AI Literacy in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: The Interplay of Student Engagement and Anxiety Reduction in Northern Cyprus Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please find attached my comments and suggestions regarding your manuscript.

All the best.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from some language editing. Several sentences are overly long or grammatically awkward, which impairs clarity and readability. And inconsistencies in capitalization, section headings, and abbreviation usage reduce the professional quality of the manuscript. I recommend that the authors seek professional English editing to improve clarity and ensure a consistent academic style throughout the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comment. Please find attached our responses to your insightful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses several factors (student engagement, anxiety, and self-efficacy) impacting AI literacy and contributing to achieving sustainable development goals 3 and 4: good health and well-being, and quality education among university students from several universities in Northern Cyprus.  The introductory part provides a theoretical approach to the key concepts. The research methodology is thoroughly described: the methods used, the sample, the research tools and their reliability. The authors also provide a supplementary file with additional statistical data resutls and interpretation.

The findings are supported by Data analysis based on the Smart PLS 20 4 Structural Equation Modeling supports the research findings, among which: higher engagement decreases anxiety and enhances AI literacy; higher engagement enhances self-efficacy and thus enhances AI literacy.

By highlighting the connection between students engagement, anxiety, self-efficacy and AI competences, the research contributes to achieving sustainable development goals 3 and 4 as it shows light on how the educational process can be improved to this effect.

The paper contributes to the field both theoretically by demonstrating that higher engagement and reduced anxiety contribute to higher emotional well-being and better AI competences, and practically, by a series of practical implications and recommendations, among which the implementation of Large Language Models in teaching to foster an inclusive educational environment for all students and support them in ahcieving  better academic results.

The research appeals to educators, policymakers, and curriculum developers.

The references are relevant and of recent date.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your comments. Please find attached our responses to your insightful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “AI Literacy in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: The Interplay of Student Engagement and Anxiety Reduction in Northern Cyprus Universities.” I found the study to be timely, theory-driven, and relevant to both educational practice and policy.

Please find below a summary of my comments to support your revision:

• The abstract is informative but would benefit from a clearer link to the significance of the findings in relation to SDGs.

• In the introduction, avoid repetition and consider splitting the content into an Introduction and Literature Review section.

• The theoretical background is well developed. Please relocate the conceptual framework here and include a diagram showing variable relationships and hypotheses (H1–H3).

• The materials and methods are sound, but I suggest clarifying sampling rationale, ethics, and instrument refinement.

• The results are well presented; a simplified visual summary may improve accessibility.

• The discussion and conclusion are well-written but could be strengthened by clearer alignment with results, more critical reflection on limitations, and specific takeaways.

• Minor adjustments are needed in language and formatting, including proofreading and simplifying overly complex vocabulary.

Overall, I believe the manuscript is publishable after minor revisions.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Meticulous proof reading is required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your comments. Please find attached our responses to your insightful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thanks for your efforts in revising the manuscript. The overall clarity and structure of 
the paper have improved. However, there are still some important issues that need further 
attention to enhance the contribution and academic rigor of this paper. 

Discussion Section 
Although you have presented the mediation analysis results and compared the relative 
strengths of the mediators, the explanation remains quite limited. The current discussion 
only describes which mediator has a stronger effect, but does not provide sufficient 
reasoning or theoretical justification for why such differences exist. 

Conclusion Section 
Currently, this section includes a mixture of results summary, methodological 
information, and theoretical and practical implications, which makes the section difficult to 
follow. Much of the content repeats earlier parts of the manuscript without adding new 
insights, which makes this section somewhat redundant and lacking in depth. So, I suggest 
the following improvements: 
1. Separate the theoretical and practical implications into a standalone subsection and 
elaborate on them in greater detail. 
2. Remove methodological details, such as sample description and data collection, as these 
belong to the Methods section. 

And I noticed some remaining issues with consistency and formatting throughout the 
manuscript that should be corrected: 
1. For example, "H2" is used in line 542, while "Hypothesis 2" is used in line 546. I strongly 
recommend unifying the format of hypothesis numbering throughout the entire 
manuscript to ensure consistency and professionalism. 
2. The notation of statistical values such as R² and Q² should follow academic and 
typographical standards. Currently, "R2" and "Q2" are used, which are not appropriate in 
academic writing. I recommend that the authors carefully review the entire manuscript to 
ensure consistency in all technical terms, abbreviations, and statistical notations.

All the best.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached our responses to your insightful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided detailed responses that significantly improved the paper. I am pleased to approve the paper in its current version.