Next Article in Journal
Valuing in the Agrifood System: The Case of Fresh Grain Legumes in Denmark
Next Article in Special Issue
A Study on Teachers’ Continuance Intention to Use Technology in English Instruction in Western China Junior Secondary Schools
Previous Article in Journal
Short Term Power Load Forecasting Based on PSVMD-CGA Model
 
 
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Effect of Chatbot Technology Use in Sustainable Education

Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 2940; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042940
by Xinjie Deng and Zhonggen Yu *
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4:
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 2940; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042940
Submission received: 29 December 2022 / Revised: 3 February 2023 / Accepted: 3 February 2023 / Published: 6 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Use of Digital Technology for Sustainable Teaching and Learning)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting review study which is well-developed and well-organized. The following points should be considered and corrected by the athor/s.

1. in Figure 2, studies included  in meta-analysis is equal to 25; after two additional rounds, another 4 articles added= 29, but the final studies included is equal to 32. what are 3 additional articles and when have they been added?

2. the author is recommended to add a paragraph discussing the problems in educational setting where the study has beeen conducted, China and explain how this study can benefit Chinese educational system. It would be beneficial if the author tries to elaborate what motivated him/her to conduct such a study.

3. Although several hypotheses were stated in the study but no EXPLICIT reference was made to the hypotheses in results and discussion section to say if they were rejected or accepted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability

Here and now, the conduction of the current study is appropriate and timing. However, some issues can be addressed in future submissions/revisions.

The results are solid, which offers warrants for the quality of the study. 

The most critical issue is the literature/hypotheses. The literature needs to be revised/expanded/updated (at least doubled) to form the many hypotheses tested by the current study. The results rejected almost 40% of the hypotheses, which might be caused by the false hypotheses proposed.

The significance of the study needs to be articulated explicitly, especially for potential international readers.

The discussion must be more comprehensive to engage the study in a meaningful conversation with past scholarly works to outshine the study's contributions to the knowledge and field. Thus, I suggest the authors add more literature in the literature review and discussion sections.

The contributions of the study (methodological, theoretical, and practical contributions) need to be articulated explicitly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well-written by showing a clear structure and a solid study background.

Only two minor editing revisions as follows:

1. Insert a space between Table 2 and the coming "3.4 Data analysis” sub-paragraph at line 214.

 

2.  Insert a space between Table 4 and the text below at line 261.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The document is a relevant state of the art. A bibliometric analysis with VosViewer and Open Knowledge Maps would be advisable to attach.

 

On the other hand, it is suggested that the authors in the references section use a range between 2023 and 2019. Exclude conferences and verify articles from ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, PLOS, Springer, and Hindawi over MDPI (Education Sciences).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments offered in the previous review. Thus, I suggest accepting the article. 

Author Response

Summary: The authors have addressed all the comments offered in the previous review. Thus, I suggest accepting the article.

Response: Thank you very much for your patience and appreciation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop