Designing a Competency-Focused Course on Applied AI Based on Advanced System Research on Business Requirements
, Georgi Dimitrov 2, Dejan Rancic 3, Iveta Dirgova Luptakova 4, Igor Jovancevic 5, Marcin Bernas 1, Aleksandra Klos-Witkowska 1,*, Tomasz Gancarczyk 1, Iva Kostadinova 2, Elizabet Mihaylova 2, Dragan Stojanovic 3, Marko Milojkovic 3, Jiri Pospichal 4 and Aleksandar Plamenac 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Introduction - be more clear about the goal. is it an AAI course regardless of the subject area? Are there some Research questions to be solved or hypotheses to be proven??
2. The related work section should be separate - the related work is done using a specific methodology of creating clusters upon bibliographic data. Please provide a conclusion regarding the related work. The related work should also point out the need for your research and comparisons of your research vs similar done. I do not see that.
3. In this section background and basic terminology be consistent - do not explain some parts too extensive while others too short. Be consistent in the presentation of basic topics and definitions.
4. Table 1: this maybe belong to the related work section.
5. 1.6. AI education - Could it be presented together with IT education subsection ?
6. Figure 6 - provide numbers for each flowchart construct and refer to it in the following Materials subsections explanation.
7. 2.2. Worclouds - no need to explain it
8. 2.3. Cluster analysis - it should be explained in the Methods section more thorough
9. 2.4. Educators should apply AHP method? - explain more concretely how. AHP method without pointing out which alternatives and criteria - should be explained in Methods section
10. In Results section there is definitely a need to be concise, precise and concrete - so begin with 3.1.1. Studies of job market - table...positions - table....3.1.2 Machine learning problem, list in a table....3.1.4. also...
11. 3.2. , 3.3., 3.4. Subsections - a forest of data - please be more systematic and concise in the presentation
12. 3.5. If the surveys are only the method for the input data obtaining you should have synthesized all relevant information obtained from educators, surveys, students, documents, and articles regarding the same topic. This way of results presenting is really hard to follow.
13. Table 6 should go before all the AHP models presented..It is hard to follow the models proposed
14. Discussion again a forest of subsections - consider to be more concise and clear in presentation. You have areas, AAI techniques, programming languages, and requirements needed from students, and educators..put it in some kind of table or rule-based paths - like in 1151-1174 lines...
15. Provide an example - how would an educator or group of educators in a specific area use your results in creating an AAI course...
16. 6. Put in Appendix
17 Conclusion lacks future research plans and listing research limitations
Overall, an interesting and very comprehensive approach that needs to be "reshaped" in order to bring more clarity, a more systematic and technically better presentation of methods and results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors appreciate the invaluable comments by Reviewers, which have significantly improved the paper. Please see the following detailed response to the reviewer's comments. The corresponding changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted with different colures according to the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study successfully developed an all-encompassing strategy for creating a training program within the realm of higher education. This strategy is grounded in evidence-based pedagogical approaches and adheres to the principles of competency-based education and innovative pedagogy. Through keyword clustering, the research meticulously reviewed AAI, incorporating data from surveys, job postings, existing AI training programs, scientific endeavors, and real-world cases. The utilization of word clouds to analyze textual information yielded valuable insights. In general, the paper is well-crafted; however, there are areas that could be improved upon:
1. The paper employs a considerable number of acronyms, which could be summarized in a table.
2. The derivation process of Table 1, illustrating the Scope of AI problems in decreasing order of significance, remains unclear.
3. Similar papers on related themes could benefit from including comparative analyses to underscore and encapsulate the paper's innovations.
4. The study is underpinned by data gathered as part of the FAAI study on best practices in the field of AAI. However, the specifics of the data collection process and analytical methodology are not clearly delineated.
5. The paper could delve deeper into discussing the limitations of the research and explore future development trends in greater detail.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors appreciate the invaluable comments given by the reviewers, which have significantly improved the paper. Please see the following detailed response to the reviewer's comments. The corresponding changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted with different colours according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
