Intelligent textbooks, rejected

I submitted a short paper to “intelligent textbook” researchers, arguing that we are still stuck in the 2-dimensional page paradigm, and offered a link to an interactive alternative in the references. As expected, they rejected the paper, and probably they did not notice how much their response confirmed my observation:

They wanted a diagram, instead.

(I deliberately did not include a static diagram because it is only after immersing for a few minutes in the interactive app that one appreciates the difference.)

Here is the paper

split-pane-interactivity.pdf

and here are the reviews:

----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
SUBMISSION: 4
TITLE: Split Pane Interactivity
AUTHORS: Matthias Melcher

----------- Overall evaluation -----------
SCORE: -1 (weak reject)
----- TEXT:
Roughly the first two pages are irrelevant. The paper 
boils down to a claim that replacing pop-ups tied to 
the position of the item being referenced with the 
equivalent text being displayed in a fixed location 
is superior. This could have been explained far more 
clearly and succinctly without invoking the irrelevant 
issue of 2D interfaces being unchanged from paper. 
There is no empirical support for the claim, or even 
a significant argument that the claim should be true.



----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
SUBMISSION: 4
TITLE: Split Pane Interactivity
AUTHORS: Matthias Melcher

----------- Overall evaluation -----------
SCORE: -2 (reject)
----- TEXT:
This opinion article advocates for alternatives to 
the conventional 2-dimensional page paradigm. 
Unfortunately, the article is hard to understand and 
I was not able to follow the main thesis:
* I am unfamiliar with split attention theory and 
the author doesn't define it
* I am unfamiliar with drone and ballistic design 
principles and the author doesn't define them

I recommend the author to work on the presentation 
of the main point(s).  Perhaps a diagram of what the 
author means by "split pane interactivity" could be 
helpful? Perhaps writing the paper in a more 
traditional "academic" structure could help readers 
understand the author's intent better?