International Journal of Rejections

← Back to Volume 2

Evaluating Cognitive Load in VR Simulation-Based Training for AECO Professionals

ROI: 10.IJOR/RS.20260303.1000

Published March 03, 2026

Original Manuscript

The Verdict & The Defense

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer 2 (Major Revision / Reject):

While the application of Virtual Reality (VR) in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO) sector is of interest to the readership, this manuscript suffers from several fatal methodological flaws that preclude publication.

  1. Sample Size and Demographics: The authors base their entire cognitive load framework on a sample of merely 14 participants. In human-computer interaction studies, an N of 14 is statistically insignificant.
  2. Measurement Instruments: The reliance on the NASA-TLX for measuring cognitive load in an immersive VR environment is severely outdated. Why were psychophysiological metrics (e.g., EEG, eye-tracking) not utilized?
  3. Instructional Design: The authors claim to use the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), but their VR environment blatantly violates the coherence principle by including unnecessary visual elements in the background.

The literature review also entirely misses the seminal work by Smith et al. (2024) on spatial cognition in digital twins. I cannot recommend this for publication in its current state.

Author's Unfiltered Rebuttal

Author’s Response:

We thank the reviewers for their time. However, we strongly contest the grounds for rejection provided by Reviewer 2, which demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of applied AECO research.

  • Regarding Sample Size: Recruiting 14 senior construction managers with over 15 years of active site experience is exceptionally difficult. This is not a study of undergraduate students; it is a highly specialized expert cohort. Qualitative insights from 14 domain experts hold significantly more ecological validity than a sample of 100 novices.
  • Regarding Measurement: While EEG is novel, outfitting active construction professionals with wet-electrode caps while they navigate a simulated hazard environment is physically impractical and degrades the realism of the simulation. NASA-TLX remains the validated gold standard for subjective workload assessment in applied industrial settings.
  • Regarding “Unnecessary Elements”: The visual elements Reviewer 2 complains about were exact replicas of standard hazard warning signs found on active construction sites. Removing them would invalidate the environmental fidelity of the simulation.

Finally, Smith et al. (2024) focuses on desktop-based BIM navigation, which has zero bearing on immersive 6-DOF VR training. We stand by our methodology.