Digital Games Adopted by Adults—A Documental Approach through Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a revised version of the manuscript Digital games adopted by adults - A documental approach through meta-analysis.

 

The authors did an in-depth change in some parts of the work, which brings it to a new round of reviews.

My previous comments were also considered in this new version,

 

I have some minor suggestions for the authors:

- improve the correlation between the topic and special issue

- add a brief text after each section (e.g. section 2 doesn't have any introductory text before 2.1)

- clarify the ML process regarding data division and scenario exploration.

- avoid having subsections in the introduction

- consider adding tangible results in the abstract and conclusion.

 

If the authors consider my last suggestions, I think that the paper can be accepted.

Author Response

The authors did an in-depth change in some parts of the work, which brings it to a new round of reviews.

My previous comments were also considered in this new version,

I have some minor suggestions for the authors:

- improve the correlation between the topic and special issue

Answer: We appreciate your time and suggestion, as reviewed and improved in lines 43-47.

- add a brief text after each section (e.g. section 2 doesn't have any introductory text before 2.1)

Answer: We are thankful for your attention. We addressed it in lines 146-150.

- clarify the ML process regarding data division and scenario exploration.

Answer: We appreciate your accurate suggestion. However, ML or "Machine Learning" it is not applicable to this investigation. Nonetheless, all data divisions and scenarios are considered in lines 331-381. We delineated five relevant steps in the meta-analysis process.

- avoid having subsections in the introduction

Answer: We thank you for your pertinent consideration. All subsections have been removed.

- consider adding tangible results in the abstract and conclusion.

 Answer: Thank you again. The addition of new tangible results in the abstract was made in lines 16-20 and in the conclusion in lines 775-788.

If the authors consider my last suggestions, I think that the paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I would like to thank the authors who have done considerable revision work and greatly enriched their text. Perhaps even too much, like this long development in the introduction to Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Some additions in the revised text, could have been more concise.

I continue to think that the form of the figures is not always adapted and understandable but I leave this point to the judgment of the editor.

For my part and within the limits of my skills specified in my first review, I no longer have any major observations or reservations on this paper.

Author Response

I would like to thank the authors who have done considerable revision work and greatly enriched their text. Perhaps even too much, like this long development in the introduction to Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Some additions in the revised text, could have been more concise.

Answer: We sincerely thank you for your attention and valuable suggestions that have enriched this manuscript. We have made some adjustments in the literature review, as suggested by Reviewer 1. The entire content underwent academic evaluation, as it is a pivotal study for a doctoral thesis aimed at validating a model for the adoption of digital games by adults. We are pleased to report that there were no objections from the scientific supervisors.

I continue to think that the form of the figures is not always adapted and understandable but I leave this point to the judgment of the editor.

Answer: We genuinely appreciate your time and valuable suggestions. Regarding the figures, they are original outputs generated by the software used. To ensure the integrity of the results, and upon the recommendation of the evaluation committee to which I report, we have chosen to retain them.

For my part and within the limits of my skills specified in my first review, I no longer have any major observations or reservations on this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

In any case, there are some flaws in the manuscript:

1. As the same authors state, a meta-analysis involves statistical analysis of the data from different studies to collect and discuss collectively the results; I'd not call their work a meta-analysis, but rather a systematic review that also provides some quantitative data about document analysis. So the authors should be more precise about this

2. It is not clear the unit of analysis: the authors propose a textual analysis before considering just the title, keywords, and abstract, and they repeat the same analysis considering just the introduction and conclusion sections of the selected papers. They also find different results and try to compare them. However, the authors do not clearly explain the rationale for choosing one way rather than another to analyze documents, so which is the right unit of analysis to select from the documents and why?

3. the authors use the term latent variables, which has a precise meaning in statistical analysis, not in a sound way

4. the authors in the introduction should use to outline the contents of their paper a structure more reflecting a journal article, rather than putting a bulleted list describing each section.

5. the authors state that they performed their search for the papers from "April 30  to "July 14, 2021". It seems that it is older, so they should update the search including also the last two years and half.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good quality

Author Response

Dear Authors,

In any case, there are some flaws in the manuscript:

1. As the same authors state, a meta-analysis involves statistical analysis of the data from different studies to collect and discuss collectively the results; I'd not call their work a meta-analysis, but rather a systematic review that also provides some quantitative data about document analysis. So the authors should be more precise about this
2. It is not clear the unit of analysis: the authors propose a textual analysis before considering just the title, keywords, and abstract, and they repeat the same analysis considering just the introduction and conclusion sections of the selected papers. They also find different results and try to compare them. However, the authors do not clearly explain the rationale for choosing one way rather than another to analyze documents, so which is the right unit of analysis to select from the documents and why?
3. the authors use the term latent variables, which has a precise meaning in statistical analysis, not in a sound way
4. the authors in the introduction should use to outline the contents of their paper a structure more reflecting a journal article, rather than putting a bulleted list describing each section.
5. the authors state that they performed their search for the papers from "April 30  to "July 14, 2021". It seems that it is older, so they should update the search including also the last two years and half.

Answer: This study is part of a large PhD research that involves the design, evaluation (through SEM – Structural Equation Modeling), and validation of a model to explain the use of digital games by adults. This study was evaluated by a committee of Academic reviewers and supervisors, both internal and external to the University with which I am associated. We appreciate and respect your suggestions but we do not consider them applicable in this manuscript. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good quality

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check and revise section 1.3. The first sentences should be checked and revised since they are inconclusive.

 

Provide data for papers located in each database and papers finaly selected. 

A distribution of papers by year, type of publication and venue would be useful.

 

Please provide a PRISMA flowchart.

 

Figures 3 and 11 have to be edited in order for all words to be readable.

 

The authors mention one limitation for the study. Aren't there any other limitations?

 

I agree that it is important to study "How has the use and adoption of digital games by adults been studied?”, but I consider even more important to know not only "how" but "what conclusions have been drawn". Could the authors extend their work in the discussion/conclusions towards this direction?

Author Response

Please check and revise section 1.3. The first sentences should be checked and revised since they are inconclusive.

Answer: We sincerely thank you for your attention and valuable suggestions that have enriched this work. Section 1.3 refers to the Introduction, and it was refined considering the suggestions of two other Reviewers.  

Provide data for papers located in each database and papers finaly selected. 

Answer: We appreciate your suggestions. All relevant information is presented in Section 3: Materials and Methods. Providing data for papers located in each database could potentially create confusion, as our study does not aim to compare databases. The focus of our study is on the meta-analysis process, considering the studies cited, and papers selected.

A distribution of papers by year, type of publication and venue would be useful.

Answer: Thank you also for this suggestion. The information you mentioned, except for the year, which can be found in the references, is available in Table 17 and Appendix A.

Please provide a PRISMA flowchart.

Answer: One more time we appreciate your attention. This study was analyzed and evaluated by a committee of Academic reviewers, both internal and external to the University with which I am associated. They did not indicate as necessity the elaboration of a PRISMA flowchart. This is a relevant reason for us to decide not to do it in this manuscript.

Figures 3 and 11 have to be edited in order for all words to be readable.

Answer: We appreciate your time and valuable suggestions. Regarding the figures, they are original outputs generated by the software used. We agree that these Figures could be rebuilt. However, in sequence with the evaluation committee to which I report that considered them acceptable, we chose to keep them in the actual format.

The authors mention one limitation for the study. Aren't there any other limitations?

Answer: We sincerely value your observation, and we've thoroughly explored all possible limitations.

I agree that it is important to study "How has the use and adoption of digital games by adults been studied?”, but I consider even more important to know not only "how" but "what conclusions have been drawn". Could the authors extend their work in the discussion/conclusions towards this direction?

Answer: We appreciate your suggestions. The conclusions and abstract were improved as suggested by two other reviewers, in lines 16-20 and in lines 775-788.

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: The abstract's content is commendable, although it lacks precision in conveying the achieved results. Including specific findings would enhance its clarity and impact. Section 1 - Introduction: While the introduction is compelling, it requires more explicitly articulating the paper's structure. A brief outline of upcoming sections will aid readers in navigating the content seamlessly. Sections 2 to 4 - Background and Related Concepts: Consolidating these sections into a cohesive background segment is recommended. This integrated section should introduce essential concepts underpinning the previously outlined topics. This modification would facilitate a smooth transition between the introduction and the subsequent in-depth exploration. Section 5 - Workflow and Methodology: The section's title offers insight, but the content itself can be enriched. Authors should provide a detailed account of the workflow, the methodologies embraced, and the tools utilized. Explicitly explaining the complete research process, including methods and tools, is imperative. Additionally, authors should present an analysis of found papers, incorporating percentages for greater clarity. Substantiating selection criteria with factual reasoning is crucial. An illustrative example of the Excel table employed could enhance readers' comprehension. In light of using data mining, adopting a well-established methodology such as CRISP-DM would bolster the study's credibility. Section 6 - Analysis of Results: To enhance clarity, a brief overview of the analyzed works is necessary. Before delving into the results, the authors must present the research process in this section. In the context of data mining, providing a comprehensive account of the machine learning process, encompassing data preprocessing, feature extraction, algorithm selection, and validation techniques, is paramount. Authors should clarify the rationale for employing clustering instead of text mining, especially considering the nature of the dataset. It's imperative to present data specifics before discussing clustering outcomes. Were stop words removed, and how were clusters evaluated? Expounding on these aspects will augment readers' understanding. Describing the data distribution and characteristics would provide context for subsequent analyses. Clarifying the number of clusters created, calculations for intra-cluster distances, and exploring terms beyond single words would bolster the analysis. Section 7 - Discussion: A stronger foundation is required for the section's assertions. Authors can substantiate their arguments by linking percentages of works and achieved results. The discussion should encompass a comprehensive analysis, including potential explanations for identified trends. Section 8 - Conclusion: This section necessitates refinement. Rather than reiterating the study, authors should underscore the achieved results and their significance. Explicitly conveying the paper's scientific contribution and potential implications is crucial. Amplifying the conclusion's impact with a comprehensive representation of findings will enhance the paper's significance. The scientific implications and contribution require more clarity, and the references to supplementary materials need correction. Global Analysis: While the paper's topic is intriguing, specific aspects warrant improvement. The alignment with this special issue's "cloud" theme remains unclear. The presentation's clarity needs enhancement. Conforming to a consistent referencing style and accurately citing supplementary materials is imperative. The scientific rigour is weak due to some content mixing between data and text mining. Additionally, addressing the apparent incongruence between selecting 48 articles and the limitation encountered in gathering 50 articles for meta-analysis is essential. Such discrepancies could undermine the study's validity. In conclusion, the paper possesses inherent potential, but addressing these aspects would elevate its precision, rigour, and overall impact. In sum, I think this work is unsuitable for this special issue; however, editors should make the final decision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

written in first person is not advisable

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, the authors have not
addressed my concerns. Their attempts miss the mark. They argue most
of my Comment 1 does not need to be addressed. I disagree. The part
that they claim to address is not addressed properly: their response
to my question about what time period is covered by the studies they
examine refers to the publication dates of the studies they examine.
I'm asking about the datasets those studies use, not the publication
dates. They have also not addressed my other questions in a serious
way. The main conclusions do not emerge from the complicated
analysis, and it continues to be the case that reviewing 48 papers
does not require machines. The term "meta analysis" continues to be
used incorrectly. I continue to think this paper does not warrant
publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n/a

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The subject of this paper is interesting: identify the main dimensions in studies about the use and adoption of digital games by adults. The same goes for the conclusion, which points to interesting avenues for future research on the subject as suggesting the use of satisfaction with life, stress, immersion, and well-being as latent dimensions to be considered in future studies. However, the process of carrying out the selection of the corpus of texts on which these conclusions are based is not very explicit and could weaken these conclusions.

(1) Methods section - The process for selecting articles is not clearly described. It is thus specified: For the choice of articles, among those selected, the analysis of the introduction was considered, resulting in 183 articles. We do not understand on what basis (what criteria?) this selection was made. This selection results in the consideration of a small number of texts. This point should be further discussed within the scope of the study.

(2) Methods section - The presentation section of textual mining techniques (DHC, the Similitude Analysis, and CFA) is extremely short. It deserves to be completed. Thus, for example, it would be interesting to specify the choices made and their statistical relevance for selecting the number of classes (DHC revealed nine classes).

(3) Discussion section - The discussion does not include a section on the limitations of the study.

 

Comments of detail.

(a) Figure 3 not readable

(b) The title of the tables or figures is not treated in a homogeneous way: sometimes at the top, sometimes at the bottom.

(c) Class group 3,4 and 6 (page 14) does not include a similarity analysis figure

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed most of my comments. 

Sometimes with more details than needed (e.g. Introduction).

 

Minor comments:

Sections 2 to 5 should be merged in the same section with subsections and named Background.

 

In my opinion, the article can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

My sincere thanks for your professionalism and diligence. Your suggestions were not only relevant but also essential for the improvement and consistency of my study. I appreciate your tailored guidance, which will remain influential in my research journey.

 

Sincerely,

Alessandro Pinheiro.

 

 

Review Report Form

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed most of my comments. 

Sometimes with more details than needed (e.g. Introduction).

 

Minor comments:

Sections 2 to 5 should be merged in the same section with subsections and named Background.

I appreciate the valuable information you provided. Your suggestion, specifically outlined in lines 125 to 271, has been noted. 

In my opinion, the article can be accepted.

 

Submission Date

11 August 2023

Date of this review

22 Sep 2023 20:28:55