks for your review and constructive comments.

Please see the attachement.

 

XW, MS, and SS

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.Introduction

 

The introduction part should be rewritten.

l  The paper is about the acceptance of AR/VR in cultural heritage monuments. However, the first 3 paragraphs are only about cultural heritage tourism, not mention AR/VR.

l  The importance of AR/VR in cultural heritage tourism should be emphasized.

l  The authors used four literature review in 2019-2020 to identify the research gap, however, there has been a significant increase in AR/VR research since 2020. The authors should review more recent papers and identify the research gaps.

l  The significance of the paper should be presented in introduction.

 

2. Literature review

 

l  The authors reviewed a large body of literature, however, more recent papers should be reviewed and cited.

l  This study used UTAUT-2 as the theoretical basis. Thus, UTAUT-2 literature should be more detailed.

l  At present paper, the relationship between literature organization and variables in the model is relatively loose. The literature of the variables in the model should be more documented.

l  The reason why the variable was chosen should be better justified.

 

3. Methodologies

 

l  Chapter 3 should be research methods, not ‘results.

l  There are only two questions to measure behavior use. In general, we use at least 3 items to measure one variable.

l  Regards to the measurement of habit, if ‘I must use AR/VR’, what’s the point to measure their intention?

l  Why this paper is exploratory quantitative study?

l  How did the authors conduct random sampling? According to the description in the paper, the authors were using convenience sampling.

 

4. Results

l  In general, we don’t involve respondents under the age of 18 due to the ethical concerns.  

l  Did the author check the collinearity problem?

l  Figure 2 is very unclear.

l  According to the result, EE, SI, FC don’t significantly influence BI. However, these are the fundamental and core variable in UTAUT-2. The authors need to reconsider this result.

 

5. Conclusion and implication

The theoretical and practical implications were weak and should be rewritten.

 

6. Others

Pay attention to APA format. Proof reading is needed.

Author Response

 

Many thanks for your review and comments.

Please see the attachment.

 

XW, MS, and SS

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for accepting my suggestions.

The paper is significantly improved compared to the previous however I still think that these points are not addressed well and would suggest the authors consider them once again:

 

*2.3. The literature overview is well structured with a pointed

subsection. Due to its length, I would suggest adding a

tabular overview at the of the section that would highlight the

main influences from the most important papers

 

2.9 When accumulating points from the answer, what would

be the impact of the predefined weights of the specific

question (i.e. should the answers from HM be equally

measured as the ones from PV or HT)?

We have no answer to this question, sorry

 

If you have no answer to this question, please add this possibility to the discussion and include the previous statement in a more formal tone.

Author Response

Many thanks for your constructive comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Author did not well justify the insigificant realtionship of some key factors.

Author Response

Many thanks for your constructive comment.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf