Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Academic Integrity Among University Students in Peru and Chile: An Approach to Sustainable Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, authors have examined the relationship between university students' perceptions and attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its influence on academic integrity. Academic integrity is a major concern and with the evolution of AI tools, this issue has become more complicated.

The paper is well written and have detailed analysis and findings are appropriately grounded in the literature. The following minor improvement may enhance the paper.

All sub headings should be numbered.

Was there any content validity of questionnaire carried out by experts other than pilot testing?

Contents of tables and figures may be explained more in text.

Some figures are very colorful, maybe color choice reconsidered.

Authors may add theoretical and managerial implications of the study in the discussion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Manuscript requires minor language edit.

Author Response

I have sent you the attached new article and observations, thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article, the authors presented the results of the study on the interaction between university students' perceptions and attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence and its influence on academic integrity in Peru and Chile. The main comments that can contribute to improving the quality of the article:

1. The purpose of the study should be clearly specified (in the Introduction and Abstract). It should be remembered that the analysis cannot be the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study may be to compare phenomena, assess the phenomenon, find relationships, etc. Analysis is a generally understood methodology of assigning.

2. The article does not formulate hypotheses or research questions. The entire study should be directed towards verifying hypotheses or answering research questions.

3. In the Introduction, it should be written what new the presented study brings to science? What is its added value? The authors did not justify the necessity and value of their work.

4. In the Conclusions section, it should be written what were the limitations of the study.

5. The statistical analysis of the survey is very weak. The econometric and statistical methods are poorly selected. First of all, what were assumed as independent variables. The content of the article shows that these are answers to survey questions measured on a Likert scale. In the case of such variables, the arithmetic mean and standard deviation are not determined, but the median. This fact gives rise to two more important remarks:

a) In statistics there are 4 types of data; ordinal, nominal, interval and ratio. In a multiple linear regression analysis you have to use interval or ratio data. The Likert scale was used in the article, so it is an ordinal scale. In such a case, a linear model is not used, also a multiple regression model. Due to the ordinal nature of the data we cannot use parametric techniques to analyse Likert type data; Analysis of variance techniques include; • Mann Whitney test. • Kruskal Wallis test. Regression techniques include; • Ordered logistic regression or; • Multinomial logistic regression. • Alternatively collapse the levels of the Dependent variable into two levels and run binary logistic regression.

b) The results presented in Table 5 indicate that multiple linear regression does not describe the studied phenomenon well. This is evidenced by R2, which has a very low value. The authors mentioned this, but did not draw the right conclusions. In such a situation, you can try to remove statistical non-significance variables from the model. Then, you can re-estimate the model parameters. Unfortunately, such removal of independent variables from the model most often causes a decrease in the R2 value. The only good solution is to use nonlinear models (which is justified in sub-item a). 6. The wording in lines 339-340 is unclear. Are explanatory variables really continuous?

All the ambiguities described in points 5-6 affect the low methodological level of the text.

7. Section 6. Patents (lines 497-499) is a fragment of the form. It should be removed.

Author Response

I have sent you the attached new article and observations, thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses a relevant study that examines the relationship between the perception of university students and their attitudes towards artificial intelligence, as well as its influence on academic integrity. This work includes a large and diverse sample, with more than 650 students from universities in Chile and Peru. The following is a detailed analysis of each of the sections of the study:

- Title: It is noted that the title is excessively long, which may make it difficult to quickly understand the subject of the study. It is recommended that the number of words be reduced, while maintaining the precision and relevance of the content.

- Abstract: The abstract lacks an introductory sentence that justifies the work. It would be beneficial to include an explanation that contextualizes the study and briefly summarizes the method used, providing a clear vision from the beginning.

- Keywords: It is suggested to review the selected keywords. For example, "SDG 4" (Sustainable Development Goal 4) does not seem to be an appropriate keyword for this work in its current form. It would be more effective to select terms directly related to the main topic of the research.

- Format: There are several issues for improvement in terms of formatting:

- Citations: In citations, the period before the references in square brackets should be eliminated. Citations should be integrated directly into the text to improve fluency and clarity.

- Decimals: Inconsistency has been observed in the use of decimal separators; while in tables the comma (",") is used, in the text the period (".") is used. It is crucial to unify this criterion to avoid confusion. In addition, it must be decided whether one or two decimals will be used, since there is variability in the tables (e.g., in table 2, one decimal is used and in table 3, two).

- Table titles: Table titles should more accurately reflect the content, specifying whether the data are percentages, counts, or another type of measurement. Currently, some titles are too generic, as is the case in Table 3, which could apply to any study.

- Introduction: The introduction does not adequately justify the need for this study. It is crucial to clearly explain the gap in the literature that this work aims to fill, which will strengthen the relevance of the study.

- Literature review: It is recommended that previous studies examining student perception of artificial intelligence be referenced. Currently, the review is too conceptual and does not provide a detailed background analysis. It would be useful to mention the instruments and methods of analysis used in previous studies, identifying limitations that justify the present study.

- Materials and methods: It is suggested that this section be renamed "Methods" and that the subsections be reorganized. After the research design, the next subsection should be "Participants". In the subsection "Instrument", it would be valuable to detail which aspects were taken as reference from each questionnaire mentioned. In addition, it is essential to discuss the reliability and validity of the questionnaire in this section, rather than in the statistical analysis section. Regarding the latter, it is necessary to specify more clearly the analyses to be performed in the results section.

- Results: The results are well presented and complete, which facilitates understanding of the main findings.

- Discussion and conclusions: These sections are well developed, and the inclusion of a section on future actions, which adds value to the study by suggesting possible lines of research, is appreciated.

- Ethics committee code: It is essential that the study has been approved by an ethics committee of the corresponding institution. The ethics committee's code of approval should be obtained and explicitly mentioned in the document, which guarantees that the research complies with the ethical standards required in studies involving human participants.

- Bibliography: It is necessary to review the format of the bibliography, since it does not conform to the required standards. Consistency and correct citation style should be ensured according to the guidelines of the format used.

Implementing these adjustments will contribute to the clarity, coherence and relevance of the final work.

Best wishes.

Author Response

I have sent you the attached new article and observations, thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a study that explores the impact of students' perceptions and attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence (AI) on academic integrity within the framework of sustainable education. As for the analysis based on its novelty, globality, and overall scientific importance, the following must be stated:

1. Novelty

The study introduces a novel angle by linking AI perceptions with academic integrity and sustainable education, a connection that has not been extensively explored. This integration of AI literacy into the discourse on ethics and sustainability in education represents a fresh approach to understanding how emerging technologies affect student behavior. The use of structural equation modeling (SEM) and multiple linear regression to analyze the data adds methodological rigor, enhancing the originality of the findings.

2. Globality

The research is conducted across two countries, Chile and Peru, encompassing 659 students from 13 universities. This cross-cultural analysis provides insights into how different socio-economic contexts influence perceptions of AI and its ethical implications. The focus on Latin America, a region less frequently studied in global AI discourse, adds to the global relevance of the research. However, for broader global applicability, future studies might expand to include more diverse regions.

3. Overall Scientific Importance

The study's findings are significant as they contribute to a better understanding of how AI can be ethically integrated into higher education. The identification of factors like safety, risk, economic impact, and attitudes towards AI, and their differing importance between Chile and Peru, offer valuable insights for policymakers and educators. This research underlines the need for AI literacy and ethical frameworks in educational curricula, directly linking these to sustainable development—a priority in the global educational agenda. The emphasis on sustainable education aligns with current global efforts to ensure that technological advancements contribute positively to society.

4. The Reference section is quite substantial and logical; all the sources are modern and suitable to the research topic.

5. The language can be improved and the article must be proofread.

Conclusion

Overall, this paper reflects a study of substantial scientific importance, offering novel insights with global implications. By addressing a critical intersection of AI, ethics, and sustainability in education, the research provides valuable contributions to the discourse on how emerging technologies should be managed in academic settings to promote ethical behavior and sustainable development.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Vocabulary

• Advanced Terminology: The abstract uses specialized terms such as "correlational-explanatory analysis," "structural equation modelling (SEM)," and "sustainable development." These terms are common in academic research but may be challenging for readers who are not familiar with this field.
• Formal Language: Phrases like "significant factors," "variance (R²)," and "regulatory frameworks" indicate a high level of formal academic language.

Sentence Structure

• Complex Sentences: The abstract features long, complex sentences with multiple clauses, which is typical in academic writing. For example, "The results show that for Chilean students, safety and risk related to AI are significant factors in academic integrity, explaining 23.30% of the variance (R²)."
• Passive Voice: There is use of passive voice, e.g., "was conducted on a sample of 659 students," which is common in academic writing but might make the text harder to follow for non-native speakers.

Clarity and Conciseness

• Clear Communication: Despite the complexity, the abstract clearly communicates the research's aims, methods, and findings. Each sentence contributes to building an understanding of the study's significance.
• Dense Information: The abstract packs a lot of information into a few sentences, which is typical of academic abstracts. This density might be challenging for readers with lower English proficiency.

Conclusion

The English level is well-suited for an academic audience, particularly those familiar with research methodologies and educational studies. However, for a broader audience, or for those with intermediate English proficiency, some of the vocabulary and sentence structures might be challenging. Simplifying some terms or breaking down complex sentences could make the abstract more accessible to a wider range of readers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your kind words and recognition of our efforts. We are pleased to know that the improvements made have contributed positively to the quality of the paper.

We would like to inform you that we have submitted the manuscript to the English editorial process of the journal, and we are enclosing the corresponding certificate for your reference.

Thank you again for your valuable time and guidance.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to the comments included in the review. However, they did not include all of them in their article. The issue of statistical methods used in the article is very controversial. I am aware that in some social sciences (e.g. sociology) some statistical methods are used in a different way than their original assumptions. Unfortunately, in my opinion this is not the right approach. "Bending" quantitative methods to research is not right. The fact that others do it is no excuse. "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth." This is the creation of "new" statistics, new mathematics, new econometrics. The use of ready-made statistical packages by people who have not studied quantitative methods, but have only had short courses and training, leads to the incorrect use of methods in scientific research. All methods are justified by mathematical proofs, and their use is related to the fulfillment of many assumptions. How can you claim that the linear model is good, if it should not be used in this case at all? If it describes the phenomenon incorrectly. How can you draw conclusions based on such a model and publish them in a scientific journal? This is unacceptable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate your comments and concerns about the statistical methods used in our article. We value your opinion highly and have tried to address your suggestions in the best way possible. Your feedback helps us to improve the quality of our research and to ensure that our methods are appropriate and rigorous.

We are also pleased to inform you that the manuscript has gone through the journal's English-language editorial process, and we are enclosing the relevant certificate for your reference.

Thank you again for your time and valuable contribution to our work.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

Good job. You have satisfactorily addressed all the suggestions I indicated in my previous review, and I appreciate the dedication and care with which you have attended to each of them. Undoubtedly, these improvements have increased the quality of the work.

Best wishes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your kind words and recognition of our efforts. We are pleased to know that the improvements made have contributed positively to the quality of the paper.

We would like to inform you that we have submitted the manuscript to the English editorial process of the journal, and we are enclosing the corresponding certificate for your reference.

Thank you again for your valuable time and guidance.

Yours sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not make the suggested corrections.

Author Response

Percepciones hacia la Inteligencia Artificial e Integridad Académica en Estudiantes Universitarios de Perú y Chi-le: Un Enfoque de Educación Sustentable

Todo nuestro equipo ha puesto gran dedicación y esfuerzo para abordar cuidadosamente cada una de las observaciones recibidas, implementando los ajustes necesarios para mejorar el estudio. Confiamos en que estas revisiones hayan cumplido con sus expectativas y que el trabajo refleje el compromiso que tenemos con la calidad. Agradecemos su valiosa orientación y, siguiendo la sugerencia del editor y revisor, también hemos realizado un cambio adicional en el título para alinearlo mejor con los objetivos del estudio. Esperamos que estas mejoras sean de su agrado.

Our entire team has worked hard to carefully consider each of the comments received and to make the necessary adjustments to improve the study. We hope that these reviews have met your expectations and that the work reflects our commitment to quality. We appreciate your valuable guidance and, following the suggestion of the editor and reviewers, we have also made an additional change to the title to better align it with the objectives of the study. We hope you like these improvements.

 

Response to Reviewer 2's Comments

 

1. Point-by-point response to Author Comments and Suggestions

Comments 1: [ 1. The purpose of the study should be clearly specified (in the Introduction and Abstract). It should be remembered that the analysis cannot be the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study may be to compare phenomena, assess the phenomenon, find relationships, etc. Analysis is a generally understood methodology of assigning]

1. El propósito del estudio debe especificarse claramente (en la Introducción y el Resumen). Debe recordarse que el análisis no puede ser el propósito del estudio. El propósito del estudio puede ser comparar fenómenos, evaluarlos, encontrar relaciones, etc. El análisis es una metodología de asignación generalmente entendida.

 

Answer 1: Agradezco su observación sobre la necesidad de especificar claramente el propósito del estudio en la Introducción y el Resumen. Se ha tomado en cuenta esta recomendación, y el propósito ha sido ajustado para reflejar adecuadamente los objetivos de comparación y evaluación del estudio, en lugar de describir solo el análisis como el fin. Las observaciones han sido atendidas conforme a sus indicaciones [17-31,116-144].

Response 1: I appreciate your comment on the need to clearly state the purpose of the study in the introduction and abstract. This recommendation has been taken into account and the purpose has been adapted to adequately reflect the comparative and evaluative aims of the study, rather than describing the analysis as the sole aim. The comments have been addressed according to your guidelines [17-31,116-144].

 

 

 

2. Point-by-point response to Author Comments and Suggestions

Comment 2: [2. The article does not formulate hypotheses or research questions. The entire study should be directed towards verifying hypotheses or answering research questions]

2. El artículo no formula hipótesis ni preguntas de investigación. Todo el estudio debe estar orientado a verificar hipótesis o responder preguntas de investigación.

Answer 2: Agradezco su valiosa observación sobre la necesidad de formular hipótesis y preguntas de investigación para orientar el estudio. Se ha abordado esta recomendación, incorporando hipótesis y preguntas que guían el análisis de acuerdo con los objetivos del estudio. Las observaciones han sido atendidas tal como se indicó [116-144].

Response 2: I appreciate your valuable comment on the need to formulate hypotheses and research questions to guide the study. This recommendation has been addressed by including hypotheses and questions to guide the analysis in accordance with the objectives of the study. The comments have been addressed as indicated [116-144].

 

3. Point-by-point response to Author Comments and Suggestions

Comments 3: [3. In the Introduction, it should be written what new the presented study brings to science? What is its added value? The authors did not justify the necessity and value of their work]

3) En la Introducción se debe indicar qué novedades aporta a la ciencia el estudio presentado. ¿Cuál es su valor añadido? Los autores no justificaron la necesidad y el valor de su trabajo

Answer 3: Agradezco su observación sobre la importancia de resaltar las contribuciones novedosas del estudio y de justificar su valor añadido. Se ha atendido esta recomendación, y la Introducción ha sido revisada para detallar las aportaciones a la ciencia y el valor único del trabajo presentado. Las observaciones se han levantado de acuerdo con sus indicaciones [95-106,139-144].

Response 3: I appreciate your comment on the importance of highlighting the novel contributions of the study and justifying its added value. This recommendation has been addressed and the introduction has been revised to detail the contributions to science and the unique value of the work presented. The comments have been incorporated in accordance with your guidance [95-106,139-144].

4. Point-by-point response to Author Comments and Suggestions

Comments 4: [4. In the Conclusions section, it should be written what were the limitations of the study]

4. En la sección de Conclusiones se debe escribir cuáles fueron las limitaciones del estudio.

Answer 4: Agradezco su observación sobre la importancia de incluir las limitaciones del estudio en la sección de Conclusiones. Se ha incorporado esta recomendación y se han detallado las limitaciones encontradas, proporcionando un contexto claro para la interpretación de los resultados. Las observaciones han sido atendidas conforme a sus indicaciones. [1039-1051].

Response 4: I appreciate your comment on the importance of including the limitations of the study in the conclusions section. This recommendation has been taken on board and the limitations identified have been detailed to provide a clear context for the interpretation of the results. The comments have been addressed as you suggested. [1039-1051]

 

5. Point-by-point response to Author Comments and Suggestions

Comments 5: [5. The statistical analysis of the survey is very weak. The econometric and statistical methods are poorly selected. First of all, what were assumed as independent variables. The content of the article shows that these are answers to survey questions measured on a Likert scale. In the case of such variables, the arithmetic mean and standard deviation are not determined, but the median. This fact gives rise to two more important remarks:

 

1. a) In statistics there are 4 types of data; ordinal, nominal, interval and ratio. In a multiple linear regression analysis you have to use interval or ratio data. The Likert scale was used in the article, so it is an ordinal scale. In such a case, a linear model is not used, also a multiple regression model. Due to the ordinal nature of the data we cannot use parametric techniques to analyse Likert type data; Analysis of variance techniques include; • Mann Whitney test. • Kruskal Wallis test. Regression techniques include; • Ordered logistic regression or; • Multinomial logistic regression. • Alternatively collapse the levels of the Dependent variable into two levels and run binary logistic regression.

 

1. b) The results presented in Table 5 indicate that multiple linear regression does not describe the studied phenomenon well. This is evidenced by R2, which has a very low value. The authors mentioned this, but did not draw the right conclusions. In such a situation, you can try to remove statistical non-significance variables from the model. Then, you can re-estimate the model parameters. Unfortunately, such removal of independent variables from the model most often causes a decrease in the R2 value. The only good solution is to use nonlinear models (which is justified in sub-item]
2. El análisis estadístico de la encuesta es muy deficiente. Los métodos econométricos y estadísticos están mal seleccionados. En primer lugar, qué variables se han considerado independientes. El contenido del artículo muestra que se trata de respuestas a preguntas de la encuesta medidas en una escala Likert. En el caso de dichas variables, no se determina la media aritmética ni la desviación típica, sino la mediana. Este hecho da lugar a dos observaciones más importantes:
3. a) En estadística existen 4 tipos de datos; ordinales, nominales, de intervalo y de razón. En un análisis de regresión lineal múltiple hay que utilizar datos de intervalo o de razón. En elartículo se utilizó la escala Likert, por lo que es una escala ordinal. En tal caso, no se utiliza un modelo lineal, ni tampoco un modelo de regresión múltiple. Debido a la naturaleza ordinal de los datos no podemos utilizar técnicas paramétricas para analizar datos de tipo Likert; Las técnicas de análisis de varianza incluyen; • Prueba de Mann Whitney. • Prueba de Kruskal Wallis.Las técnicas de regresión incluyen; • Regresión logística ordenada o; • Regresión logística multinomial. •Alternativamente, colapsar los niveles de la variable dependiente en dos niveles y ejecutar la regresión logística binaria.
4. b) Los resultados presentados en la Tabla 5 indican que la regresión lineal múltiple no describe bien el fenómeno estudiado. Esto se evidencia por el R2, que tiene un valor muy bajo. Los autores lo mencionaron, pero no sacaron las conclusiones correctas. En tal situación, se puede intentar eliminar del modelo las variables no significativas estadísticamente. Luego, se pueden volver a estimar los parámetros del modelo. Desafortunadamente, tal eliminación de variables independientes del modelo causa con mayor frecuencia una disminución en el valor R2. La única buena solución es utilizar modelos no lineales (lo que se justifica en el sub-ítem a). 6. La redacción en las líneas 339-340 no es clara. ¿Son realmente continuas las variables explicativas?

Answer 5: Agradecemos su observación sobre la sección de Análisis de Datos. Hemos ampliado esta sección para incluir todos los análisis realizados: muestreo, validación del instrumento, comparaciones, análisis factorial confirmatorio y estructural, detallando los módulos específicos, software y versiones utilizadas, y justificando su elección. Esta información también ha sido reflejada en la sección de Resultados, fortaleciendo la claridad y rigor del estudio [362-375, 384-466, 495-507, 539]. Siguiendo su recomendación, hemos ampliado esta sección para incluir la validación del constructo, detallando las variables latentes junto con sus coeficientes y pesos factoriales para cada factor e ítem. La organización de los datos se ha estructurado para incluir primero el Análisis Factorial Exploratorio (EFA), seguido del Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio (CFA) y finalmente el análisis estructural SEM, asegurando una lógica coherente que respalda las contribuciones del estudio, como se indica en el artículo [384-413,539-718].

Response 5: We appreciate your comment on the data analysis section. We have expanded this section to include all analyses performed: sampling, instrument validation, comparisons, confirmatory and structural factor analyses, detailing the specific modules, software and versions used and justifying their choice. This information has also been incorporated into the Results section, thereby enhancing the clarity and rigour of the study [362-375, 384-466, 495-507, 539]. Following your recommendation, we have added construct validation to this section, detailing the latent variables with their coefficients and factor weights for each factor and item. The organisation of the data has been structured to include first an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and finally a SEM structural analysis, ensuring a coherent logic that supports the contributions of the study, as indicated in the article [384-413, 539-718].

 

6. Point-by-point response to Author Comments and Suggestions

Comments 6: [a). 6. The wording in lines 339-340 is unclear. Are explanatory variables really continuous?]

a). 6. La redacción en las líneas 339-340 no es clara. ¿Son realmente continuas las variables explicativas?

Answer 6: Agradezco su observación sobre la claridad en la redacción de las líneas 339-340 y la precisión respecto a la naturaleza de las variables explicativas. Se ha revisado y aclarado este apartado conforme a su indicación, asegurando que la información sea precisa y comprensible. Las observaciones han sido atendidas según sus recomendaciones [519-543].

Response 6: I appreciate your comment on the clarity of the wording of lines 339-340 and the precision regarding the nature of the explanatory variables. This section has been revised and clarified as you suggested to ensure that the information is accurate and understandable. The comments have been addressed according to your recommendations [519-543].

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf