Reviewer has chosen not to be AnonymousOverall Impression:
UndecidedTechnical Quality of the paper:
Limited noveltyData availability:
All used and produced data (if any) are FAIR and openly available in established data repositoriesLength of the manuscript:
The length of this manuscript is about right
Summary of paper in a few sentences (summary of changes and improvements for
second round reviews):
In the revised version, the authors extended the motivation for this work and clarified the used feature set. Furthermore, the authors provided more details in the discussion and highlighted the limitations of the used data set.
Reasons to accept:
The general topic is still relevant for the research communities in Data Science and Human-Computer Interaction.
Reasons to reject:
I acknowledge that the authors highlight the limitations of the used data set. However, the limitations are not reflected in the narrative of the submission. In the introduction, the authors motivate their work with an eHealth scenario. However, it reminds unclear if the results can be transferred to this scenario. I still see the issue that this particular app provides only a benefit for users in a specific geographical area. Thereby the location of the user becomes an obvious feature. Beyond, naming the limitations, it would be helpful to discuss where the results can be applied.
Meta-Review by Editor
Submitted by Tobias Kuhn on
Please take into account the comments of reviewer 2, regarding discussing limitations and where the results can be applied.
Jodi Schneider (http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5098-5667)
Reply to Reviewer 2
Submitted by Eduardo Barbaro on
We have uploaded the camera-ready files as well as the reply addressing the remarks raised by Reviewer 2.