Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 14th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 4th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 22nd, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 28th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The paper is acceptable provided the following changes are made:

1) Left panel of Fig.1 should be removed, as it contains personal information and is not relevant to the paper.
2) Please change the sign on the robot in the right panel of Fig. 1 into English.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Based on the reviews, the paper would be acceptable provided that the reviewers' comments, particularly those found in Review #2 be adequately addressed. Experimental assessment of users satisfaction raised in Review #1.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

This article reported a new interesting study on how to make information robots be more intelligent, and the obtained results may be helpful to other researchers. I think it may be more valuable if this study could contain the experimental results on users' satisfaction when they interact with an information robot.

·

Basic reporting

'information' (with quotations) indicates that the authors used the word in a special meaning, but it was used as in the range of the general meaning, such as direction-giving. So, I would like to suggest you get rid of the quotations. Also, in the title, it would be grammatically appropriate if it was "What should we know to develop 'information' robots?" or "What should we know to develop a 'information' robot?"

I found grammatical errors and typos in writing. I would like you to revise those error. The authors should use native check for the paper.

Experimental design

The study designs and analysis methods are appropriate.

Validity of the findings

The findings are offered with statistics, and the interpretations are appropriately stated.

Comments for the author

The paper reports an development of a direction-giving robot (knowledge and algorithms) and field studies exploring the effects of self-introduction in direction-giving interaction.

The study was interesting. I believe the contributions described in the paper were sufficient for publishing.

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.