Expanding the Concept of Sustainable Interaction Design: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhilst this manuscript at first was quite challenging, the focus of the study eventually became clear a few pages in.
It is a timely review of SID and some 17 years on from when term was first conceived and defined, there have been significant developments on the concept.
The authors pick up on this and also the need for an increased focus on the social and the economic in association with the already very strong environmental focus.
The article is well written, although sometimes the language is a bit full and cumbersome, but a sharp editor could reduce the words need a fair bit.
But it is also ok as it stands and with some minor corrections - see attachment - it can be sent to the proofing publishing stage.
The referencing whilst excellent will need to be re-ordered as per the MDPI Style Guide, so that as the references appear in the manuscript they are numbered from 1 through to 64 in this order.
It is suggested that ESG could be at least mentioned in passing, although it could be quite a strong addition to the study. But this would require a significant rework. It could maybe be mentioned in the Conclusions or the section on Future Research.
ESG might be a way of enticing SID proponents to go to a higher level of authority to seek change from the top...
See https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/importance-of-esg-in-corporate-governance/#:~:text=ESG%20is%20a%20way%20of%20measuring%20corporate%20governance
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Whilst this manuscript at first was quite challenging, the focus of the study eventually became clear a few pages in.
Response 1: No changes required
Comment 2: It is a timely review of SID and some 17 years on from when term was first conceived and defined, there have been significant developments on the concept.
The authors pick up on this and also the need for an increased focus on the social and the economic in association with the already very strong environmental focus.
Response 2: No changes required
Comment 3: The article is well written, although sometimes the language is a bit full and cumbersome, but a sharp editor could reduce the words need a fair bit.
But it is also ok as it stands and with some minor corrections - see attachment - it can be sent to the proofing publishing stage.
Response 3: Language editing has been performed and minor corrections proposed in the supplementary document have been followed.
Comment 4: The referencing whilst excellent will need to be re-ordered as per the MDPI Style Guide, so that as the references appear in the manuscript they are numbered from 1 through to 64 in this order.
Response 4: Referencing was changed accordingly
Comment 5: It is suggested that ESG could be at least mentioned in passing, although it could be quite a strong addition to the study. But this would require a significant rework. It could maybe be mentioned in the Conclusions or the section on Future Research. ESG might be a way of enticing SID proponents to go to a higher level of authority to seek change from the top... See https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/importance-of-esg-in-corporategovernance/#:~:text=ESG%20is%20a%20way%20of%20measuring%20corporate%20governance
Response 5: We have included a comment on this in the future work section along with a reference to Service Design
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirst, the authors present the results in a general way. Please specify what the unique contribution of your thesis is in terms of the discipline and what it is in terms of sustainable interaction design: new design methods, new analytical methods, new relevance. What were the results? Be consistent from the summary all the way to the conclusion. In the abstract section, references cannot appear, and the concepts that appear for the first time need to be capitalized, and the concepts that appear for the first time in the body part should also be capitalized.
Reframe the literature review according to your logic. Make sure that each concept that comes up makes a unique contribution to the article. Especially SID HCI IxD CHI SHCI SDGs, there are too many concepts, appearing in the article is very confusing. The thesis should have a clear, focused and research-worthy topic, ensuring that the content covered is relevant to each other.
Review the way of literature citations, there are several places in the article that are very strange citations, please refer to the journal requirements. Secondly, it is necessary to comprehensively collect various literature materials related to the topic, including academic journals, books, reports, etc., to fully understand the existing research in the field. Is the literature collection database mentioned by the author comprehensive and scientific?
The author's explanation of methods and conclusions is very confusing. The review is not a simple list of literature, but highlights key research results and key issues, so that readers can quickly grasp the core. Please follow your logic to make sure that the structure of the paper is clear and reasonable, and the transition between the parts of the paper is natural. In the conclusion, you need to evaluate the logical coherence of the content. How can you prove that your argument is sound? Please give strong support and argument.
Second, what is the logical relationship between Parts 3-4 on sustainable interaction design and your innovation? How did you get the new definitions and concepts? It is suggested to reorganize the logic of the whole article to avoid repeated expressions and miscellaneous concepts.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeed to organize logical relationships
Author Response
Comment 1: First, the authors present the results in a general way. Please specify what the unique contribution of your thesis is in terms of the discipline and what it is in terms of sustainable interaction design: new design methods, new analytical methods, new relevance. What were the results? Be consistent from the summary all the way to the conclusion. In the abstract section, references cannot appear, and the concepts that appear for the first time need to be capitalized, and the concepts that appear for the first time in the body part should also be capitalized.
Response 1: The study is presented in the context of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Interaction Design. The abstract has been rewritten. And references in the abstract have been removed.
Comment 2: Reframe the literature review according to your logic. Make sure that each concept that comes up makes a unique contribution to the article. Especially SID HCI IxD CHI SHCI SDGs, there are too many concepts, appearing in the article is very confusing. The thesis should have a clear, focused and research-worthy topic, ensuring that the content covered is relevant to each other.
Response 2: All abbreviations are written in their full when introduced. Some abbreviations refer to more research fields, Human computer Interaction (HCI) and Interaction design (IxD) that respectively are more than 50 and 25 years old. SDGs are a keyconcept in the field of Sustainability. No other reviewer finds this concerning. No changes adopted.
Comment 3: Review the way of literature citations, there are several places in the article that are very strange citations, please refer to the journal requirements. Secondly, it is necessary to comprehensively collect various literature materials related to the topic, including academic journals, books, reports, etc., to fully understand the existing research in the field. Is the literature collection database mentioned by the author comprehensive and scientific?
Response 3: Referencing was changed according to requirements
Comment 4: The author's explanation of methods and conclusions is very confusing. The review is not a simple list of literature, but highlights key research results and key issues, so that readers can quickly grasp the core. Please follow your logic to make sure that the structure of the paper is clear and reasonable, and the transition between the parts of the paper is natural. In the conclusion, you need to evaluate the logical coherence of the content. How can you prove that your argument is sound? Please give strong support and argument.
Response 4: The abstract and the conclusion have been edited
Comment 5: Second, what is the logical relationship between Parts 3-4 on sustainable interaction design and your innovation? How did you get the new definitions and concepts? It is suggested to reorganize the logic of the whole article to avoid repeated expressions and miscellaneous concepts.
Response 5: In section 4 we specify the pursuit of sustainablity may take many forms and we have identified 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper gives a review on sustainable interaction design. After reading, I feel that the abstract is not well-written. The author spends a considerable amount of space discussing the significance of the research problem, but covers the content of the paper itself insufficiently. Additionally, the author introduces the literature review methodology, which I believe does not need to be a separate chapter. I suggest that the author allocate more space to introducing the problem itself.
Author Response
Comment 1: This paper gives a review on sustainable interaction design. After reading, I feel that the abstract is not well-written. The author spends a considerable amount of space discussing the significance of the research problem, but covers the content of the paper itself insufficiently. Additionally, the author introduces the literature review methodology, which I believe does not need to be a separate chapter. I suggest that the author allocate more space to introducing the problem itself.
Response 1: The abstract has been rewritten as suggested
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor/Comments,
I am pleased to review the manuscript entitled "Extending the Concept of Sustainable Interaction Design: A Systematic Review" and, after careful examination, I recommend it for publication. The research presented in this paper addresses an important and timely issue. The methods adopted are reasonable and appropriate. The authors clearly describe their study design, data collection methods, and analysis procedures. The results are also clearly presented and supported by appropriate data. The discussion is well structured and provides a deep explanation of the findings. The authors point out the limitations of their study and suggest directions for future research. The revised article is well written and well organized. The language is concise and easy to understand.
To sum up, I think this manuscript is of high quality and worthy of publication. It makes a valuable contribution to the field and will be of interest to researchers and practitioners. I recommend that it be accepted for publication without further revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made corresponding responses to my comments and made modifications in the paper, and the current version of this paper has reached the quality of publication. I have no other comment.
