Next-Gen Mulsemedia: Virtual Reality Haptic Simulator’s Impact on Medical Practitioner for Higher Education Institutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REVIEWER COMMENTS

 

GENERALLY

The article requires proofreading services because it contains numerous errors.

 There are many errors with the abbreviation usage. All abbreviations should state fully when it is first used only, subsequently the abbreviated letter can then be used continuously.

 

Abstract

It requires some proofreading, as there are some language errors.

The methodology explanation can be broken down into key points. The abstract lacks information about the key results obtained, contributions, and conclusions. These are vital parts of the abstract. The authors should consider revising the abstract.

In the keywords, the word “Information and Communications Technology” should be removed, leaving ICT.

 

Introduction

[Citation needed], this point needs a citation

Many sentences before the first citation [1] in this article need references to support the definitions.

Virtual reality (VR) can only be used at first mention; subsequent usage should be only "VR." The same goes for other abbreviations.

 

The following statements are not clear and seem contradictory; they should be revised.

“Virtual reality is a relatively new concept. It has been used in the field of Education for a long time, but its use is still in its early stages.”

 

Research Model

Architectural design or feature of the model should be provided.

A clear figure for virtual reality simulators should be given. The size of the figure can be increased.

What is your population size?

Are 607 students a sample size or a population?

What is the sampling technique the authors employed?

 

The participants are not clearly described.

 

The author said they used numerous criteria in classifying responders, but only three items—gender, degree of education, and use of virtual reality—are mentioned and reported in the article. Where are the other items?

 

The Number of Attributes in Table 1 is not making up to 30. The number should be 36, not 30.

The sentence below should be rephrased

“This statement below should be rephrased Conducting research using Likert-type scales, you need to know the Cronbach's alpha value.”

 

What type of Likert-type scales did authors use? Is it a 5 scale, a 7 scale, or an 8 scale? All scale measures should be reported.

 

How did authors report this statement below as a method? It is suggested to move it to the results and discussion section.

 

“Data from Table 2 shows that results on the New Media and Medical Education subtest significantly impact students' overall confidence in their knowledge of medicine [16,17].”

 

The authors claim that Cronbach's alpha value for all measures is more significant than 0.931, while all the reported alpha in Table 1 is far less than 0.931. The result in Table 1 should be double check?

 

Why is the method limited? Where are the other methods?

 

How did the authors validate the model?

 

Where are the statistical analysis?

 

It is suggested that the authors provide full details of the materials and methods used.

 

 

Result and Discussion

 

Karl Pearson Correlation Coefficient is not reported in the methodology. It should be provided.

 

HYPOTHESIS: 1?? Sudden appear!

 

The authors have not state and discuss their hypotheses in the introduction section. All hypotheses must be provided. They must be clearly stated and justified.

 

The authors said the “model's fitness was evaluated using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)”, so how was this done? It is not reported in the methodology?

 

“the structural model was assessed using AMOS version 23”, missing in the methodology.

 

“The design was evaluated using the chi-square/degrees of freedom 2(x2/df), the CFI, the RMSEA, the NFI, and the P-CLOSE.” missing in the methodology.

 

 

Table 8 should be restructure. Currently, it is not well organised.

 

This statement below is not clear, therefore it should be revised

 

“In table 670 students are involved of participants to assessed skills as a result. Studies compared VR-based interventions with traditional learning and the overall pooled estimate of 207 student 22 studies showed a large improvement in postintervention cognitive skill scores in the intervention groups compared with the control.”

 

 

Conclusion and future work

 

Conclusion of this study is not clear? Key findings are not reported.

 

“The suggested model is calibrated with data from SWAYAM”. This calibration process is not reported in the methodology. Also, the calibration is not discussed anywhere in the article.

 

 

The suggestions for future study are not clear.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editorial team and Reviewers for their time in evaluating our submission, and the very constructive comments and suggestions provided, which have helped us greatly to increase the quality and improve the presentation of our paper “Next-Gen Mulsemedia: Virtual Reality Haptic Simulator’s Impact on Medical Practitioner for Higher Education Institutions”.

Based on the reviewer comments, the paper has been revised accordingly. We hope the revision now meets the expectation of reviewers, and is suitable for publication in MDPI Electronics Journal.

At end we are humbled and thankful the reviewers to concisely review the article to improve the quality of our research article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for sharing this article on the impact of simulators to the field of higher educational institutions. Hear some comments and suggested edits that could help to improve the article.

L45: Please address what "citation needed" relates to. 

L51: Same here, what does "case in point" relates to? 

L116/146: Consider changing "Education" to "education".

L129: Consider changing "Attention" to "attention".

L131/L144: Consider changing "Technology" to "technology".

L133-134: The sentence "The drawbacks of adopting virtual reality in the classroom for educational purposes" doesn't appear as a complete sentence.

L155: Not sure if "10" belongs here. 

L288-296: Consider rephrasing this paragraph for more clarity as it appears very lengthy, including changing uppercase to lowercase letters where applicable. Please check correct spelling in terms of uppercase to lowercase letters throughout your manuscript.

L353/354: Consider changing "Attention" to "attention".

Table 8: Consider changing the layout of Table 8 as it is difficult to read and consequently understand. 

General: To my understanding, as soon as an abbreviation like VR for virtual reality is introduced, its meaning doesn't have to be explained repeatedly; reconsider and adjust throughout your manuscript. Also, does the abbreviation VR and V.R. mean the same? Please clarify throughout your article. 

1st paragraph of section 2.1: Here you list the kind of literature you used for the research performed. If I would want to re-do your investigations, where and how could I find and access these sources? Naming the specific search terms applied and stating the databases used could address this major comment. 

 

 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the Editorial team and Reviewers for their time in evaluating our submission, and the very constructive comments and suggestions provided, which have helped us greatly to increase the quality and improve the presentation of our paper “Next-Gen Mulsemedia: Virtual Reality Haptic Simulator’s Impact on Medical Practitioner for Higher Education Institutions”.

Based on the reviewer comments, the paper has been revised accordingly. We hope the revision now meets the expectation of reviewers, and is suitable for publication in MDPI Electronics Journal. 

At end we are humbled and thankful the reviewers to concisely review the article to improve the quality of our research article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been revised and can be recommended for publication