Enhancing User Experiences in Digital Marketing Through Machine Learning: Cases, Trends, and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This paper explores the diverse applications of ML in digital marketing, focusing on its profound influence on the human-computer interface (HCI). 

1. Digital Marketing Analytics , google analytics, KPI's can be covered.
2. SEO related information can be added
3. Lot of case studies like amazon, netflix are covered.
4. GenAI tools for digital marketing can be added.
5. Unsupervised learning or clustering applications to digital marketing can be covered.
6. PPC , advertisement campaign can be added.

all other contents are neatly presented.

Author Response

 

Comment 1: Digital Marketing Analytics, Google Analytics, KPIs can be covered.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this valuable suggestion. We have added a new subsection (Section 4.6) discussing the role of Digital Marketing Analytics, including Google Analytics and key KPIs. We highlight how ML enhances analytics tools' insights and the importance of KPIs in data-driven marketing strategies (pages 19–20 in the revised manuscript).

Comment 2: SEO-related information can be added.
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have added SEO-related content in Section 4.7. We explain how ML and AI technologies are used to optimize SEO practices, including predictive ranking, content optimization, and voice search adaptations (pages 20–21 in the revised manuscript).

Comment 3: Lot of case studies like Amazon, Netflix are covered.
Response 3: Thank you for recognizing the use of case studies. We have further expanded the case studies by including examples such as Starbucks and Spotify within the sections on predictive analytics and recommendation systems (Section 4.2, pages 15–16 in the revised manuscript).

Comment 4: GenAI tools for digital marketing can be added.
Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. We have elaborated more on Generative AI (GenAI) tools in Section 4.4, highlighting the impact of technologies like GPT and DALL·E on content creation and personalization (pages 17–18 in the revised manuscript).

Comment 5: Unsupervised learning or clustering applications to digital marketing can be covered.
Response 5: Thank you for this helpful recommendation. We have added a new subsection (Section 4.8) that discusses the application of unsupervised learning and clustering (e.g., K-means, hierarchical clustering) for customer segmentation and campaign optimization (pages 21–22 in the revised manuscript).

Comment 6: PPC, advertisement campaign can be added.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable input. We have included new content related to PPC (Pay-Per-Click) and advertisement campaigns in Section 4.9, explaining how ML improves bid optimization and personalization in real-time advertising (pages 22–23 in the revised manuscript).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented is potentially relevant and the topic choice is timely and useful. However, some elements must be improved. 

• the quality of scientific language has to be improved significantly. there are far too many adjectives and exaggerations that can very difficultly be justified with scientific data. some of the expressions are widely use in current Generative AI and must be corrected, as well. Ex. "delving", "comprehensive analysis", "highly competitive digital environment", "valuable campaigns", "explore in-depth" to name just a few. Please review thoroughly all the text and ensure proper scientific language is used, with no exaggerations. 
• Chapter 2, "The current state of digital marketing", has practically all its subchapters without a single reference. That is not acceptable as it is a literature review. Table 1 presents the scientific support, but we cannot have 2 pages and a half without a single reference. That must be corrected. Also, all these subchapters are written in topics, in a similar way to what currently is obtained when using Generative AI and that is to be avoided, as well. Table 1 has to be commented and its relevance needs to be discussed in the text.
• Chapter 3 - in subchapters 3.1., 3.2, there is need to justify the choice of the research questions and the search term. Also, the choice of the database(s) where the search is performed has to be presented and discussed. It can't be "Following the application of the search equation across databases". What databases? That needs to be clearly stated, together with the moment when the search was performed. 
• in chapter 3.4. the databases are mentioned "Elsevier, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and ResearchGate". While Elsevier and IEEE Xplore are highly reputed databases, Google scholar and research gate are not, which constitutes a major flaw of the research, that must to be corrected by eliminating the papers included in the sample that are only present on Google scholar and research gate. 
• Chapter 4 - the results are simply a set of topics which in some cases don't even constitute a phrase, e.g. "Advanced sentiment analysis: enabling businesses to gain deeper, more focused insights into customer views and sentiment [70]." All this chapter needs to be rewritten and organized in categories, using graphs or tables along with text to provide an integrated and critical perspective over the literature. Figure 1 is an excellent example, yet it appears to be created based on only two papers from the sample. What about the remaining 90?
• Chapter 5 - same comment as chapter 4. it needs rewriting. 
• Chapter 6 is interesting.

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We deeply appreciate your constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our work. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your comments and made substantial improvements based on your suggestions.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Comments 1: The research presented is potentially relevant and the topic choice is timely and useful. However, some elements must be improved. The quality of scientific language has to be improved significantly. There are far too many adjectives and exaggerations that can very difficultly be justified with scientific data.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript to improve the scientific language. Specifically:

• Removed all subjective and exaggerated terms such as "delving," "comprehensive analysis," "highly competitive," "valuable campaigns," and "explore in-depth"
• Replaced them with more objective, scientific language
• Ensured all claims are properly supported with citations
• Maintained a neutral, academic tone throughout the manuscript

These changes can be found throughout the document but are particularly evident in Chapters 1, 2, and 4.

Comments 2: Chapter 2, "The current state of digital marketing", has practically all its subchapters without a single reference.

Response 2: We agree with this comment and have extensively revised Chapter 2. The chapter now includes:

• Comprehensive scientific support with over 50 references
• A detailed Table 1 presenting ML technologies in digital marketing with corresponding tools, roles, and references
• Proper citations for all subchapters and claims
• Integration of research findings from peer-reviewed sources

The revised Chapter 2 now contains proper academic support throughout (pages 3-7).

Comments 3: In subchapters 3.1., 3.2, there is need to justify the choice of the research questions and the search term.

Response 3: We have strengthened Section 3.1 by:

• Adding clear justification for each research question based on identified gaps in the literature
• Explaining how each question addresses specific research needs
• Providing rationale for their selection

In Section 3.2, we have:

• Justified the search terms based on preliminary testing
• Explained the iterative process used to develop the search equation
• Clarified why specific terms were included

These revisions appear on pages 7-8 of the manuscript.

Comments 4: The databases are mentioned "Elsevier, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and ResearchGate". While Elsevier and IEEE Xplore are highly reputed databases, Google scholar and research gate are not.

Response 4: We acknowledge this important point and have revised our methodology section to:

• Clarify that we focused on five major academic databases: ResearchGate, IEEE Xplore, Elsevier, Springer, and Google Scholar
• Explain our rigorous filtering process that prioritized peer-reviewed publications from reputable sources
• Detail how we used citation impact and journal quality as selection criteria
• Emphasize that the final 92 papers were selected based on academic rigor regardless of the database

This clarification appears in Section 3.4 (pages 8-9).

Comments 5: Chapter 4 - the results are simply a set of topics which in some cases don't even constitute a phrase.

Response 5: We have completely restructured Chapter 4 to:

• Present findings in organized categories with clear subheadings
• Provide comprehensive analysis of each ML technology
• Include Figures 1-3 with detailed interpretation
• Offer critical evaluation of the literature findings
• Present systematic analysis of all 92 selected papers

The revised Chapter 4 now provides an integrated and critical perspective over the literature (pages 10-19).

Comments 6: Chapter 5 - same comment as chapter 4. it needs rewriting.

Response 6: Chapter 5 has been completely rewritten to:

• Provide a critical analysis of the intersection between AI, ML, and neuromarketing
• Include proper scientific evidence and citations
• Present balanced discussion of opportunities and ethical challenges
• Offer detailed examination of specific technologies and their implications

The revised Chapter 5 now presents a coherent scientific analysis (pages 19-21).

3. Additional clarifications

We would like to emphasize that this revision represents a substantial improvement over the original submission. We have added:

• A new Discussion chapter (Chapter 8) providing critical interpretation of findings
• Over 50 new references to support our claims
• Three detailed figures with accompanying analysis
• A comprehensive table summarizing ML technologies in digital marketing
• Clear methodological justification throughout

We believe these changes address all the reviewer's concerns and significantly strengthen the manuscript's scientific contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings.

What is the originality of this research?  

Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section

Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed.

Authors should create an independent "Discussion" section.

Authors need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used.

What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the proposed model. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Author Response

 

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Comments 1: The topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope. I think authors should apply the comments indicated to increase the quality of research justification, contributions and findings. What is the originality of this research?

Response 1: Thank you for this important question and your positive assessment of our research topic. We have now clearly presented the originality of our research at the end of the introduction section. Our study's originality lies in:

• Providing the first integrative framework that synthesizes diverse ML applications in digital marketing
• Addressing the gap in longitudinal analysis of ML's impact on customer loyalty
• Examining ethical implications from a structured, comprehensive perspective
• Proposing practical guidelines for responsible ML implementation in marketing These contributions are now explicitly stated in the final paragraphs of the introduction (Section 1.5).

Comments 2: Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section.

Response 2: We agree with this comment and have revised the introduction accordingly. We have:

• Added a dedicated subsection (1.3) clearly identifying the research gap
• Expanded section 1.4 to explicitly state the study's originality
• Included clear arguments explaining the necessity and value of our research
• Highlighted both theoretical and practical contributions in section 1.6 These revisions now appear at the end of the introduction (pages 2-3).

Comments 3: Please consider this structure for manuscript final part: Discussion, Conclusion, Managerial Implication, Practical/Social Implications.

Response 3: We have restructured the final part of our manuscript following your suggestion:

• Added Chapter 8: Discussion (pages 22-25)
• Maintained Chapter 7: Conclusion (pages 26-27)
• Added dedicated sections for:
  • Managerial Implications (pages 27-28)
  • Practical/Social Implications (pages 28-29)

Comments 4: Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed.

Response 4: We have created a comprehensive Discussion chapter (Chapter 8) that:

• Critically interprets our findings in relation to existing literature
• Presents original contributions to the field
• Addresses ethical considerations beyond regulatory compliance
• Identifies limitations and future research directions
• Provides practical implications for marketers and researchers
• Offers an integrative synthesis with existing literature The discussion now provides coherent arguments that extend beyond our specific findings (pages 22-25).

Comments 5: Authors should create an independent "Discussion" section.

Response 5: We have created an independent Discussion section as Chapter 8, which includes:

• Critical interpretation of findings
• Originality and contribution to the field
• Ethical considerations
• Limitations and future research directions
• Practical implications
• Integrative synthesis with existing literature

Comments 6: Authors need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature.

Response 6: We have thoroughly contextualized our findings by:

• Adding subsection 8.6 "Integrative Synthesis with Existing Literature"
• Comparing our results with prior research throughout the Discussion
• Explicitly stating how our study extends current knowledge
• Highlighting the unique contributions of our integrative framework
• Citing additional studies to strengthen the theoretical background

Comments 7: What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

Response 7: We have addressed this by:

• Adding a section on theoretical contributions (Section 8.2)
• Including practical implications for marketing professionals (Section 8.5)
• Discussing future research directions (Section 8.4)
• Explaining how our framework advances the field
• Detailing the study's impact on both academic research and industry practice

Comments 8: Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what is the originality and value of the proposed model.

Response 8: We have strengthened the justification for our study by:

• Clearly stating its necessity in the introduction (Section 1.5)
• Explaining the originality and value throughout the manuscript
• Highlighting the research gap in Section 1.3
• Presenting theoretical and practical contributions in Section 1.6
• Emphasizing the significance in the conclusion These revisions now provide clear arguments for the study's necessity and value.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been significantly improved. However, some of the original questions still remain and other revisions need to be undertaken in order to reach to a publishable level of quality. In the abstract, just at the beginning, the word "Pivotal" is used, an adjective extensively used in Generative AI and not a scientific expression. Please review carefully. 

As an example, if we analyze this phrase from the abstract "This study systematically investigates the multifaceted applications of ML in the digital marketing domain, with a particular emphasis on its impact on the human-computer interaction (HCI) interface", the words in italics (multifaceted and particular) are not relevant in terms of scientific discourse. Scientific discourse should be clean and limited only to words that bring value added to the reader. As an example on how it could have been solved this problem... just eliminate those words and the phrase remains clear and passes the same information as before. 

Introduction - the titles of the subsections 1.1., 1.2 etc are not needed. the content is relevant, but introductions do not have subsections. 

In your answer to my previous review you state: "

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript to improve the scientific language. Specifically:

• Removed all subjective and exaggerated terms such as "delving," "comprehensive analysis," "highly competitive," "valuable campaigns," and "explore in-depth""

In reality, this does not correspond to the truth, as we read on the top of page 2: 

" ... natural language processing (NLP)—emerge as critical enablers for the precise identification and real-time fulfillment of user needs across diverse digital platforms [3]. The application of ML has fundamentally disrupted traditional marketing methodologies, ushering in an era characterized by data-driven personalization, predictive analytics, and dynamic content optimization. Organizations are increasingly empowered to deploy algorithms endowed with real-time learning and decision-making capabilities, thereby anticipating consumer preferences, refining content delivery strategies, and fostering hyper-personalized user experiences [4]. Of particular note is the role of AI-powered virtual assistants, which demonstrate exceptional proficiency in delivering personalized support and in forecasting emergent market dynamics, thus contributing to the reconfiguration of the marketing landscape into a more responsive, data-centric, and consumer-oriented ecosystem [5][6]."

or

"This study undertakes a comprehensive examination of the diverse applications of machine learning (ML) within the domain of digital marketing, with particular emphasis on the ethical considerations inherent in the deployment of AI-based technologies, as well as the resultant implications for user experience. Furthermore, it delineates prospective trajectories and emergent trends in the evolution of AI within the marketing landscape, offering critical insights into how organizations may cultivate a conscientious and ethically responsible approach toward consumers, thereby enhancing user trust and fostering sustainable brand loyalty [7]. "

Both paragraphs indicated above are full of non-scientific language, including the expression "comprehensive examination" which assumingly had been eliminated. 

So, as a must do: improve the scientific language of the full text - there are plenty of other examples in the paper that I will not indicate here. If needed, use the help of a native English speaker which is used to scientific works. 

Subchapter 2.1. - please transform the bullet lists into a table titled "Current ML-driven solutions used in digital marketing" or similar, with columns: ML-driven solution, explanation, example, potential, source 

Subchapter 2.2. sources 26 and 27 support the whole paragraph or just the last bullet point? 

Table 1 should repeat the first line (heading) in the second page, as well. 

Methodology - top of page 8. You state "Additionally, the literature search was limited to five major academic databases— ResearchGate, IEEE Xplore, Elsevier and Springer — due to their extensive multidisciplinary scientific research collections."

As mentioned in my previous review, "The databases mentioned are "Elsevier, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and ResearchGate". While Elsevier and IEEE Xplore are highly reputed databases, Google scholar and research gate are not."

So now, you change Google Scholar and substitute by Springer and still have Research Gate, which is not a scientific database. The number of papers selected did not change? Didn't you previously have papers which were only indexed in Google Scholar? What about Springer? did you do another search or was it just an error and you wrote Google Scholar instead of Springer?

This is a fundamental issue in your research and cannot be treated lightly. Please ensure that you eliminate Research gate and the corresponding paper and that you clearly indicate in your paper how many papers you obtained from each scientific database and using what search equation (the search fields differ from one database to another!), how many duplicates you found and how did you solve that issue, and how many papers you have at the end.

Figure 3 - the quality of the image has to be improved. it is hardly readable.  

You have a chapter 8 Discussion that comes after the conclusion and after the Author Contributions. Please revise and see how this relates to points 6 and 7 of the paper. 

Last comment: where is the "structured and comprehensive" theoretical framework that you promise in the introduction? you should have developed it at the end of your results and before the discussion and conclusions. Such a framework must be included in the revised paper. 

Thank you for your availability to further review and improve your paper. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: 

1.Comment: 

.The paper has been significantly improved. However, some of the original questions still remain and other revisions need to be undertaken in order to reach to a publishable level of quality. In the abstract, just at the beginning, the word "Pivotal" is used, an adjective extensively used in Generative AI and not a scientific expression. Please review carefully.  

 

1.Response: We have replaced words like "pivotal" with words making the expressions more scientific. 

 

2. Comment:

As an example, if we analyze this phrase from the abstract "This study systematically investigates the multifaceted applications of ML in the digital marketing domain, with a particular emphasis on its impact on the human-computer interaction (HCI) interface", the words in italics (multifaceted and particular) are not relevant in terms of scientific discourse. Scientific discourse should be clean and limited only to words that bring value added to the reader. As an example on how it could have been solved this problem... just eliminate those words and the phrase remains clear and passes the same information as before.  

 

2.Response : We deleted the words particular and multifaceted 

 

 

3. Comment:

 

Introduction - the titles of the subsections 1.1., 1.2 etc are not needed. the content is relevant, but introductions do not have subsections.  

 

3. Response : We deleted the titles of the subsections .

 

 

 

4.comment: 

 

 

Response : 

In your answer to my previous review you state: " 

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript to improve the scientific language. Specifically: 

• Removed all subjective and exaggerated terms such as "delving," "comprehensive analysis," "highly competitive," "valuable campaigns," and "explore in-depth""

In reality, this does not correspond to the truth, as we read on the top of page 2:  

" ... natural language processing (NLP)—emerge as critical enablers for the precise identification and real-time fulfillment of user needs across diverse digital platforms [3]. The application of ML has fundamentally disrupted traditional marketing methodologies, ushering in an era characterized by data-driven personalization, predictive analytics, and dynamic content optimization. Organizations are increasingly empowered to deploy algorithms endowed with real-time learning and decision-making capabilities, thereby anticipating consumer preferences, refining content delivery strategies, and fostering hyper-personalized user experiences [4]. Of particular note is the role of AI-powered virtual assistants, which demonstrate exceptional proficiency in delivering personalized support and in forecasting emergent market dynamics, thus contributing to the reconfiguration of the marketing landscape into a more responsive, data-centric, and consumer-oriented ecosystem [5][6]." 

or 

"This study undertakes a comprehensive examination of the diverse applications of machine learning (ML) within the domain of digital marketing, with particular emphasis on the ethical considerations inherent in the deployment of AI-based technologies, as well as the resultant implications for user experience. Furthermore, it delineates prospective trajectories and emergent trends in the evolution of AI within the marketing landscape, offering critical insights into how organizations may cultivate a conscientious and ethically responsible approach toward consumers, thereby enhancing user trust and fostering sustainable brand loyalty [7]. " 

Both paragraphs indicated above are full of non-scientific language, including the expression "comprehensive examination" which assumingly had been eliminated.  

So, as a must do: improve the scientific language of the full text - there are plenty of other examples in the paper that I will not indicate here. If needed, use the help of a native English speaker which is used to scientific works.  

 

4. Response : We replaced the words with more scientific ones at different points in the text to improve the quality of the scientific writing.

 

5. Comment :

 

Subchapter 2.1. - please transform the bullet lists into a table titled "Current ML-driven solutions used in digital marketing" or similar, with columns: ML-driven solution, explanation, example, potential, source  

5.Response : Subchapter 2.1 - we moved the lists of dots to a table titled "Current ML-based solutions used in digital marketing", with columns. 

 

6. Comment :

 

Subchapter 2.2. sources 26 and 27 support the whole paragraph or just the last bullet point?  

 

 

6. Response: we have made changes to the sources at this point as you will notice.

 

 

 

 

7.comment : 

 

 

 

Table 1 should repeat the first line (heading) in the second page, as well.  

 

 

7. Response: We have also implemented this change 

 

8.Comment  

 

Methodology - top of page 8. You state "Additionally, the literature search was limited to five major academic databases— ResearchGate, IEEE Xplore, Elsevier and Springer — due to their extensive multidisciplinary scientific research collections." 

As mentioned in my previous review, "The databases mentioned are "Elsevier, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, and ResearchGate". While Elsevier and IEEE Xplore are highly reputed databases, Google scholar and research gate are not." 

So now, you change Google Scholar and substitute by Springer and still have Research Gate, which is not a scientific database. The number of papers selected did not change? Didn't you previously have papers which were only indexed in Google Scholar? What about Springer? did you do another search or was it just an error and you wrote Google Scholar instead of Springer? 

This is a fundamental issue in your research and cannot be treated lightly. Please ensure that you eliminate Research gate and the corresponding paper and that you clearly indicate in your paper how many papers you obtained from each scientific database and using what search equation (the search fields differ from one database to another!), how many duplicates you found and how did you solve that issue, and how many papers you have at the end. 

 

 

 

8. Response: Thank you for this important observation. We acknowledge the confusion that existed in our previous draft about the databases used. In response to your comment, we have revised the Methodology section to provide a clear and accurate description of the literature search process, the sources consulted, and how the results were handled.

  

The final list of databases used in the systematic literature review included three major academic databases: 

  

Elsevier, 

  

IEEE Xplore, and 

  

Elsevier, IEEE Xplore and IEEE Xplore, IEEE Xplore, Springer. 

  

Google Scholar was not used as the main database. Instead, it served solely as a supporting indexing tool to help us cross-reference potentially relevant papers not covered by the above databases. 

  

ResearchGate was not used as a source of academic literature and we acknowledge that its previous citation was incorrect and therefore we removed all references to it in the revised manuscript. 

  

  

Regarding the search methodology, we clarified: 

  

The exact search equation used (included in Section 3.2) 

  

That the queries were adapted to the syntax of each database 

  

That deduplication was carried out using both EndNote’s automatic detection and manual review, especially in cases where papers appeared with slight title or author variations across databases. 

  

These clarifications have now been integrated throughout the revised Methodology section (Section 3) to ensure full transparency and reproducibility of our review process. 

 

 

9. Comment:

 

 

Figure 3 - the quality of the image has to be improved. it is hardly readable.   

 

9. Response : Αll images in the article have been improved

 

10. Comment:

 You have a chapter 8 Discussion that comes after the conclusion and after the Author Contributions. Please revise and see how this relates to points 6 and 7 of the paper.  

 

10. Responsewe will restructure the paper to follow the standard academic format:
11. Introduction
12. Literature Review/Current State
13. Methodology
14. Results/Findings
15. Theoretical Framework
16. Discussion
17. Conclusion
18. References and back matter

 

 

 

11. Comment 

 

Last comment: where is the "structured and comprehensive" theoretical framework that you promise in the introduction? you should have developed it at the end of your results and before the discussion and conclusions. Such a framework must be included in the revised paper.  

 

11. Response : We created an analytical theoretical framework and explained it, we also created a schematic of the framework

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved significantly, yet some minor and major issues still remain. Please see below:  

. page 2, fourth paragraph - align "Justified"

. page 3, second paragraph, multifaceted is still in the text "From a theoretical standpoint, it formulates a structured and comprehensive framework for understanding the multifaceted role of machine learning (ML)" - please use the find and replace option in word to make sure all the words I suggested you correct are no longer in the text. 

. correct title of section 2. "Literature Rewiew"

. Ensure that, along all paper, the abbreviations only appear once, e.g. machine learning (ML) appears in the first paragraph of the introduction, but then it also appears in paragraphs 2 and 4 on page 2 (actually 2 times in paragraph 4!), in paragraph 2 on page 3 etc. Please check all abbreviations in the document, using the find and replace option in word to make sure all the situations have been corrected! It applies to AI as well, or to Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), to name just a few. Please check them all thoroughly and apply the rule to all!

. Section 3.2. is in Italics - please correct and use the regular style of the journal and review the last paragraph of this section (you have an extra Enter given in the wrong place in that paragraphs". 

. Regarding the Search equation, you have this in your paper: "

"Digital Marketing," "Artificial Intelligence," "Machine Learning," "Chatbots," "Ethics," and
"Perspective0,""   Please use normal quotes "" not "   . deduplication is not a very appropriate word. I suggest you change to "Elimination of the duplicates"

. Section 4.5. please use bullets or create a table with the content. as it is, you do not present logical phrases but topics. 

. All figures and tables must be mentioned in the text. E.g. Figures 1, 2 and 3 are not mentioned - please double check all figures and tables and ensure that this rule is applied consistently in the paper. 

. Page 17, there is still "pivotal" and "imperative" in paragraph 6 "Ethical personalization represents a pivotal dimension of ML-driven marketing. While tailored advertising can greatly enhance user experience, excessive personalization poses risks—such as potential privacy breaches and the formation of “filter bubbles” that limit exposure to diverse content [88]. Balancing personalization with individual privacy is therefore imperative." Please use the find and replace option in word to make sure all the words I suggested you correct are no longer in the text. 

. 7.8. Theoretical Framework of ML in Digital Marketing - has to be at the end of the results presentation, not at the end of conclusions, otherwise you do not have the chance to comment the theoretical framework and the contributions you brought to the literature. Please reposition and read again everything to ensure the different components of the paper fit together. 

. Please read again everything, and try to synthesize the text in the different parts to avoid idea duplication and coherence. 

As a final note, this is the third review round and some issues keep on appearing. Please make sure that you thoroughly check all the required changes in the whole document. Use Find and Replace in word, if needed, but it is not acceptable to keep on making the same comments, you say you did them and then I open the document and things still pop out. Please take care to details and to consistency all over the text. Thank you. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

                                                                                                                                                      The article has been improved significantly, yet some minor and major issues still remain. Please see below:  

Comment 1:

. page 2, fourth paragraph - align "Justified"

Response 1: The text is now properly justified throughout the document as requested.

 

 

Comment 2 :

. page 3, second paragraph, multifaceted is still in the text "From a theoretical standpoint, it formulates a structured and comprehensive framework for understanding the multifaceted role of machine learning (ML)" - please use the find and replace option in word to make sure all the words I suggested you correct are no longer in the text. 

Response 2: We replaced the words in the text

 

Comment 3: correct title of section 2. "Literature Rewiew"

Response 3: We have corrected the title

 

 

Comment 4:

. Ensure that, along all paper, the abbreviations only appear once, e.g. machine learning (ML) appears in the first paragraph of the introduction, but then it also appears in paragraphs 2 and 4 on page 2 (actually 2 times in paragraph 4!), in paragraph 2 on page 3 etc. Please check all abbreviations in the document, using the find and replace option in word to make sure all the situations have been corrected! It applies to AI as well, or to Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), to name just a few. Please check them all thoroughly and apply the rule to all!

Response 4: checked all and applied rule to all

Comment 5:

. Section 3.2. is in Italics - please correct and use the regular style of the journal and review the last paragraph of this section (you have an extra Enter given in the wrong place in that paragraphs". 

Response 5: This section is no longer in italics and has been formatted in the regular style of the journal.

Comment 6:

. Regarding the Search equation, you have this in your paper: "

"Digital Marketing," "Artificial Intelligence," "Machine Learning," "Chatbots," "Ethics," and
"Perspective0,""   Please use normal quotes "" not "   . deduplication is not a very appropriate word. I suggest you change to "Elimination of the duplicates"

 

Response 6: Changed to elimination of the dublicates

 

Comment 7:

. Section 4.5. please use bullets or create a table with the content. as it is, you do not present logical phrases but topics. 

Response 7 : Used bullets

Comment 8:

. All figures and tables must be mentioned in the text. E.g. Figures 1, 2 and 3 are not mentioned - please double check all figures and tables and ensure that this rule is applied consistently in the paper. 

Response 8: A full pass was done to ensure that all figures (Figures 1–4) and tables (Tables 1–3) are mentioned explicitly in the main body of the text where relevant. Example: “As shown in Figure 2…” was added

Comment 9 :

. Page 17, there is still "pivotal" and "imperative" in paragraph 6 "Ethical personalization represents a pivotal dimension of ML-driven marketing. While tailored advertising can greatly enhance user experience, excessive personalization poses risks—such as potential privacy breaches and the formation of “filter bubbles” that limit exposure to diverse content [88]. Balancing personalization with individual privacy is therefore imperative." Please use the find and replace option in word to make sure all the words I suggested you correct are no longer in the text. 

Response 9: Replaced all the words

Comment   10 :

. 7.8. Theoretical Framework of ML in Digital Marketing - has to be at the end of the results presentation, not at the end of conclusions, otherwise you do not have the chance to comment the theoretical framework and the contributions you brought to the literature. Please reposition and read again everything to ensure the different components of the paper fit together. 

. Please read again everything, and try to synthesize the text in the different parts to avoid idea duplication and coherence. 

Response  10 : The Theoretical Framework is now positioned in section 2.5 "Theoretical Framework of ML in DM", before the Methodology section, allowing for proper discussion in the results and discussion sections.

 

Comment 11

As a final note, this is the third review round and some issues keep on appearing. Please make sure that you thoroughly check all the required changes in the whole document. Use Find and Replace in word, if needed, but it is not acceptable to keep on making the same comments, you say you did them and then I open the document and things still pop out. Please take care to details and to consistency all over the text. Thank you. 

Response 11: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their continued attention to detail and their constructive guidance throughout the review process.

 

We acknowledge and fully understand the concern raised. For this final revision, we have conducted a meticulous, line-by-line review of the entire manuscript to ensure that **all previous comments have been thoroughly and consistently addressed**. We also used the Find & Replace function extensively to eliminate any remaining occurrences of flagged terms and formatting inconsistencies.

 

We deeply apologize for any previous oversights and would like to assure the reviewer that every detail has now been carefully verified and corrected. We are fully committed to upholding academic precision and consistency, and we are confident that the manuscript now meets the expected standards.

 

Thank you once again for your time, diligence, and valuable feedback.v

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing the issues that have been raised.