Personalization in Digital Ecomuseums: The Case of Pros-Eleusis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting work. The manuscript is clearly written, easy to read and to follow  and is well organized.

The manuscript presents a complete work. The approach is clearly presented and validated. Related work is up to date. The Evaluation methodology is clearly presented. Conclusions and future work are fine.

I don´t have suggestions for improvements.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the kind comments

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is good. The treated topic is interesting.

The bibliography is well selected and relevant for the proposed subject.

The methodology is well presented. However, it can be diagrammed for a faster reading.

The results obtained are relevant and well presented.

However, I recommend adding some information related to the implications of the results obtained.

In the conclusions part, I recommend adding some information that presents the relevance of the research.

In conclusion, I think that the paper is good and with small modifications it can be published in the journal.

Author Response

The methodology is well presented. However, it can be diagrammed for a faster reading.

We would like the reviewer for the comments. We plan to address their suggestions as follows:

--"The methodology is well presented. However, it can be diagrammed for a faster reading" -  We will prepare a diagram for the methodology

--"However, I recommend adding some information related to the implications of the results obtained." & "In the conclusions part, I recommend adding some information that presents the relevance of the research." : We will address these comments in the relevant sections

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper describes a mobile app for a digital ecomuseum in the city of Eleusis, Greece, along with the principles for selecting and suggesting Points-Of-Interest, and with the results of a user study on the app's usefulness and usability.
Apart from the app itself, which fits the project it is framed within and does the job for which it was intended, the paper needs more scientific value.
Indeed, the two scientifically relevant parts (recommendation system and user study) are pretty trivial. The first mainly relies on explicit user inputs (see Table 2); the latter needs to be stronger both from the significance and the methodology points of view.
In other words, the paper is more a (good - to be honest) commercial for the app than a scientific result based on an app used as a testbed.
For these reasons, I would not recommend it for publication in this journal.
Should the paper be accepted for publication, I would suggest the authors make some changes to improve general readability:
- Separate the label of Fig.1 from the main text;
- Improve readability of tables (repeat column headings, add column and rows delimiters);
- Show app screenshots in English - if available;
- Remove "Appendix B" which seems to be orphaned.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments. We respond to the following:

"The first mainly relies on explicit user inputs (see Table 2); the latter needs to be stronger both from the significance and the methodology points of view."

The algorithm does not rely only on explicit feedback. However the reviewer is right to assume this, as at the 6th  line of Table 2 the “implicit” label is missing. Furthermore, the algorithm takes into account  time spent on specific POIs, skipping content, etc. These are described later on in the algorithm description (Section 6.2.3). We will revise the text to make these aspects more clear.

In terms of the following comments, they will be addressed:

- Separate the label of Fig.1 from the main text;

- Improve readability of tables (repeat column headings, add column and rows delimiters);

Remove "Appendix B" which seems to be orphaned.

- Show app screenshots in English - if available; : This comment we will attempt to addressed through adding translations to key labels on the images or through the caption of the figure. Unfortunately the application interface and content is not translated

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors fulfilled my suggestions about the presentation of content, but the overall scientific flaw is still there.

Should this paper be accepted for publication, it will be more readable at least.