Augmented Reality in K–12 Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature from 2000 to 2020
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is organized in an adequate and clear manner. The pertinence of the study is stated and the aims are well delimited. Overall, the ideas are clearly presented throughout the paper. Some typos are identified, so the authors should proceed to a careful read of the manuscript.
Please consider the following aspects to improve the paper:
- Review the references, both in the text and the list, in order to meet the criteria of the referencing style adopted by the journal.
- The methodology followed must be identified, carefully explaining all the procedures and options: method; explanation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria; assessment of quality; data to be extracted; characteristics of a meta-analysis.
- The conclusions would benefit if the authors specifically addressed the initial questions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript reports on a literature analysis of the application of augmented reality 11 in K–12 education settings between 2000 and 2020. The authors have compiled the data from 129 manuscripts (from where different degrees of utility for the purposes of the manuscript are evidenced). It content is relevant and this document could be interesting to many (specially, for PhD students that are being introduced in this topic).
The manuscript is well written in term of English style and is also well organized. The overall structure is comprehensible and readable. The figures are meaningful and are well discussed.
From the scientific point of view, the delivered manuscript well presents and introduce the research questions. The literature review is well discussed, the methodology is well presented, the databases are meaningful (peer reviewed Scopus documents) and an argumentation on how the manuscripts were selected is delivered.
Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, it has room for improvement. To my opinion, a list of the 129 analyzed manuscripts should be delivered as annex (the inclusion criteria should be also clearly readable for each manuscript). This supporting information is usually delivered when a “state of the art” document is presented.
To my opinion, no additional reviews are needed and the authors made a good work with this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A very important work. Please find my remarks within the enclosed data file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
