Integrating Interactive Metaverse Environments and Generative Artificial Intelligence to Promote the Green Digital Economy and e-Entrepreneurship in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the integration of interactive metaverse environments and generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in promoting the green digital economy and developing e-entrepreneurship skills among graduate students. While the integration of metaverse environments and generative AI is timely and innovative, the paper could be enhanced per the following comments:

1. I feel there are too many sections in the paper since normally a well structured paper should contains 5-7 sections. Try to integrate section 2,3,4, and 5 to more fluently present the research questions, hypothesis, objective, and limitations. Also, section 8,9, and 10 could be integrated.
2. In the introduction section, consider providing a conceptual framework or model to visually summarize the relationships between metaverse, AI, and green entrepreneurship.
3. The literature review would benefit from a more explicit synthesis of how previous studies relate directly to the research questions. Try to identify clear gaps in the literature that your study addresses.
4. In the method section, consider adding a flowchart or table summarizing the research steps for clarity.
5. In the method section, Provide more detail on the sampling process. For example, how were participants selected? What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
6. The paper describes the development of an evaluation instrument (card) for assessing outcomes.Offer more detail on the process of item generation, expert review, and pilot testing. Who were the experts, and what criteria did they use?
7. In the results section, interpret the magnitude of effects and discuss their practical significance, not just statistical significance. Also, ensure all tables and figures are referenced in the text and include clear captions.
8. In the discussion part, more explicitly address the study’s limitations (e.g., sample size, generalizability, potential biases).
9. Since the main focus of this paper is for higher education, discuss the implications for policy, curriculum design, and educational practice in more depth.
10. More clearly articulate what is unique about your approach compared to previous studies. For example, is this the first study to use a specific metaverse platform or AI tool in this context?
11. Suggest concrete directions for future research, such as replication with larger or more diverse samples, or exploring additional digital tools.
12. Of the 57references, 16 are older than 5 years, so I consider the bibliography used relevant. Also, reference No. 54 is cited as [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], and I failed to find it online, this is considered inappropriate.
13. Ensure all references are present and correctly numbered.Use square brackets in the reference section.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This paper explores the integration of interactive metaverse environments and generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in promoting the green digital economy and developing e-entrepreneurship skills among graduate students. While the integration of metaverse environments and generative AI is timely and innovative, the paper could be enhanced per the following comments:

1. I feel there are too many sections in the paper since normally a well-structured paper should contains 5-7 sections. Try to integrate section 2,3,4, and 5 to present the research questions, hypothesis, objective, and limitations more fluently. Also, section 8,9, and 10 could be integrated.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 1:

We are sincerely grateful for your thoughtful observation regarding the manuscript’s structure. Your suggestion to streamline the sections is well taken and highly appreciated.

In response, we have carefully reviewed the overall organization of the paper. Accordingly, we have merged Sections 8, 9, and 10 into a single, more cohesive section entitled “Results and Discussion,” with the conclusion now embedded to ensure a more integrated and fluent presentation of the study’s findings and implications. With regard to Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, which address the research problem, questions, hypotheses, objectives, and limitations, we have opted to retain them in their current form. This decision was made to align with the Sustainability journal’s formatting standards and to maintain the clarity and transparency of the research design. Presenting these components in distinct sections ensures that each is given due emphasis and supports the methodological rigor expected in empirical studies.

We hope this approach successfully balances clarity with coherence, and we remain appreciative of your guidance in improving the manuscript’s quality.

2. In the introduction section, consider providing a conceptual framework or model to visually summarize the relationships between metaverse, AI, and green entrepreneurship.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 2:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comment. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a conceptual framework (Figure 1) in the Introduction section to visually present the relationships between interactive metaverse environments, generative artificial intelligence, green digital entrepreneurship, and the green digital economy. This model is intended to enhance the reader’s understanding of the theoretical connections among the study variables and provide a clear visual guide to the research rationale. We sincerely appreciate your recommendation, which has significantly improved the clarity and structure of the manuscript.

3. The literature review would benefit from a more explicit synthesis of how previous studies relate directly to the research questions. Try to identify clear gaps in the literature that your study addresses.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 3:

Thank you very much for your insightful observation. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the literature review to provide a more explicit synthesis that directly connects previous research findings to the research questions of the current research. Specifically, we clarified how earlier studies have addressed metaverse and generative AI technologies in education, while highlighting the lack of empirical research linking these tools to the development of green digital entrepreneurship within higher education contexts. By doing so, we identified clear theoretical and practical gaps—particularly in integrating immersive environments and AI to support sustainability-focused entrepreneurial skills—which our research seeks to address. We believe these enhancements have strengthened the literature review and clarified the research unique contribution.

4. In the method section, consider adding a flowchart or table summarizing the research steps for clarity.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 4:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. To enhance the clarity and transparency of the research design, we have added a flowchart in the Method section that visually summarizes the key stages of the research , including the design, participant selection, learning environment development, tool validation, implementation, and evaluation phases. This visual representation is intended to provide readers with a concise overview of the procedural sequence followed in the research. We believe that this addition improves the methodological transparency and overall readability of the manuscript, and we sincerely appreciate your helpful recommendation. In the method section, Provide more detail on the sampling process. For example, how were participants selected? What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria?

5. The paper describes the development of an evaluation instrument (card) for assessing outcomes. Offer more detail on the process of item generation, expert review, and pilot testing. Who were the experts, and what criteria did they use?

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 5:

Thank you for your valuable comment. In response, we have expanded the description of the development process for the evaluation instrument used in the study. Specifically, we provided more detail on the process of item generation, which was informed by a thorough review of relevant literature on green digital entrepreneurship and technology-supported learning outcomes. The initial pool of items was reviewed by a panel of five experts in educational technology, digital entrepreneurship, and sustainability. These experts were selected based on their academic credentials and relevant publication records. They evaluated each item based on clarity, relevance, and alignment with the intended learning objectives. Based on their feedback, several modifications were made to enhance content validity. Additionally, the instrument was pilot tested with a sample of 16 graduate students to assess clarity, usability, and preliminary reliability. The results of the pilot test informed final revisions to the instrument. These details have now been included in the Methods section as per your kind suggestion, which has greatly improved the methodological transparency of our work.

6. In the results section, interpret the magnitude of effects and discuss their practical significance, not just statistical significance. Also, ensure all tables and figures are referenced in the text and include clear captions.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 6:

Thank you for this important and constructive comment. In response, we have revised the Results section to include a more detailed interpretation of the magnitude of effects using effect size measures (η²), and we have provided a discussion of their practical significance in the context of higher education and sustainability-driven digital innovation. This was done to complement the statistical significance already reported and to highlight the real-world implications of the findings. Additionally, we carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all tables and figures are clearly referenced within the text at appropriate points. We also revised the captions to ensure they are descriptive, informative, and consistent with academic standards. These enhancements aim to improve the interpretive value and clarity of the results presentation. Thank you again for helping us strengthen the quality of our manuscript.

7. In the discussion part, more explicitly address the study’s limitations (e.g., sample size, generalizability, potential biases).

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 7:

Thank you for your kind and constructive comment. In response, we have clarified the limitations of the study in the discussion section. The research was conducted with a sample of 25 postgraduate students, which may appear limited in size; however, this reflects the only available class enrolled in the “Computers in Education” course during the study period. Due to the structure of the postgraduate program, no additional sections were available for inclusion. While this naturally constrained the expansion of the sample, the study was designed to ensure depth and rigor within this group. This context has now been explicitly stated in the revised manuscript to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study conditions. We appreciate your observation, which helped us enhance the completeness and clarity of the discussion.

8. Since the main focus of this paper is for higher education, discuss the implications for policy, curriculum design, and educational practice in more depth.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 8:

Thank you for this insightful and important comment. In response, we have expanded the discussion section to address the broader implications of the study for higher education policy, curriculum design, and instructional practice. Specifically, we emphasize the need for institutional policies that support the integration of immersive technologies and AI platforms into graduate-level teaching and learning. We also highlight the importance of curriculum frameworks that embed sustainability, digital innovation, and entrepreneurship as core competencies. Furthermore, the findings suggest that educators should adopt more flexible, student-centered approaches that leverage metaverse environments and generative AI to foster experiential learning, creativity, and real-world problem-solving. These points have been elaborated in the revised manuscript to reflect the transformative potential of the study for educational innovation in higher education contexts.

9. More clearly articulate what is unique about your approach compared to previous studies. For example, is this the first study to use a specific metaverse platform or AI tool in this context?

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 9:

Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised the discussion to articulate the distinctive contribution of our research more clearly. Unlike previous research, which has often explored metaverse or generative AI applications in isolation or from a purely theoretical perspective, our research is among the first to empirically integrate both technologies—specifically, the FrameVR metaverse platform and generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Elai.io, and Tome.app—within a postgraduate course focused on sustainability and digital entrepreneurship. This dual integration allowed us to design an immersive, interactive, and AI-enhanced learning environment that directly supports the development of green digital economy skills. To our knowledge, no prior research has combined these specific tools within a practical educational intervention targeting green entrepreneurship in higher education. We have clarified this unique approach in the revised manuscript and appreciate your suggestion, which helped us better highlight the novelty of our contribution.

10. Suggest concrete directions for future research, such as replication with larger or more diverse samples, or exploring additional digital tools.

 Response to Reviewer’s Comment 10:

Thank you for your helpful comment. In response, we have revised the final section of the discussion to include specific and actionable directions for future research. We suggest that future studies replicate this research with larger and more diverse samples, across different academic disciplines and institutional contexts, to enhance generalizability. It would also be valuable to explore the long-term impact of integrating metaverse and generative AI tools on students’ entrepreneurial behavior and sustainability competencies beyond the classroom setting. Additionally, future research could investigate the use of emerging AI and XR technologies—such as holographic environments, adaptive learning algorithms, and multimodal AI avatars—to further personalize and enrich learning experiences in green digital entrepreneurship. These directions aim to build on the current research and extend its relevance to a wider educational audience.

11. Of the 57references, 16 are older than 5 years, so I consider the bibliography used relevant. Also, reference No. 54 is cited as [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], and I failed to find it online, this is considered inappropriate.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 11:

Thank you for your valuable observation regarding the references. We appreciate your note that the majority of the 57 sources cited are recent, with only 16 being older than five years. We have reviewed the bibliography to ensure continued relevance and alignment with current literature. In response to your specific comment about Reference No. 54, which was cited as an [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], we agree that citing unpublished or inaccessible sources is not appropriate for a peer-reviewed journal article. Accordingly, we have removed this reference from the list and replaced it with a published and accessible scholarly source that provides comparable theoretical or empirical support. We thank you for bringing this to our attention, as it has helped us enhance the reliability and academic integrity of our references.

12. Ensure all references are present and correctly numbered. Use square brackets in the reference section

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 12:

Thank you for your helpful and precise comment. In response, we have thoroughly reviewed the reference list to ensure that all citations mentioned in the text are present, correctly numbered, and consistently formatted. We have also verified that each reference in the list corresponds accurately to its in-text citation. Additionally, we have updated the reference section to conform to the journal's required style by using square brackets [ ] consistently throughout, in accordance with Sustainability’s formatting guidelines. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has contributed to improving the clarity and consistency of the manuscript.

I would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and distinguished comments,

which will enhance the quality of the research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The literature review is extensive but  descriptive and unfocused. Key theoretical frameworks (e.g. theories of digital learning, entrepreneurship, sustainability) are not clearly integrated or critically discussed. Citations are numerous but occasionally inconsistent or missing. This was already identfied on the manuscript I downloaded
2. The research questions, hypotheses, and methodology are clearly outlined. The use of a quasi-experimental single-group design is explicitly described, along with tools and procedures.
3. The discussion is largely affirmative, focusing on positive outcomes with limited critical reflection on limitations or alternative interpretations. Greater analytical depth and engagement with counterarguments would enhance rigour.
4. The results are presented clearly, with statistical data used appropriately. Tables are referenced and interpreted, though some are missing proper captions and citations.
5. Several references are missing, out of order, or incorrectly formatted (e.g. [16], [49]). Some in-text citations lack corresponding entries. 
6. Conclusions align with the results but could be more clearly grounded in the data. There is limited discussion of limitations, generalisability, or implications beyond the immediate study context.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. The literature review is extensive but  descriptive and unfocused. Key theoretical frameworks (e.g. theories of digital learning, entrepreneurship, sustainability) are not clearly integrated or critically discussed. Citations are numerous but occasionally inconsistent or missing. This was already identfied on the manuscript I downloaded

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 1:

Thank you for your constructive and detailed comment. In response, we have substantially revised the literature review section to enhance its focus, coherence, and critical depth. Specifically, we have integrated key theoretical frameworks relevant to the study—such as theories of digital learning (e.g., constructivist and experiential models), entrepreneurship education, and sustainability in higher education—to provide a more structured conceptual foundation. We also clarified how these frameworks inform the study's design and support the development of the proposed conceptual model. In addition, the literature review now includes more critical analysis of prior research rather than descriptive summaries. We carefully reviewed all in-text citations and reference entries to ensure consistency, completeness, and adherence to the journal's citation guidelines. We are grateful for your feedback, which has significantly strengthened the scholarly rigor of this section.

2. The research questions, hypotheses, and methodology are clearly outlined. The use of a quasi-experimental single-group design is explicitly described, along with tools and procedures.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 2:

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We appreciate your acknowledgment that the research questions, hypotheses, and methodology were clearly articulated. We have made sure that the tools, data collection procedures, and overall methodological structure are presented in a coherent and transparent manner to support clarity and alignment with the research objectives. Your recognition of this aspect is highly valued and encouraging.

3. The discussion is largely affirmative, focusing on positive outcomes with limited critical reflection on limitations or alternative interpretations. Greater analytical depth and engagement with counterarguments would enhance rigour.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 3:

Thank you for this thoughtful observation. In response, we have revised the discussion section to include a more balanced and analytically rigorous reflection on the findings. Beyond affirming the positive outcomes, we now engage more directly with potential alternative interpretations, such as the influence of prior digital experience, learner motivation, and contextual factors that may have shaped the results. We also expanded the discussion of the research's limitations, and considered how these may affect the interpretation and applicability of the findings. These revisions are intended to enhance the critical depth and intellectual honesty of the discussion, and we are grateful for your suggestion, which helped strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript.

4. The results are presented clearly, with statistical data used appropriately. Tables are referenced and interpreted, though some are missing proper captions and citations.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 4:

Thank you for your positive and helpful feedback. We are pleased that the presentation and interpretation of the results were clear and statistically appropriate. In response to your observation, we have carefully reviewed all tables to ensure that each is properly captioned, numbered, and consistently cited in the text. Any missing captions or incomplete references have been corrected to align with the journal’s formatting standards. We appreciate your attention to detail, which helped us improve the clarity and presentation quality of the results section.

5. Several references are missing, out of order, or incorrectly formatted (e.g. [16], [49]). Some in-text citations lack corresponding entries. 

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 5:

Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback regarding the references. In response, we have conducted a thorough audit of both the in-text citations and the reference list. All references have been carefully reordered, reformatted, and cross-checked to ensure consistency, completeness, and compliance with the journal’s citation style. Specific inconsistencies—such as those involving references [16] and [49]—have been corrected, and any missing references previously cited in the text have now been properly included in the bibliography. We are grateful for your observation, which helped us improve the scholarly accuracy and formatting integrity of the manuscript.

6. Conclusions align with the results but could be more clearly grounded in the data. There is limited discussion of limitations, generalizability, or implications beyond the immediate study context.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 6:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response, we have revised the conclusion section to ensure that the key findings are more explicitly grounded in the presented data, with clearer links to the statistical and practical results. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion of the limitations related to sample size, institutional context, and the absence of a comparative group, as well as the generalizability of the results. To address broader relevance, the conclusion now includes a more detailed reflection on the implications for policy, curriculum design, and educational practice, particularly in the context of sustainable digital transformation in higher education. These enhancements aim to improve the analytical depth and contextual value of the conclusion.

I would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and distinguished comments,

which will enhance the quality of the research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3693476

Title: Integrating Interactive Metaverse Environments and Generative Artificial Intelligence to Promote the Green Digital Economy and e-Entrepreneurship in Higher Education

Authors: Ahmed Sadek Abdelmagid *, Naif Mohammed Jabli, Abdullah Yahya Al-Mohaya, Ahmed Ali Teleb

 

This study explores the integration of interactive metaverse environments and GAI in promoting the green digital economy and cultivating graduate students' electronic entrepreneurship skills. Moreover, it highlights the potential of immersive virtual learning environments and AI-driven content creation tools for enhancing digital literacy and promoting sustainable innovation. Overall, this article has good logic in its writing. However, there are still some issues that need to be further clarified.

 

The following are the detailed comments:

1/ The Introduction section contains a lot of content and seems rather verbose. Please simplify it by only keeping the most important parts.

2/ The citation of Ref. [16] is missing in the main text. Please check the full text and supplement it.

3/ Why is it said in the "Research Problem" section that the increase in population size and the use of equipment have caused the increase or diffusion of carbon dioxide? I think this statement is incorrect. The increase in carbon dioxide should be supported by specific examples.

4/ What is the basis for raising the research question? I suggest that the author expresses it in two sentences.

5/ Figure 1 should be further refined to specify which particular algorithms or methods in AI, machine learning, or deep learning can contribute to the realization of this educational model in the current research on educational intelligence.

6/ Line 477—Please cite all references using reference numbers and place the numbers in square brackets (“[ ]”), e.g., [1], [1–3], or [1,3].

7/ The format of the manuscript needs further optimization. Please pay attention to the journal's format.

8/ For this research, I suggest presenting a plan for further study in the future or related prospects.

Author Response

1/ The Introduction section contains a lot of content and seems rather verbose. Please simplify it by only keeping the most important parts.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 1:

Thank you for your valuable observation. In response to your comment, we have carefully revised the Introduction section to improve its clarity, conciseness, and focus. Redundant or overly detailed content has been removed, and only the most essential background, rationale, and objectives have been retained to streamline the narrative. The revised introduction now offers a more accessible and coherent entry point into the research, while still providing sufficient context for understanding the significance of the topic and its contribution to the literature. We appreciate your feedback, which helped us enhance the overall quality and readability of the manuscript.

2/ The citation of Ref. [16] is missing in the main text. Please check the full text and supplement it.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 2:

Thank you for pointing out the omission regarding Reference [16]. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and have now included the appropriate in-text citation for Ref. [16] in the section where its content is most relevant. This reference has been integrated in a way that strengthens the theoretical foundation of the research and maintains consistency with the bibliography. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped improve the completeness and scholarly accuracy of the manuscript.

3/ Why is it said in the "Research Problem" section that the increase in population size and the use of equipment have caused the increase or diffusion of carbon dioxide? I think this statement is incorrect. The increase in carbon dioxide should be supported by specific examples.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 3:

Thank you for your thoughtful observation regarding the statement in the “Research Problem” section about the causes of carbon dioxide increase. We agree that the original phrasing may have been overly broad and lacked sufficient specificity. In response, we have revised the sentence to clarify that the rise in carbon dioxide emissions is primarily associated with increased energy consumption, industrial activities, and transportation linked to population growth and technological expansion.

4/ What is the basis for raising the research question? I suggest that the author expresses it in two sentences.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 4:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the “Research Problem” section to provide a clearer justification for raising the research question, based on documented gaps in the literature and emerging needs in higher education. The research question is now expressed in two concise and logically connected sentences, highlighting the rationale and the specific focus of the research . This adjustment aims to improve clarity, strengthen the academic grounding of the research, and align with the expectations of a scholarly audience. We appreciate your recommendation, which helped enhance the precision and coherence of this part of the manuscript.

5/ Figure 1 should be further refined to specify which particular algorithms or methods in AI, machine learning, or deep learning can contribute to the realization of this educational model in the current research on educational intelligence.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 5:

Thank you for your insightful observation regarding Figure 2. In response, we have refined the figure to explicitly indicate specific AI algorithms and methods relevant to the educational model proposed in this research. In particular, we have added references to natural language processing (NLP), transformer-based models (e.g., GPT), generative adversarial networks (GANs) for content creation, and reinforcement learning as it relates to adaptive learning systems. These refinements are based on current developments in educational intelligence and are intended to clarify how particular technologies support key elements of the model, such as automated content generation, personalized learning experiences, and intelligent feedback. We appreciate your valuable suggestion, which has contributed to improving the technical depth and clarity of the visual representation.

6/ Line 477—Please cite all references using reference numbers and place the numbers in square brackets (“[ ]”), e.g., [1], [1–3], or [1,3].

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 6:

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in reference formatting. In response, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected all in-text citations, including the one on Line 477, to conform to the journal’s required style. All references are now consistently presented using square brackets, in the correct numerical format (e.g., [1], [1–3], [1,3]) as specified by the Sustainability citation guidelines. We appreciate your attention to this detail, which has helped improve the manuscript’s consistency and compliance with publication standards.

7/ The format of the manuscript needs further optimization. Please pay attention to the journal's format.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 7:

Thank you for your valuable remark regarding the manuscript formatting. In response, we have carefully reviewed and revised the overall layout and structure of the manuscript to ensure full compliance with the formatting guidelines provided by Sustainability. This includes adjustments to section headings, in-text citations, figure and table captions, font styles, spacing, and reference formatting. We have also double-checked alignment with the journal’s template to ensure consistency and presentation quality. We sincerely appreciate your observation, which helped us enhance the professional appearance and publication readiness of the manuscript.

8/ For this research, I suggest presenting a plan for further study in the future or related prospects.

Response to Reviewer’s Comment 8:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We confirm that a section addressing future research directions has already been included in the conclusion of the manuscript. This section outlines potential areas for extending the current work, including the use of additional emerging technologies and broader application across diverse educational contexts. We appreciate your recommendation, which aligns with the long-term vision of the research and reinforces its relevance.

I would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and distinguished comments,

which will enhance the quality of the research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All previous comments have been addressed properly, and the quality of the paper have been improved significantly. No further comments.