Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the paper the manuscript is of potential interest to the readership of this journal, but there are major issues that must be addressed.

The literature highlights the need for a unified framework to define digital competences, considering their multifaceted nature. Various educational models propose competence-based approaches, yet disparities persist in how these skills are validated and recognized across social and professional domains.

In the submitted manuscript, however, the interest, significance and implications of the literature review is not properly explained/grounded.

Include a clear and structured description of the methodology used for the literature review, including criteria. Clarify where the review follows a systematic, narrative or integrative approach.

I wish you the best of luck with the revisions of your manuscript.

Author Response

Response to reviewers

 

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for the thorough reading and reviewing of our manuscript. We provide responses below to each remark, hoping to meet reviewers’ expectations. Please note that all changes are written in red in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1:

The literature highlights the need for a unified framework to define digital competences, considering their multifaceted nature. Various educational models propose competence-based approaches, yet disparities persist in how these skills are validated and recognized across social and professional domains.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We added p. 3 the definition of digital competence we use in this research.

 

In the submitted manuscript, however, the interest, significance and implications of the literature review is not properly explained/grounded.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need to better articulate the interest, significance, and implications of our literature review. In response, we have clarified the rationale and relevance of the theoretical frameworks mobilized p. 2. Specifically, we now explicitly outline how our review connects digital competences to the broader sociological frameworks of capital, recognition, and social inclusion. We also emphasize how this conceptual grounding enables us to identify gaps in the current research, particularly regarding the transformation of digital competences into social and professional outcomes in situated workplace contexts.

 

Include a clear and structured description of the methodology used for the literature review, including criteria. Clarify where the review follows a systematic, narrative or integrative approach.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. In response, we have now included a structured description of the methodology used for the literature review p. 5. Specifically, we clarify that a systematic literature review was conducted, based on the four-stage procedure proposed by Kitchenham and Charters (2007), and guided by the PRISMA 2009 protocol (Liberati et al., 2009). We have detailed the criteria for selection, inclusion, and analysis to increase transparency and replicability of our review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is of high relevance and addresses up to date research questions.

Research questions are relevant and clearly presented already at the beginning of the paper, which is always very helpful for any reader.

The methodological approach (literature revision of relevant previous contributions) is often not valued as it should be. On my opinion, academic work focusing on the revision of already published contributions deserve more credit than what it often receives. Often, reviewers have a tendency to value the most those contributions that present original data and tend to disregard works based on analyses of other colleagues’ results. This is one major flaw of the current peer review system. Hence, I would like to congratulate the author(s) for taking the time and effort to produce a paper that is based on a comprehensive review of previous literature.

I would also like to give credit to the author for choosing a quite demanding methodology of selection of papers to be reviewed and for explaining it fairly well.

The findings are particularly interesting, and I must say that they match my expectations, providing my own personal experience.

I found particularly interesting how by unveiling that people can strategically manipulate the general tendency to value certain skills (digital competences), the article challenges the idea that digital competences can be means to enhance meritocracy in clean fashion.

Author(s) demonstrate a great knowledge of existing literature and provide very helpful theoretical framework to organize and analyse the existing main lines of thought. The framework they provide will certainly be quite helpful for anyone wanting to contribute with original empirical findings to the field.

Concepts related to digital competences (or skills) are well described and discussed in a way that is easy to follow to any reader. The “new” concepts object of research are adequately related to classic contributions on social capital. The article manages to expand the explanatory power of already existing theoretical approaches by providing a profound and insightful recent literature review on the topic and also provides insightful constructive criticism of classic approaches signaling how they can be improved in light of new evidence. This type of academic effort is often not rewarded as it should be in academic journals simply because no original empirical statistical data is presented, which is rather unfortunate.

Although I do believe the article is already perfecly publishable in its current form, I would like to include in my review a couple of suggestions:

1) It is a bit susprising that the author(s) have not included any reference to Granovetter's work in the reference list. I would advise to do so to help the paper expand the scope of existing literature that is re-visited and discussed in light of new evidence. 

2) It seems that the autho(s) conclusions fall within the idea that "AI (and other digital tools) will not take your job, but someone who learned to master them will". I missed comments on reflections on this.

As I said, these are minor points that I am making only to let the autho(s) consider if they could improve an already excelent paper.

Author Response

 

Response to reviewers

 

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for the thorough reading and reviewing of our manuscript. We provide responses below to each remark, hoping to meet reviewers’ expectations. Please note that all changes are written in red in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2:

1) It is a bit susprising that the author(s) have not included any reference to Granovetter's work in the reference list. I would advise to do so to help the paper expand the scope of existing literature that is re-visited and discussed in light of new evidence.

We thank the reviewer for this really insightful suggestion. We fully agree that including Granovetter’s foundational work on social networks and the strength of weak ties would enrich the theoretical scope of our literature review. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated Granovetter’s (1973) contribution p.4 to further substantiate the link between digital competences, social capital, and mechanisms of professional recognition. This addition allows us to better contextualize how individuals leverage different types of social ties to convert competences into career opportunities.

 

2) It seems that the autho(s) conclusions fall within the idea that "AI (and other digital tools) will not take your job, but someone who learned to master them will". I missed comments on reflections on this.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We acknowledge that the conclusions of our study implicitly align with the notion that digital tools such as AI do not directly replace workers, but rather reshape the conditions under which competences are recognized and valued. In response, we have made this reflection more explicit in the discussion p.16, highlighting the importance of mastering digital tools not only as a technical requirement, but as a form of social positioning that affects employability and recognition in contemporary labor markets.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf