Sign Language Technologies and the Critical Role of SL Resources in View of Future Internet Accessibility Services
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors. This paper has a great value for the accessibility of the future internet.
In spite of the fact that the paper deals with a very important topic it needs some modification.
Please, enlarge all figures and insert them with the best quality! If somebody wants to print it, figures are pale and the reader cannot see them properly.
Please, rewrite the 4th part of the paper: "Educational Platform Evaluation"! This section is written a bit generally. Readers do not get the necessary information about real research.
So, please, write about the following issues:
When was the research? E.g. the time period
How many participants were involved in it? Some details about their skills, age, race...
How long did it take a session? E.g. users had to use the software 2 times/week for 20 Minutes etc.
If the project allows it, please insert the questionnaire into the paper or into an appendix.
If the readers get these research methodology a bit more detailed, they could understand the discussion easier.
To sum it up, the paper is excellent. It discusses a very important topic. But it needs a rewriting phase to increase the quality of the paper. After this modification, the reviewer suggests it for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Firts of all, the authors would like to thank you for your good words and constructive comments.
Following your recommendations, we have replaced all problematic figures with new ones. We have also rewritten section 4 on platform evaluation, providing all relevant data.
We remain in your disposal for any further clarification needed.
Sincerely,
The authors team
First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors. This paper has a great value for the accessibility of the future internet.
In spite of the fact that the paper deals with a very important topic it needs some modification.
Please, enlarge all figures and insert them with the best quality! If somebody wants to print it, figures are pale and the reader cannot see them properly.
Reply: Figures have now been replaced with new, improved ones and can now be properly viewed.
Please, rewrite the 4th part of the paper: "Educational Platform Evaluation"! This section is written a bit generally. Readers do not get the necessary information about real research.
Reply: Done. Thank you for your suggestion.
So, please, write about the following issues:
When was the research? E.g. the time period
Reply: Done.
How many participants were involved in it? Some details about their skills, age, race...
Reply: All relevant info has been added.
How long did it take a session? E.g. users had to use the software 2 times/week for 20 Minutes etc.
Reply: All relevant info has been added.
If the project allows it, please insert the questionnaire into the paper or into an appendix.
Reply: No prior permissions available.
If the readers get these research methodology a bit more detailed, they could understand the discussion easier.
Reply: Thank you for your recommendation. We hope we have made this part clear now.
To sum it up, the paper is excellent. It discusses a very important topic. But it needs a rewriting phase to increase the quality of the paper. After this modification, the reviewer suggests it for publication.
Reply:
Thank you for your kind words. We hope this version of our paper meets publication standards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Summary: The paper reviews extant and emerging SL technology tools and resources in the context of demonstrating how they may be integrated in applications to improve every day activities. The paper will of interest to the readership of the journal. The subject of the paper, literature and system reviews were all described satisfactorily and will be of interest to the intended population of the journal. However, the paper failed to provide critical details on the user evaluation, without which it is not possible to validate the merit of this work.
Significance & Scientific Soundness: New interface/system should be tested with at least 6 users to capture all >90% of usability issues. For 2nd stage usability evaluation, testing with a small team of five GSL experts is not sufficient to make/infer significant findings.
For last stage of evaluation there is no description of method, participants, or any of the results. Readers/reviewers cannot follow the evaluation (or agree with the findings) without knowing key information such as: (1) how many users tested the system, (2) figure or images of experimental setup and results, (3) data collection and analysis method for tested measures, (4) qualitative data as reported by users, etc.
I strongly advise the authors to re-write Section-4 and sufficiently describe the evaluations setup, participant details, results, and its analysis.
Claims like “On the whole, the platform was positively scored by both user groups” cannot be justified without supporting them with data.
Quality of Presentation: Overall, the article is well written except for few typos and grammatical errors. The figures are presented appropriately.
Originality/Novelty: Yes. The content of the paper are, to my knowledge, original and well defined.
Interest to the Readers: The work is of interest to the readership of the journal.
Overall Merit: Although the article provides a detailed review of extant and emerging SL technology tools, not sufficiently describing the evaluation part takes away the merit of this work. I suggest the authors to re-write the evaluation section and resubmit.
English: Needs improvement. There are several errors (and/or) incorrect usage of prepositions. I suggest proof reading the document again for typos, grammar, and use of prepositions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Firts of all, the authors would like to thank you for your constructive comments.
Following your recommendations, we have re-written section 4 on platform evaluation, providing all relevant data. Also an expert in English language has checked the text, hopefully covering all previously noticed misuses of the language.
We remain in your disposal for any further clarification needed.
Sincerely,
The authors team
Summary: The paper reviews extant and emerging SL technology tools and resources in the context of demonstrating how they may be integrated in applications to improve every day activities. The paper will of interest to the readership of the journal. The subject of the paper, literature and system reviews were all described satisfactorily and will be of interest to the intended population of the journal. However, the paper failed to provide critical details on the user evaluation, without which it is not possible to validate the merit of this work.
Reply: We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing out the missing details on the user evaluation, which have been extensively added in section 4. Educational Platform Evaluation.
Significance & Scientific Soundness: New interface/system should be tested with at least 6 users to capture all >90% of usability issues. For 2nd stage usability evaluation, testing with a small team of five GSL experts is not sufficient to make/infer significant findings.
Reply: We would like to make clear that the second stage of the evaluation was an internal process, aiming at fine tuning the content and platform GUI before proceeding to the third evaluation stage, which included extensive evaluation by end users.
For last stage of evaluation there is no description of method, participants, or any of the results. Readers/reviewers cannot follow the evaluation (or agree with the findings) without knowing key information such as: (1) how many users tested the system, (2) figure or images of experimental setup and results, (3) data collection and analysis method for tested measures, (4) qualitative data as reported by users, etc.
Reply: We have now added all the relevant information for this evaluation stage in the rewritten section 4. Educational Platform Evaluation excluding personal information which would lead to the identification of participants.
I strongly advise the authors to re-write Section-4 and sufficiently describe the evaluations setup, participant details, results, and its analysis.
Reply: Done.
Claims like “On the whole, the platform was positively scored by both user groups” cannot be justified without supporting them with data.
Reply: All relevant data has now been added in section 4. Educational Platform Evaluation.
Quality of Presentation: Overall, the article is well written except for few typos and grammatical errors. The figures are presented appropriately.
Reply: The article was recently edited with the help of a native English speaker.
Originality/Novelty: Yes. The content of the paper are, to my knowledge, original and well defined.
Interest to the Readers: The work is of interest to the readership of the journal.
Overall Merit: Although the article provides a detailed review of extant and emerging SL technology tools, not sufficiently describing the evaluation part takes away the merit of this work. I suggest the authors to re-write the evaluation section and resubmit.
English: Needs improvement. There are several errors (and/or) incorrect usage of prepositions. I suggest proof reading the document again for typos, grammar, and use of prepositions.
Reply: The article was recently edited with the help of a native English speaker. Thank you for your suggestion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, I am happy with the revision. I appreciate the authors for adding/revising Section 4 in sufficient detail.
I also suggest the authors to revisit Section 5 and discuss about the larger scope of the findings from current work, e.g., discuss about how the findings is different from previous/contemporary solutions, discuss about what is the next and future steps for the current research, what is the greater goal for this research agenda, etc.
Author Response
There have been implemented the minor requested changes.
Reviewer’s comment: I also suggest the authors to revisit Section 5 and
1. discuss about the larger scope of the findings from current work, e.g.,
a. discuss about how the findings is different from previous/contemporary solutions,
Authors’ answer: Thank you for the suggestion, we have implemented it.
2. discuss about what is the next and future steps for the current research, what is the greater goal for this research agenda, etc.
Authors’ answer: Thank you for the suggestion, we have implemented it.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
