The Impact of AI and LMS Integration on the Future of Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is well structured and the methodology is sound. 

Please review the consistency between the information (e.g. numbers) in the figures/tables and what is stated in the text. Examples of errors: line 101-line 102, number of records in figure 1 and line 105-number of records in table 1, year span in in figure 1 and line 98-year span in line 111, figure2-explanation in line 138.

Further explanation of the methodology used and results in figure 4, table 2, figure 5, and figure 6 is advisable for better clarity (e.g. meaning of color groups, software/formulas used). Consider rearranging some text on figures 4 and 5 for better readability. 

Please review in-text citations to make sure they are formatted correctly, as well as the references list to make sure all information is included (e.g. year of publication). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please review the full text to correct grammatical errors.

Repetition or quasi-repetition of phrases and passages should be minimised. 

Author Response

  "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Objective:

Comment: The focus on both teaching and administrative impacts of AI-LMS integration is comprehensive and reflects the multifaceted nature of higher education. However, it might be beneficial to narrow the scope slightly to either teaching practices or administrative operations for more in-depth analysis.

Methodology:

Comment: The use of PRISMA 2020 guidelines ensures rigor and replicability, which strengthens the study's credibility. However, specifying the databases used and the specific inclusion/exclusion criteria would provide more clarity on the literature selection process.

Analytical Tools:

Comment: Co-word network analysis and thematic mapping are effective for uncovering trends, but a deeper explanation of how these tools contribute to understanding AI’s specific impacts on LMS could add value. A brief comparison to other analysis methods (e.g., citation analysis) might further justify the choice of these tools.

Opportunities Identified:

Comment: The benefits mentioned—personalized learning, adaptive assessments, etc.—align with current AI advancements in education. However, expanding on how these opportunities are practically implemented within LMS platforms, with real-world examples, could strengthen the argument for their feasibility and impact.

Challenges and Ethical Concerns:

Comment: The challenges listed are critical, especially data privacy and algorithmic bias. It would be helpful to provide examples of how these challenges have been addressed (or overlooked) in existing AI-LMS implementations to give the discussion more depth. Additionally, including student perspectives on AI ethics could enrich this section.

Implications for Higher Education:

 

Comment: The implications suggest exciting possibilities, but they could benefit from more tangible case studies or examples. For instance, how have AI-powered tools like conversational agents been successfully integrated in real institutions? This would move the implications from theoretical to practical relevance.

Responsible Implementation:

Comment: The emphasis on ethical implementation is critical. However, it might be beneficial to include a discussion on specific frameworks or guidelines (such as ethical AI guidelines) that can be adopted by institutions to address the ethical concerns raised, offering a more proactive solution.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the manuscript need extensive English editing, For instance, In Table 3, There is a spelling mistake "ntegrating"  instead of integrating". The author used "This " for numerous sentences. There is no clarity. Hence, proofread is very much necessary.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "The Impact of AI and LMS Integration on the Future of Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges, and Strategies for Transformation" presents a systematic literature review focusing on the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Learning Management Systems (LMS) in higher education. The authors explore how AI-enhanced LMS can transform education through personalized learning, adaptive assessments, and improved administrative efficiency. They also discuss the challenges and ethical concerns surrounding data privacy, algorithmic bias, and faculty preparedness. The findings underline the transformative potential of AI-LMS integration while emphasizing the need for responsible and equitable implementation.

 

• Introduction and Background:

The introduction effectively sets the context for the importance of AI and LMS in higher education. However, consider briefly adding a more explicit connection between AI capabilities and the current challenges faced by higher education institutions. This will further emphasize why this integration is necessary and timely.

• Methodology:
  The systematic literature review methodology is well-structured following the PRISMA guidelines. However, it would be helpful to provide more detailed information on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, particularly regarding how "relevance" was assessed. This will enhance the reproducibility of your review process.
• Results:
  The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the opportunities and benefits of AI-LMS integration. The discussion of the "adaptive e-learning systems" could be enhanced by including a more detailed comparison of specific tools or technologies cited in the selected studies. This could help illustrate the practical impact of these technologies.
• Challenges and Ethical Concerns:
  The challenges section is insightful, particularly regarding data privacy and algorithmic bias. To strengthen this section, consider adding examples of best practices from specific institutions that have successfully mitigated these challenges. Such practical examples can provide valuable insights for practitioners.
• Figures and Data Interpretation:
  Some of the figures (e.g., Figure 6, Thematic Map) could benefit from more detailed labeling or captions to improve clarity. This would assist readers in better understanding the relationships being depicted.
• Discussion and Implications:
  The discussion effectively ties together the opportunities and challenges of AI-LMS integration. However, consider elaborating on the implications for different stakeholders, such as university administrators, faculty, and students. This will provide a more rounded perspective on how the proposed transformations can be applied in practice.
• Conclusion:
  The conclusion summarizes the paper well, highlighting the importance of AI-LMS integration. To enhance impact, consider including a short section on potential future research directions that could further explore unresolved challenges, such as long-term ethical concerns or scalability across various types of higher education institutions.
• References:
  The references are appropriate and comprehensive, with most being recent publications. Consider adding a few references specifically related to practical implementations of AI in higher education, as these could add value to the implications discussed in the paper.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used in the paper is generally clear and easy to understand. Minor editing is required for grammatical consistency, particularly in sections where complex concepts are explained. I would recommend a quick language edit to address these minor issues.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and worthwhile literature review, which is largely well written. The topic is about the integration of AI tools into Learning Management Systems, and the implications of such integration for learning and teaching practice. The review bases its analysis on a detailed investigation of 60 documents. It traces the progress of publications on this topic from an initial cluster in technology-focussed venues towards a wider range of publications, including in pedagogy-focussed venues, over the course of a number of years. The review identifies a range of opportunities associated with AI integration, including for enhancing the student experience.

The underlying review appears to have been undertaken diligently, and the paper is basically well written. I do think there are just a few places where a bit more explanation would be helpful, however. I therefore suggest that the author addresses the following points:

 

·         In both the abstract and the introduction, it would be useful to state the significance of the phenomenon being studied: why is *LMS integration* an important consideration in the context of AI development?

·         In the introduction, it would be useful to add a few sentences to establish why a new review is needed. This might be done by (a) emphasising that this review has a different focus from previous reviews, and/or (b) that there is fragmented knowledge on this topic that would benefit from a synthesis.

·         In section 2, it would be useful to reflect more on the synonyms that have been chosen; explaining *why* these were chosen.

·         One particular issue here is that, in some parts of the world, the Learning Management System (LMS) is usually called the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) instead. Did the author consider whether this term should be also used in the review?

·         It should also be considered *why* the review set a publication scope of only publications from 2014 and afterwards. What was the rationale for this decision? Is it actually needed?

·         The Results section would benefit from some signposting at the very beginning. What will be covered; in what order; and why?

·         Figure 4 and Figure 5 are not easy to read. Perhaps they should be enlarged in higher resolution and placed in landscape format?

·         In section 4 a different kind of analysis is performed on the literature (different from section 3). The author should check that the techniques used for this analysis have been reported earlier, in section 2.

·         Section 5 should identify (briefly) which future avenues of research are suggested by the review findings presented in this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx