Navigating peer review https://tinyurl.com/navigatepeers

“R1 indicates that they interpret method of evaluation current designs as a weak approach to user centred design (point #3). However, we do not make a claim to be conducting user analysis of these tools. While users of course matter to the design and evaluation of technologies (and understanding transparency), our analysis is not in this tradition. R1 also suggests that we over-emphasise the importance of these technologies, however their significance is well established in the literature (e.g. REFERENCES).”

“R1 mistakenly equates our method of evaluate current designs according to ethical principles as a weak attempt at user centered design (point #3). But we never claimed to be doing a user analysis of the tools. R1 complains that we over-emphasise the importance of these technologies, when their influence is already well established in the literature (e.g. REFERENCES).”

"There seems to be a misunderstanding about the methodology, which we hope to clear through our responses below and by revising the text in the manuscript. Contrary to what the reviewer states, ...” (from academia.stackexchange, cc-by-sa license)

"This comment completely misrepresent the methodology described in the paper." (from academia.stackexchange, cc-by-sa license)

Reviewer one frames the work thus: “They argue that no study has to date examined the ways that x-related projects engage with the y, or its adequacy for this context.” Their comments rest on the concern that the paper does not adequately situate the background (comment n1) and then findings (comment n2) in relation to existing research on “topic related to x”. However, we believe this is a misreading of the intent of the paper. While certainly the wider scope of ‘x’ topics is relevant to aspects of this work, our claim is not that “no study has to date examined the ways that x-related projects engage with the y, or its adequacy for this context.”. Instead our claim – warranted by three recent studies – is that there are gaps in the narrower related x2 space, and a need to better understand this space. That is, while certainly there is interesting and valuable work regarding the wider x-system, including those suggested of [one author who appeared in 3 of 4 items suggested by the reviewer] and colleagues, as we set out below, in that context and given the constraints of space, we do not believe the suggestions are within scope for the paper. If this view is not what was intended, we would of course be happy to review our position with provision of further clarification.  

???

"We disagree with the reviewer's comment about our methodology. Our methods are standard in the field and have been used successfully in previous studies. No changes to the methodology are necessary.” (chatGPT prompted)

"We appreciate the reviewer's feedback on the methodology. In response, we have decided to completely overhaul our analysis and use a more advanced statistical approach. As suggested we have replaced our regression analysis with a machine learning approach.” (chatGPT prompted)

"We thank the reviewer for their comment on our methodology. While our methods are indeed traditional, they are well-established in the field for analyzing the type of data we collected, and as [xy, 2017) demonstrate they provide robust results against comparators. To illustrate this point, we ran preliminary analysis for comparison (see below) which demonstrates the validity of our results.” (chatGPT prompted)