Design Process for a Birthing Bed, Based on User Hierarchy: Promoting Improvement in User Satisfaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Note to the Editor!
Please think about getting a chance to this paper even if the other reviews are 'no' - the application possibilities are very large here! This is a very important and necessary case study - recently I was working on my friend's PhD thesis in the field of nutrition of pregnant women, where the application possibilities are also huge.
Dear Editor and Author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled: The design process for a birthing bed: Promoting improvement in user satisfaction
The topic of this paper is extremely interesting, however, a lot of provided information needs more than just an edit. In my opinion, this paper is not appropriate to be published as it is now, however after a serious revision it might be one of the important publication in the journal of Applied Science.
Therefore, I have no choice but to recommend this paper for major revision. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that my comments will provide some support for the development of the author/s’ academic writing skills.
I seriously hope that the author(s) will be able to fix all issues and rewrite the manuscript it might be reconsidered in the future as a new one.
Main issues requiring amendments include the following:
- Structure of the manuscript:
1a. The text reads much like the author had an interesting idea and drawn together ideas and references (unfortunately several only, and just a few from the journals) without having a clear vision of how to structure and build up a paper worth a publication in a prestigious journal. As a consequence, the manuscript reads a bit like a preliminary draft of the research project that the author is struggling with to put it into a paper that flows logically.
1b. Methodology section is missing. At the beginning the reader does not know what author wants to achieve (and how?). Author admits in the Introduction: “An experimental study was carried out in the design of a new birthing bed to evaluate the results of each process, seek a final comparison of the design proposals, and determine whether the design process based on hierarchies increased or not the satisfaction of the final Users.” And this is fine sentence for project but not research paper. You need to prepare proper introduction (see below).
1c. Lack of literature on the topic. No one ever wrote about birthing beds? I know that yes as you were mentioning those works later. However, we need to know the current level of knowledge at this stage.
1d. The text is rather a brief description of the project, than identifying a problem and attempting to find a solution.
- Text formatting and language:
3a. The manuscript is very messy – various spaces, fonts, leading, punctuation marks
etc.
3b. You need to ask someone for English proofreading.
3c. Please follow the publisher guidance.
Please let me give you some advices to improve your writing skills. Please note that you don’t have to follow the structure placed below and you can change the section titles – especially for your paper, the structure will be different as your paper is much more description of experiment – projecting a bed. All this is to help you to prepare proper paper with logical structure.
Abstract
There is a lack of some necessary information. The abstract should be in a few sentences also give something of applications. The abstract is not just what is an article, but also shows the achievements (results). The abstract must contain the aim of the paper, a sentence about methods.
Introduction
Your Introduction is a bit messy and does not contain all the necessary information. Literally speaking, the Introduction must answer the questions: What was I studying? Why was it an important question? What did we know about it before I did this study? And, How will this study advance our knowledge? Try to focus on a wider perspective and use your case study as an example.
Background
I would like to recommend you to develop a proper background. This part should begin with defining a topic to a wider audience. Thus, the background of your study will provide context to the information discussed throughout the research paper.
Furthermore, this section should discuss the theoretical aspects by involving the background of the theories published previously in the research literature and also focus on the ambiguities arose in these works.
Methodology
The research methodology is the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information about a topic. In a research paper, the methodology section allows the reader to critically evaluate a study's overall validity and reliability.
Results
The results section of the research paper is where you try to "sell" the findings of your study based upon the information gathered as a result of the methodology you applied. The results section should simply state the findings, without bias or interpretation, and arranged in a logical sequence. The Interpretation and your opinion you can place in the next section - the Discussion.
Discussion
The discussion part is missing in this paper. That is why I recommend you follow my suggestions to develop proper Introduction and Background. This will allow you to conduct proper Discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. The proper discussion should be connected to the introduction. Thus proper Introduction and Background are necessary.
Conclusion
A few sentences describing your main findings. Please note that most of the readers will read Introduction and Conclusion first before they will decide if your paper is worth reading in a full.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We really appreciate your kind review, it really helps us a lot to improve our work, we appreciate your comments to the editor
We did our major effort to respond efficiently to all your review, we hope to meet your expectations.
Your observations are very important; we hope that you could give us the opportunity to read the full article again.
Point 1: Structure of the manuscript:
1a. The text reads much like the author had an interesting idea and drawn together ideas and references (unfortunately several only, and just a few from the journals) without having a clear vision of how to structure and build up a paper worth a publication in a prestigious journal. As a consequence, the manuscript reads a bit like a preliminary draft of the research project that the author is struggling with to put into a paper that flows logically.
Response 1: Although it is true that this document arises from the PhD thesis, and it was somewhat difficult to structure it as an article, it was worked on, in order to give it the structure of an article suitable for publication.
1b. Methodology section is missing. In the beginning, the reader does not know what author wants to achieve (and how?). The author admits in the Introduction: “An experimental study was carried out in the design of a new birthing bed to evaluate the results of each process, seek a final comparison of the design proposals, and determine whether the design process based on hierarchies increased or not the satisfaction of the final Users.” And this is fine sentence for project but not research paper. You need to prepare proper introduction (see below).
Response 2 The methodology section was restructured, providing a coherent structure that allows the reader to understand it easily.
1c. Lack of literature on the topic. No one ever wrote about birthing beds? I know that yes as you were mentioning those works later. However, we need to know the current level of knowledge at this stage.
Response 3: We appreciate your observation, you are right not to include the information, we already solved it
1d. The text is rather a brief description of the project, than identifying a problem and attempting to find a solution.
Response 4: We really appreciate your kind comments, you are right, we wrote everything again
Text formatting and language:
3a. The manuscript is very messy – various spaces, fonts, leading, punctuation marks
Response 5: Work has already been done to maintain the structure requested by the editors
.
3b. You need to ask someone for English proofreading.
Response 6: We really appreciate your observation, we already sent it to review
3c. Please follow the publisher guidance.
Response 7: We really appreciate your kind comments, you are right, we check the guide and fixed it.
Please let me give you some advices to improve your writing skills. Please note that you don’t have to follow the structure placed below and you can change the section titles – especially for your paper, the structure will be different as your paper is much more description of experiment – projecting a bed. All this is to help you to prepare proper paper with logical structure.
Response 8: We appreciate your recommendations in advance, they will help us a lot to improve our skills
Abstract
There is a lack of some necessary information. The abstract should be in a few sentences also give something of applications. The abstract is not just what is an article, but also shows the achievements (results). The abstract must contain the aim of the paper, a sentence about methods.
Response 9: We really appreciate your kind comments, you are right, we wrote everything again
Introduction
Your Introduction is a bit messy and does not contain all the necessary information. Literally speaking, the Introduction must answer the questions: What was I studying? Why was it an important question? What did we know about it before I did this study? And, How will this study advance our knowledge? Try to focus on a wider perspective and use your case study as an example.
Response 10: You are absolutely right, we already reviewed it and it is not clear. we worked on it.
Background
I would like to recommend you to develop a proper background. This part should begin with defining a topic to a wider audience. Thus, the background of your study will provide context to the information discussed throughout the research paper.
Furthermore, this section should discuss the theoretical aspects by involving the background of the theories published previously in the research literature and also focus on the ambiguities arose in these works.
Response 11: We really appreciate your kind comments, you are right, we wrote everything again
Methodology
The research methodology is the specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information about a topic. In a research paper, the methodology section allows the reader to critically evaluate a study's overall validity and reliability.
Response 12: Work was done on the description of the method followed to develop the study.
Results
The results section of the research paper is where you try to "sell" the findings of your study based upon the information gathered as a result of the methodology you applied. The results section should simply state the findings, without bias or interpretation, and arranged in a logical sequence. The Interpretation and your opinion you can place in the next section - the Discussion.
Response 13: Thank you, the results were reviewed, in such a way that personal comments regarding the data obtained from the study were eliminated
Discussion
The discussion part is missing in this paper. That is why I recommend you follow my suggestions to develop proper Introduction and Background. This will allow you to conduct proper Discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. The proper discussion should be connected to the introduction. Thus proper Introduction and Background are necessary.
Response 14: We really appreciate your kind comments, you are right, we wrote everything again
Conclusion
A few sentences describing your main findings. Please note that most of the readers will read Introduction and Conclusion first before they will decide if your paper is worth reading in a full.
Response 15: We really appreciate your kind comments, you are right, we wrote everything again
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a comparative analysis of the traditional design processes vs. user hierarchy design process applied for improving birthing beds. The presented results are interesting, but the paper should be reorganized in its first part for the sake of clarity.
The following issues are recommended to improve the paper:
- Several typing mistakes should be solved, like: “birthing_bed;”, etc. in Keywords (is not a common approach to link words by the underscore “_” char; “…the final Users” – line 29, “since It is” – line 32, “…work. [1]” instead of “…work [1].”, “activity. [2] this”, “development. [3] 69 this”, “(fig. 2)” instead of “(Fig. 2)” or “(Figure 2)”, “of use. of that product”, “status. , which”, replace double/multiple space characters with a single space char, “value., They”, “of results. In prototypes. [14]”, “1. Figure 8. Result of step 3”, “compared, and The subjects”, etc.
- Introduction: in its actual form, the Introduction is configured mostly as an extended abstract. Typically, the Introduction section introduces the paper aim, significant works and results in literature, their drawbacks and thus the novelty of the paper is justified. Moreover, the paper structure is also presented. According to the Abstract: “the new design process based on hierarchies (proposed in this study)”, it not clear enough from the beginning if the paper focuses on the proposed design approach or only on its application for a birthing bed product (as also the paper title suggests it). Please harmonize the Title, the Abstract and the Introduction!
- Figure 1: please address the copyright issues
- Recommendation to improve the English style and grammar.
- Figure 4: must be introduced and cited in the paper text. The proposed scheme can be generalized if the 5th step will be devoted to a general New “Product” instead of “Birthing Bed”. The “User hierarchy design process” is not sufficiently explained in the paper (or referred in an extended external source).
- Section “5. Publication purpose”. Typically, a section is devoted to a larger issue/topic of the paper. The Sections 1 to 5 can be reorganized in fewer sections, aiming at introducing the reader in a simpler and clearer way on the proposed approach.
- Avoid repeating information in the paper, e.g. the first paragraphs in Section 6 and Section 1 (Introduction).
- Section 6: its sub-sections should start with the section number (6, in this case) instead of 7 and 8. Better to consider the numbering for its sub-sections like 6.1 (and 6.1.1, 6.1.2, etc.) instead of 7.1, 6.2 (6.2.1, 6.2.2, etc.) instead of 8.1, etc.
- Line 435: “the Friedman test” - a reference work is recommended here.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We really appreciate your kindly review, it was very helpful in our work, we did our mayor effort to respond efficiently to all your comments, we hope to meet your expectations.
Point 1: Several typing mistakes should be solved, like: “birthing_bed;”, etc. in Keywords (is not a common approach to link words by the underscore “_” char; “…the final Users” – line 29, “since It is” – line 32, “…work. [1]” instead of “…work [1].”, “activity. [2] this”, “development. [3] 69 this”, “(fig. 2)” instead of “(Fig. 2)” or “(Figure 2)”, “of use. of that product”, “status. , which”, replace double/multiple space characters with a single space char, “value., They”, “of results. In prototypes. [14]”, “1. Figure 8. Result of step 3”, “compared, and The subjects”, etc.
Response 1: We appreciate your comments; your observations have already been fixed
Point 2: Introduction: in its actual form, the Introduction is configured mostly as an extended abstract. Typically, the Introduction section introduces the paper aim, significant works and results in literature, their drawbacks and thus the novelty of the paper is justified. Moreover, the paper structure is also presented. According to the Abstract: “the new design process based on hierarchies (proposed in this study)”, it not clear enough from the beginning if the paper focuses on the proposed design approach or only on its application for a birthing bed product (as also the paper title suggests it). Please harmonize the Title, the Abstract and the Introduction!
Response 2: We appreciate the observation, you are absolutely right, we already arranged the introduction. thanks for the observation we already fixed it
Point 3: Figure 1: please address the copyright issues
Response 3: The reference was included, giving credit to the author of the figure.
Point 4: Recommendation to improve the English style and grammar.
Response 4: Thanks for the observation, we already asked for help from an expert
Point 5: Figure 4: must be introduced and cited in the paper text. The proposed scheme can be generalized if the 5th step will be devoted to a general New “Product” instead of “Birthing Bed”. The “User hierarchy design process” is not sufficiently explained in the paper (or referred in an extended external source).
Response 5: We appreciate the observation, the changes were fixed it
Point 6: Section “5. Publication purpose”. Typically, a section is devoted to a larger issue/topic of the paper. The Sections 1 to 5 can be reorganized in fewer sections, aiming at introducing the reader in a simpler and clearer way on the proposed approach.
Response 6: We appreciate the observation, the changes were fixed it
Point 7: Avoid repeating information in the paper, e.g. the first paragraphs in Section 6 and Section 1 (Introduction).
Response 7: We really appreciate your kindly comments, you are right, we already fixed it.
Point 8: Section 6: its sub-sections should start with the section number (6, in this case) instead of 7 and 8. Better to consider the numbering for its sub-sections like 6.1 (and 6.1.1, 6.1.2, etc.) instead of 7.1, 6.2 (6.2.1, 6.2.2, etc.) instead of 8.1, etc.
Response 8: We really appreciate your kindly comments, you are right, I already fixed it.
Point 9: Line 435: “the Friedman test” - a reference work is recommended here.
Response 9: The reference, the characteristics of the test and its use was included
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper describes a comparison between a conventional design process and a hierarchical design process using as a mean for comparison the design of a birthing bed. Two groups of students are used as experimental groups and their outcome is evaluated through a survey with 450 users. The results seem to suggest that a hierarchical design process is an effective stage to integrate users’ needs.
There is some merit in the paper, and the work presented is an interesting and valuable example of a good design process. However, from a research perspective, the paper needs improvements.
The Introduction is informative, but it would be great to see it structured in a more formal way. Currently, it feels more like a long abstract with important pieces such as the definition of the design project and publication purpose being presented later. For instance, it would be great to see a paragraph to introduce the importance of the topic and its relevance to the design academic and professional communities. Why is this study important? Where is the contribution to advance current knowledge on User-Centred Design? It would also be great to add a paragraph to define the context of the study with a brief background that describes the major studies and their contribution in this field along with the current research gaps.
The literature review needs further improvement. There is an awareness of some studies in the field, but it would have been great to see a more thorough review. For instance, there is no mention of established design process models such VDI, Pahl and Beiz, Nigel Cross and Ulrich and Eppinger to mention a few. This is important because it would provide the opportunity to explain what a conventional design process is, and why the authors have chosen it for comparison with a hierarchical approach (what a hierarchical approach adds to these processes). Another important background that is missing is a literature review on User-Centred Design and hierarchical design. It would be great to know what the main studies and design processes are (where do UCD and hierarchical design come from?), and what is the current knowledge about these two topics. This would clarify what is the contribution of this study and set it in the current debate. It would also be great to elaborate more on the current approaches and discuss what are the benefits, but most importantly, the limits of current UCD design processes for medical devices.
The methodology is the most controversial aspect of this paper. First, it would be nice to explain why the study compares a “conventional” design process (does a conventional design process exist?) with a hierarchical one. Why these two processes have been chosen over others (e.g. axiomatic design, double diamond, house of quality, Triz). Then there might be a major methodological flaw with the comparison. The study is comparing the results of Stage A with the results of stage B; however, these two stages are sequential. Someone might argue that the results of Stage B are better just because they are more developed. For instance, Stage A is using sketches while Stage B is using CAD files and renderings. A more rigorous research design might have considered two independent research groups one using a conventional design and there other a hierarchical design.
The results are well presented however, it would have been great to see some more Discussion. For instance, it would have been great to see more argumentation about the two design processes. Are there any pros and cons between the two processes? For instance, the use of hierarchical design seems to increase the design time. It would also be great to see the results discusses against the literature. With this comparison is the current UCD knowledge and approaches proved or rejected? What is the contribution to Design theory and practice?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
We really appreciate your kind review, it was very helpful in our work, we did our major effort to respond efficiently to all your comments, we hope to meet your expectations.
We must say that it was a great pleasure to read your comments since we were glad to know that an expert in design had the time and dedication to read our project and give us such excellent feedback, we must have said that some of your observations were ideas that we thought during the development of the project, and at the time we read your review we realized that our studies are progressing.
Point 1: The Introduction is informative, but it would be great to see it structured in a more formal way. Currently, it feels more like a long abstract with important pieces such as the definition of the design project and publication purpose being presented later. For instance, it would be great to see a paragraph to introduce the importance of the topic and its relevance to the design academic and professional communities. Why is this study important? Where is the contribution to advance current knowledge on User-Centred Design? It would also be great to add a paragraph to define the context of the study with a brief background that describes the major studies and their contribution in this field along with the current research gaps.
Response 1: We appreciate your comments; we have worked the entire structure of the article.
Point 2: The literature review needs further improvement. There is an awareness of some studies in the field, but it would have been great to see a more thorough review. For instance, there is no mention of established design process models such VDI, Pahl and Beiz, Nigel Cross and Ulrich and Eppinger to mention a few. This is important because it would provide the opportunity to explain what a conventional design process is, and why the authors have chosen it for comparison with a hierarchical approach (what a hierarchical approach adds to these processes). Another important background that is missing is a literature review on User-Centred Design and hierarchical design. It would be great to know what the main studies and design processes are (where do UCD and hierarchical design come from?), and what is the current knowledge about these two topics. This would clarify what is the contribution of this study and set it in the current debate. It would also be great to elaborate more on the current approaches and discuss what are the benefits, but most importantly, the limits of current UCD design processes for medical devices.
Response 2: We really appreciate your kindly comments, we already rewritten all an considering all your recommendations
Point 3: The methodology is the most controversial aspect of this paper. First, it would be nice to explain why the study compares a “conventional” design process (does a conventional design process exist?) with a hierarchical one. Why these two processes have been chosen over others (e.g. axiomatic design, double diamond, house of quality, Triz). Then there might be a major methodological flaw with the comparison. The study is comparing the results of Stage A with the results of stage B; however, these two stages are sequential. Someone might argue that the results of Stage B are better just because they are more developed. For instance, Stage A is using sketches while Stage B is using CAD files and renderings. A more rigorous research design might have considered two independent research groups one using a conventional design and there other a hierarchical design.
Response 3: The structure of the methodology was revised and rewritten in order to have more clarity about the steps followed in the process, in order to give validity and reliability to the results obtained.
Point 4: The results are well presented however, it would have been great to see some more Discussion. For instance, it would have been great to see more argumentation about the two design processes. Are there any pros and cons between the two processes? For instance, the use of hierarchical design seems to increase the design time. It would also be great to see the results discusses against the literature. With this comparison is the current UCD knowledge and approaches proved or rejected? What is the contribution to Design theory and practice?
Response 4: We appreciate the observation, you are absolutely right and we already included it in the discussion section
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Well done!
Happy to see this published
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for your time, your recommendations were very helpful.
Reviewer 2 Report
No any additional recommendations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for your time, your recommendations were very helpful.
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for addressing the previous comments. It is clear the authors’ effort to improve the paper; however, in my opinion, there are still some areas of improvement that if addressed can make the paper more robust and high quality.
The main concern is the use of academic English language. There are some parts of the paper such as paragraphs 99-110 that need a more appropriate use of academic English language to properly express concepts. Jargon such as "at the end of the day" should be avoided in an academic publication. Manchester University Academic Phrasebank (https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/) provides a useful tool to improve this area in a reasonable timeframe.
The Discussion still lacks an appropriate argumentation on how the results of the study have expanded, proved or disproved the current knowledge on UCD and the Design Process. Paragraph 516-525 attempts to do this, but the first sentence does present which literature the authors refer to. Additionally, the sentence structure can be improved.
Finally, I have noticed that there are typos and syntax improvements tall over the manuscript. Proper proofreading would be beneficial for ensuring that the paper is understood and disseminated widely.
Using APA guidelines to report statistics would also be beneficial.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
I would like to thank the authors for addressing the previous comments. It is clear the authors' effort to improve the paper; however, in my opinion, there are still some areas of improvement that if addressed can make the paper more robust and high quality.
Thank you for your very careful review of our paper, and for the comments, corrections, and suggestions that ensued. A minor revision of the paper has been carried out to take all of them into account. And in the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved.
- The main concern is the use of academic English language. There are some parts of the paper such as paragraphs 99-110 that need a more appropriate use of academic English language to properly express concepts. Jargon such as "at the end of the day" should be avoided in an academic publication. Manchester University Academic Phrasebank (https://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk/) provides a useful tool to improve this area in a reasonable timeframe.
Response 1: We appreciate your comments, we have asked for help from a person with experience in the matter, and we have fixed it.
- The Discussion still lacks an appropriate argumentation on how the results of the study have expanded, proved or disproved the current knowledge on UCD and the Design Process. Paragraph 516-525 attempts to do this, but the first sentence does present which literature the authors refer to. Additionally, the sentence structure can be improved.
Response 2: We appreciate your comments, we have rewritten the entire section, and we have fixed it.
- Finally, I have noticed that there are typos and syntax improvements tall over the manuscript. Proper proofreading would be beneficial for ensuring that the paper is understood and disseminated widely. Using APA guidelines to report statistics would also be beneficial.
Response 3: We appreciate your comments; we have fixed all the figures and tables, and also check all the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
