You can find my first draft here
It is hard to categorize my thoughts on your paper into positive and negative. Of course, there are some typos and little errors. But they happen to every author and it would not be fair to point them out like that. See my comments and markings in the PDF for all the little errors I found that are easy to fix.
Overall, I am impressed with what you have achieved so far. The amount and quality of writing is very good for a first draft. But some parts are still rough and need some refinement. Here are my thoughts on the matter. I hope my criticism is constructive and my suggestions are helpful. Don’t take these somewhat negative comments personally:
– From the title, abstract and introduction it is clear what topics the paper will discuss. But I feel that an easy to follow threat throughout the rest of the paper is missing. There is no natural flow between sections. Instead there is a lot of jumping back and forth between topics which is evident by introductory sentences like “Before we give examples of different locomotion techniques for immersive VEs, we will present…” after the section heading “Designing locomotion techniques”. These two feel contradictory. This is more confusing to the reader than helpful, in my opinion. You can solve this problem by:
o Better structuring your paper, with more sections and smaller paragraphs, but pay attention to the numbering. If there is a section 2.1 then a section 2.2 must follow
o Reordering some of the information, so the flow is more linear and clear
o Find a better title for some sections, that more accurately describe their contents
o Don’t repeating what the reader already knows from the title of the section or from the end of the previous paragraph, for example: “We divide the techniques according to the taxonomy [..] into steering techniques and techniques using discrete target selection. / 3.1 Continuous Steering / We start with steering approaches.”
o Instead explain WHY you start with steering techniques first. Maybe the steering technique is older than the other or it was researched first or it is simpler and therefore better suited to be introduced first to the reader. Or leave out this introductory sentence entirely if it is clear by the title what you are going to write about.
– Capitalize Title and Headings correctly, see Zobel p. 128
– I would mainly use the acronym VR, since it is more common than VE, also if you use a term only three times it is not really necessary to use acronyms
– Since your paper deals with a very visual topic I think it is justified to include a couple of appropriate pictures to illustrate some of the concepts you talk about
o Pay attention to detail, use vector graphics if possible and make sure the text in your figures is not to small
o Try to place the figures on the same page as the paragraphs that reference them
– Usually there a couple or more of official authors of a scientific paper, but since you are the only author of this text, the use of “we” is misleading to the reader because it is not clear who “we” refers to. You can use “I” instead.
– Your users are all female. Zobel considers this “reverse sexism” and so do I. It is very easy to avoid expressions that unnecessarily specify gender by using the plural (“users”, “they”) or by restructuring the sentence.
I will e-mail the revised version of the pdf to the address given in your paper, since I cannot include a link in this comment.
I send you my feedback via Mail today
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *