XR Embodiment and the Changing Nature of Sexual Harassment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is clear and well-written, and I find its topic of interest and urgency. Perhaps a few of the claims presented are not very surprising, and others could be questionable, but the authors present quite strong arguments, mainly based on current and well-established research works. A good number of suitable examples reinforces the manuscript. Although there are some next-stated points to be clarified/changed by the authors, I recommend the manuscript for publication.   

The Introduction section is concise and precise, motivates the topic, and shows its importance. In general, the authors should revise whether expressions of the form "e.g." or "i.e." should be written between commas. 

On page 2, lines 87--94, the authors recall four kinds of SH. On the one hand, I do not understand why the terminology used is not homogeneous (active graphic harassment and passive graphic SH). Perhaps the authors should adjust this point. On the other hand, it is strange to me to present only examples for two types of SH. Maybe the authors could add examples for the remaining concepts or remove the corresponding presented ones, but, in any case, they should homogenize this part. 

Table 1: it seems there is a mistake regarding the Latex code (some lines should not appear and cross out the text). The same applies to other tables in the manuscript (e.g., Table 3). 

Page 5, line 160. It seems there is an extra space before "For". The same applies to page 11, line 421 (",  consider"), and to page 11, line 452. 

Page 6, line 217. A space after "ing..." is needed. The same applies to page 7, line 266, and to page 8, line 329. 

Page 7, line 285. "Table 2 below..." I would recommend removing the word "below". 

Table 2. It seems there is a mistake in the caption. 

I would like Section 7 to have been more in-depth. The authors should consider extending their claims in future works. 

Personally, I found the Conclusions a bit detached from the rest of the paper (e.g., the reference to an author not previously mentioned), but this is a matter of style. 

References 2 and 5 should be checked. 

Author Response

Please see attached document for a detailed response to reviewer comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your article. This is an interesting subject that we need to take into consideration while working/living in the virtual world.  Authors need to add limitations and avenues for future research. I wish you good luck in further developing your paper.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see attached document for a detailed response to reviewer comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf