Innovative Methodologies Based on Extended Reality and Immersive Digital Environments in Natural Risk Education: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I have read your manuscript in detail. I want to highlight the following concerns:

 

1.      IMPORTANT!! There is a typo in the title. Please recheck it meticulously; this should not have happened at all.

 

2.      Introduction: The introduction makes no references at all. It also seems to be written with the heavy aid of AI. This needs to be overhauled.

 

3.      For scoping review, using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) is more suitable than using PRISMA. Please elaborate on this and write a clear, strong and robust justification.

 

4.      The justification for each variable being studied needs to be rewritten. In its current form, the need to study these variables is not visible. It must be emphasized significantly how it could contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Author Response

Dear authors,

 I have read your manuscript in detail.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

I want to highlight the following concerns:

1. IMPORTANT!! There is a typo in the title. Please recheck it meticulously; this should not have happened at all.

Apologizes for the mistake. Following your suggestion, we have rechecked meticulously the manuscript. Thank you very much for your recommendation.

2. Introduction: The introduction makes no references at all. It also seems to be written with the heavy aid of AI. This needs to be overhauled.

The first section of the introduction, which in turn is followed by four sub-sections, was intended to be a more general résumé to summarize the reasons, methods, and context of the study. However, as suggested, we have added relevant references in the sentences related to the rationale. Thank you so much for your suggestion.

2. For scoping review, using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) is more suitable than using PRISMA. Please elaborate on this and write a clear, strong and robust justification.

We have integrated the section 2.2 by clearly stating that, to guide the scoping review, the checklist developed by Tricco et al. (2018) for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), was used. The complete checklist has been included in section 2.6, along with the PRISMA flowchart, in order to visualize the selection process of sources of evidence (see the item 14 from the checklist).

4. The justification for each variable being studied needs to be rewritten. In its current form, the need to study these variables is not visible. It must be emphasized significantly how it could contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

At the end of paragraph 2.7, after presenting the information extraction tool and before presenting the results, we have added an explanation to clarify the specific added value of each group of variables for knowledge advancement in the field.

Thank you.

Thank you for the review and the helpful suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a well-written manuscript. Here are some suggestions.

1. Be more descriptive in the figure captions.

2. The figures become slightly boring as they are the same, perhaps explore other suitable ways to present and visualise the data for eg convert one of the bar chart to a pie chart and/or combine a few figures as (a-d). 

3. For the findings/discussion, highlight the points that relate directly to address the specific research questions. 

4. Consider using a schematic that is highly citable as this is a review paper. The schematic would contain the summary of recommendations/future perspective of the areas to focus on for this topic.

Author Response

It is a well-written manuscript. Here are some suggestions.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

1. Be more descriptive in the figure captions.

We have revised the figure captions to be more descriptive: Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13.

2. The figures become slightly boring as they are the same, perhaps explore other suitable ways to present and visualise the data for eg convert one of the bar chart to a pie chart and/or combine a few figures as (a-d). 

The following figures have been converted from bar charts to pie charts: Figures 4, 9, 12, 13. Figure 3 has been converted from a horizontal bar chart to a vertical bar chart.

3. For the findings/discussion, highlight the points that relate directly to address the specific research questions. 

In the first sub-section of the "Discussion" section, the research questions have been summarized, and the key insights have been related to each research question.

4. Consider using a schematic that is highly citable as this is a review paper. The schematic would contain the summary of recommendations/future perspective of the areas to focus on for this topic.

At the end of the conclusions, a schematic text has been added that summarizes the results and identifies/summarizes possible recommendations for future research on each of the highlighted results, corresponding to the different areas of analysis of the scoping review.