All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All comments have been addressed. I happy with the current version. It is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
The comments and suggestions of the reviewers has been well addressed. I only have some small comments to improve the paper.
(1) I suggest replacing the characterization of a SG given on line 90-91 by a better on, because as it is now given it more refers to gamification. My suggestion would be to use the definition given by Ritterfeld et al.: “any form of interactive computer-based game software for one or multiple players to be used on any platform and that has been developed with the intention to be more than entertainment” (Ritterfeld et al, 2009 , Page 6), or by Dörner et al. : “a digital game created with the intention to entertain and to achieve at least one additional goal (e.g., learning or health).”
U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, P. Vorderer, Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, Routledge, 2009.
R. Dörner, S. Göbel, W. Effelsberg, J. Wiemeyer, Introduction, in: Serious Games, Springer, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40612-1_1.
(2) ON and Off States: This is mentioned at several places in the paper (Abstract line 60,61, line 70; game accessibility evaluation line 663 -666) but it was not explained. Please introduce and explain them before referring to them.
(3) A paragraph at the end about future work would be nice
(4) The figures and tables seem to be missing in the new version of the paper
(5) Textual improvements:
Line 66-67: The heuristic evaluation The heuristic usability evaluation
Line 139: to evaluate the system architecture to evaluate the system’s usability
Line 140: we used evaluation we did an evaluation
Line 143: may affect the patient’s evaluation may affect the patent’s experience
Based on the reviewers comments, the authors are advised to make "Major Revisions" and resubmit.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
- Some errors in English style and grammar found.
- Well organized and good original primary research.
More experiments results for testing the accuracy of the game results may be appropriate.
The literature survey and related work sections are missing.
Please compare and contrast with prior artworks. It's difficult to identify the novelty of the architecture.
There is little information available on experimental design. The paper focused on the architecture and design implementation.
The research contributions are difficult to identify in the manuscript. The architecture and design implementation is not novel.
The article did not follow the research article format (literature and related work, main contributions, experimental validation, and comparison with prior artworks). Although the authors proposed architecture and implemented the SG design, the research contributions are difficult to identify.
This paper needs major revision.
1- The introduction shows highlights the problem clearly.
2- The literature summary should be in a Table.
3- limitations should be in the conclusion section.
4- What is the novelty of this work?
4- Why need this approach? is there any draw back in the literature?
No comment
No comments
No comments
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.