paper—SCI答复审稿人-素材

 
    I have eliminated phrases that are repeated from the introduction and reorganized paragraphs to highlight results presented in this paper.  The first paragraph of the discussion has been rewritten to address the criticisms outlined above.
    
    Thank you for the comment about the nature of the Diffusion Simulation Game being stochastic. The comment helped the researchers better understand and interpret survey results.
    We concur that the paper would be greatly improved if it was pitched more clearly towards a more general game-based training audience. We have revised the paper accordingly.
    A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm ***.
    The results section was rewritten to align results with the research questions.
    Closeness to adoption was not investigated in this study.  I agree that this is an interesting aspect to investigate and is a good area for future research.
    The discussion section was rewritten to align with the research questions and to better clarify the meaning of the findings.  
    Research questions were rewritten to accurately reflect what the researchers wanted to investigate and learn about.
    A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.
    
    
    A and B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see LOA2.
    A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm ***.
    Explanations of the legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7.
    The test have been added to the revised manuscript
    Research question one was addressed in paragraph 1-4 with discussions on the issue of game logs, the use of moves, and adopters gained in both groups. Research question two was addressed from paragraph 5- 10.
    As pointed out, we acknowledge the problem, but consider it outside the scope of this paper to fully examine the cost-effectiveness of the framework. Our focus is training quality. We have added some text addressing the cost-effectiveness problem in the discussion.
    The value of this framework is related to the development of future serious games. Even though there are promising attempts to create more advanced AI agents in games we are still far from handling the complexity and flexibility that are prevalent in today’s training – at least to the point where the AI system can replace the instructors’ role during game-based training. However, studying what the instructors are actually doing, we can create requirements for such a system. In fact, this is an important part of our future work.
    Our work does not get a clear answer to this question, but we agree that it is important. We do not wish to promote a framework that requires one-on-one tutoring, but we also acknowledge that coaching is difficult with too large groups.
    We have commented on this in the discussion.
    We have added a paragraph on data analysis in the research approach section.
    Information and discussion related to debriefing was increased in this second version of the paper. The paper now clearly states that the reflective journal was used in place of a formal debriefing protocol.
    
    I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript.  
    Reviewers were absolutely correct that this research project was an exploratory study.  
    Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript. to address the statistical analysis for the data.
    Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript. as well as in the referred figure accordingly.
    Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
    a new paragraph has been added into the revised manuscript to address the statistical analysis for the data.
    We were not aware of a debriefing guide for the Diffusion Simulation Game until reviewers mentioned it. The paper now includes this information.
    We agree that, within the context of military training (and, to some extent, live role-playing exercises in civilian contexts), the idea of an active instructor or coach is common practice. Our view, however, is that this practice is an implicit assumption that has not, by and large, been explicitly described and grounded in current theories related to game-based training and cognition/learning. In contrast, there are those (e.g. Klabbers) that assert that the instructor should not disrupt training, but instead take a step back and only observe how the game evolves.
    This data have been added into the revised manuscript. Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript. as well as in the referred figure accordingly.
    Done accordingly.
    We have addressed this comment by deleting a few lines at the end of the second paragraph that were not necessary for understanding the algorithm.