Materiality, Corporeality, and Relationality in Older Human–Robot Interaction (OHRI)
Zofia Szarota
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
It is for sure a much improved version than the previous one. An excellent study, congrats!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, dear colleague, thank you for this positive feedback. We have proofread the text once again to clear out the English mistakes and typos. I hope you will be satisfied with the changes. With sincere regards, authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The text is coherent, the argument logical, the research material is inspiring. I rate the article highly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, dear colleague, thank you for this positive feedback. We have proofread the text once again to clear out the English mistakes and typos. I hope you will be satisfied with the changes. With sincere regards, authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research objective and research questions are original and well defined. The results of the observations testify to the progress of current knowledge, are appropriately interpreted, and broaden its scope. Interdisciplinary knowledge about the future of gerotechnology, with its educational and entertaining applications, is extremely important. The conclusions of the research are cognitively valuable and practically useful. Social robots can play an important role in the edutainment and social life of older adults. Congratulations to the authors.
Author Response
Dear reviwer, thank you for your collegial and positive feed back, we value your opinion. We have made minor changes to the text according to the second reviewer's requests (especially the addition of the Discussion), but have kept the overall structure and main conclusions. We had the text proofread by native speaker (a sociologist). Thank you again for the feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Very good paper. Congratulations for the project as well. However, there were times when I felt, reading your article, that you are discussing more the existing literature than your actual findings and that some conclusions derive not from what you have presented but from the analysed literature. Perhaps because the project is in its early stages (although some interviews with the older persons that interacted with Pepper could have been beneficial for understanding all these aspects from the elders’ perspective and also to observe gendered differences). In this sense, I would be very interested to see other papers that will inform how the project develops. As for this article it would be great if you can emphasise more on the limitations of the paper and stress out more the further directions of the project. The idea of the embedded ageism in the robot design is extremely important (because, indeed, dangerous). I would have wanted to hear more considerations about.
There are also several EN misspellings, please check. Also, please see that all the keywords must be present in the abstract (you don’t have gender in the abstract, for example
Author Response
Dear reviwer, thank you for your collegial and substantive feedback. We greatly appreciate your time and posktynutých recommendations. Please find attached the full text, including marked changes for clarity, and a clean copy. We have tried to address all recommendations as suggested.
We have added additional information on the objective of the text and edited the information on methodology (case study). Further results of the project have already been published, unfortunately only in Czech language for now (all results are available on the project website, which is attached in the text), we thank you for your interest and motivation to publish them also in English in the next period.
We have expanded the discussion and limitations section and edited the abstract.
Last but not least, the text has been proofread by a sociologist, a native speaker.
Once again, we thank you for your help with this text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
