How to Imagine a New Community from Science Fiction: A Pedagogical Dramaturgy of Silence, for a Slow Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. What is the main question that the research addresses? Theater applied to education2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? it does address a specific gap in the field? Yes, education needs hermeneutical thinkers of profound alterative cultural significance.
3. What does it contribute to the subject area compared to other publications? Reflection, relation of dramaturgy and humanist philosophy material? reflective essay
4. What specific improvements should authors consider regarding the methodology? None, an essay approach is deep in his speech and sufficient What additional controls should be considered? This is due to triangulation, I believe that you are used to quantitative and not qualitative evaluations, where the evaluation criteria are subjective
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Yeah And do they answer the main question posed? Yeah
6. Are the references appropriate? Yeah
7. Include any additional comments about the tables and figures.
The additional comment is that if you do not wish to publish essays on hermeneutical analytics, expose it so as not to waste anyone's time.
Tha art and drama are science with its own ways
Congratullations.
Good paper.
Author Response
I would like to sincerely thank you for your comments that encourage us to continue working and sharing reflections on what concerns us and what has to do with the world we live in and the world in which those who are yet to come will live.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article does not do what it sets out to do in the abstract, or according to its title. The terms posthumanism and transhumanism are not explored at all – in addition, the definitions provided in footnote 30 are over-simplified and inaccurate. There is no apparent theoretical or conceptual framework to underpin the attempted line of argument throughout this article.
It is unclear as to why any of the texts have been selected for discussion. The texts mentioned range from classic novels to contemporary films, and many of these are not from the 21st century (as the title of the article states). ‘Dramaturgy’ appears to be a key concept and there is mention of live performance, stage managers, authorless characters, relationships between actors and audience; however, these are not applicable to film, and certainly not print texts, so again the reason for the selection of texts is unclear.
There is limited evidence of any kind of review, analysis or discussion of any of the mentioned texts. Eventually the article turns into a stream-of-consciousness narrative that is difficult to follow – this is perhaps an interesting creative endeavour, but not one that reveals anything about the concept of ‘pedagogical dramaturgy’ or answers any of the questions/aims raised in the abstract. What is the ‘educational dystopia of the 21st century’?
The article would need to completely rethink its scope, textual selection and approach to textual analysis in order to be viable for a submission for an academic journal. It would also need to demonstrate more of an understanding of key conceptual frameworks and then use these to create and maintain a clear and appropriate line of argument.
Although there are no major issues with the technical accuracy of the written English, the style and phrasing is overly-complicated and difficult to follow at times.
Author Response
The reviewer's opinion of the paper is completely opposite to that of the other four reviewers and absolutely impossible to address without completely rewriting the paper. Even so, following the indications of the five reviewers, an introduction was added, with reference authors the concepts of post-humanism and trans-humanism and their link with classical humanism. Current research has been added and concepts clarified. A concluding chapter was also added to synthesise the reflections contained in the essay. We do not agree that the concepts of theatre are not applicable to cinema. As a playwright and film scriptwriter, I would say that although there are differences, I find that the metaphor of the characters in search of an author, the idea of giving them a voice so that they can reflect on their plots about the futures to come does not constitute an insurmountable incongruity. However, in view of the reviewer's opinion, we will try to explore the issue further in future work in a more structured form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The essay discusses an important area of research of this era. "digital ethics" and "machine education". Although its a relatively a new area of research, the author has missed to support their arguments with the help of established theories. I have some reservations:
1. There is no introduction and it starts. please introduce what you want to explore first then go to forward.
2. add some theories to support your arguments.
3. add a conclusion which could summerize the essay.
4. add latest references
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive review of the article. His reservations about our article have motivated us to deepen and substantially modify our essay. As he pointed out, we have included an introduction, added current theories and references to support the arguments expressed, and closed with a conclusion that serves as a synthesis of our essay. All these changes have been made in response to the reviewer's suggestions.
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is interesting enough since the many corporations have been developing AI. The opinion about artificial intelligent nowadays is still in pro and cons. But, the essay seems to have many terms that are new for some readers, especially for who don't have background in technology. It is better for you to have further explanation for those new terms or simplified those terms into more simple explanation.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for a thorough and constructive review of the article. It has made us think and work to improve our essay. All changes have been introduced following suggestions, trying to make it easier for the reader. In addition, introduction and a new conclusions were added to clarify the terminology, meaning and structure of the paper, and the bibliographical sources were expanded.
Reviewer 5 Report
The topic is interesting, relevant and actual, but the chosen type of the article - essay - do not let to form more structured way to analyse the research problem and even to concretize and clearly understand what exactly the author/authors would like to say to the audience. Because of the same reason it is impossible to formulate conclusions. Although the idea and the way of it's development is interesting the value of the article would be bigger if to have more concrete purpose in whole. On the other hand essay as the highlightening of the current and future issues is really good and relevant.
Author Response
I would like to thank the reviewer for his comments. They teach me and make me think about how to improve the essay. As a result of his comments, changes have been made by adding an introduction and conclusions, simplifying expressions or clarifying complex terms in a way that results in a better structure of the text and makes it more readable.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the author's/s' response and am willing to take on board the comments regarding film and theatre. However, this does not address my previous concerns about the lack of application of some of the mentioned dramatic conventions to the form of classic novels. In addition, the revised version still does not make clear the reason for the selection of texts, or their relevance to the 21st century - the thread that draws together these texts is not made apparent. Why the selection of these texts in particular, when exploring AI? There are no apparent revisions made to the review or discussion of any of the mentioned texts, so I still feel that this aspect is limited and there is little contribution to knowledge in terms of textual analysis. There is no change to the structure of the article and its stream-of-consciousness narrative; whilst this is still an interesting creative endeavour, it does not answer any of the questions/aims raised in the abstract.
Despite the addition of the introductory section, the terms posthumanism and transhumanism are still not, in my opinion, adequately explored; there are some sweeping statements here, and both transhumanism and posthumanism are such complex concepts that selecting particular aspects of them to use for a more precise conceptual framework would be necessary. The new revisions simply list some key thinkers/writers, with no evident understanding of their various contributions to the thinking around posthumanism or transhumanism (in addition, I would point out that footnotes and a reference list are not the same thing and should be separated). There is still no clear theoretical or conceptual framework to underpin the attempted line of argument throughout this article. The revisions made towards the end of the article also bring in science fiction as a genre, with some more sweeping statements regarding the role of science fiction in exploring science. There are plenty of optimistic visions within science fiction, so again more specificity and situating of this particular research would be necessary. I find this piece to be very generalised and lacking in depth and precision.
As the revisions do not adequately address any or my previous concerns, I still feel as though the article would need to completely rethink its scope, textual selection and approach to textual analysis in order to be a viable submission that deals with the exploration of contemporary texts in the field of science fiction. The author/s indicate that this opinion is in opposition with the other reviewers, and I do appreciate that every reviewer's opinion is subjective, but as a scholar of contemporary science fiction and posthuman theory I feel that this piece does not effectively contribute to these areas of knowledge.
The quality of the English language is mostly accurate, with the exception of a few minor grammatical errors. In terms of academic convention, footnotes and a reference list should be cited separately.
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the authors have improved the work, it still require minor corrections in the references, specifically from 14 to 27. Please provide the actual references instead
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review, which is very helpful in improving the submitted essay. As you can see in the file we have checked in detail so that the quotations referred to fit exactly with the main body of the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
The necessary corrections were done
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your work and your considerations which have been very helpful in improving the submitted essay.
