[REVIEWS] Camera-ready version of the paper by March 4th

[mxochicale]

The submitted was accepted but it was evaluated with score 1 "e.g. weak acceptance" by two reviewers of unknown level of experience/expertise in the field. Reviewers comments will help to submit a camera-ready version aiming to address the majority of the comments.

----------------------- REVIEW 1 --------------------- SUBMISSION: 14 TITLE: Piloting Diversity and Inclusion Workshops in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Children AUTHORS: Miguel Xochicale ----------- Overall evaluation ----------- SCORE: 1 (weak accept) ----- TEXT: In this paper, the authors presented a preliminary work from a pilot workshop that aimed to promote diversity and inclusion in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in the context of developing countries to children of age between 6 to 12 years old. Diversity and Inclusion Workshops are a promising tool, especially considering the growing significance of Ai and robotics in the current era. However, the paper in its current form lacks sufficient justification for the proposed methodology and the insights. The study design is weak. Following are the main problems: -- [R1C1] No proper compilation of the data on the demographic data. Authors are requested to make use of additional surveys, census, etc. to identify the target group and their needs. For example, even 200 euros could be quite expensive for several children and their families. Even though the workshops were offered for free, a sustainable model itself was missing. -- [R1C2] No proper design on how diversity and inclusion will be promoted. Was the idea to promote it among a small sample or the idea was to create a template workshop that can be replicated by others? In either case, the contributions are not very clear. -- [R1C3] During the implementation itself, the inclusion criteria were not mentioned. -- [R1C4] No metrics were used or reported to signify the impact of the workshop on the proposed objective. -- [R1C5] The future work and conclusion are very weak. I would suggest starting with a proper need analysis and the development of a suitable methodology that can incorporate diversity and inclusion keeping in mind the identified needs. ----------------------- REVIEW 2 --------------------- SUBMISSION: 14 TITLE: Piloting Diversity and Inclusion Workshops in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Children AUTHORS: Miguel Xochicale ----------- Overall evaluation ----------- SCORE: 1 (weak accept) ----- TEXT: This paper describes a series of workshops for children to learn AI/Robotics in politically and economically marginalized countries (and areas) where access to expensive equipment and resources may be limited. Overall, the paper is relevant to the workshop and the authors' insights would likely be beneficial to the community, however, I would like to have seen more population-specific insights in the paper itself. Strengths: -- [R2C1] The focus on developing the next generation of AI/Robotics professionals in countries that have historically been marginalized from our community for economic and political reasons is highly relevant to the workshop -- [R2C2] The workshop includes a somewhat gender-balanced group with a wide range of ages Weaknesses: -- [R2C3] I would have liked to see more of the "why" of the design choices -- what pedagogical techniques are being used in each of the exercises, and how does the pedagogy relate to the topic material -- [R2C4] It is hard to draw conclusions about the unique properties of the community served in this work; beyond using low-cost resources, how do the materials need to be adapted and why?