ChatGPT as a Digital Tool in the Transformation of Digital Teaching Competence: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and insightful article. However, several key concerns should be addressed:

Limited Literature in the Introduction – The current literature review needs expansion to strengthen the theoretical foundation and better justify the research gap. Consider incorporating relevant studies such as Al-Hattami (2025, 2023, 2021) and Yu (2024), etc.

Methodology Justification: The chosen methodology should be clearly explained and supported by previous research to enhance its credibility.

Selection Criteria: Provide a rationale for limiting the selection to scientific articles published between 2022 and 2024. Justifying this choice will strengthen the study’s validity.

Implications for Theory and Practice: Include a dedicated section discussing the study’s contributions to existing theories and its practical relevance for educators, policymakers, and institutions.

Best of luck with your revision!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need some edits

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers

I hope this message finds you well. We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which have contributed significantly to the improvement of our work.

Firstly, the introduction and the theoretical framework of the paper have been expanded to strengthen the theoretical basis and justify the research gap. Regarding the methodology, it has been explained and supported by various researches to make it more comprehensive. A justification for limiting the collected articles has been provided. Finally, a section has been included to discuss the contributions of the study and its relevance for teachers.

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors contribute to the much-needed exploration of how AI tools such as Chat-GPT may shape the digital competencies of teachers. Given the volume of literature generated around AI technologies and education, particularly Chat-GPT systematic literature reviews provide a useful snapshot of the state of various dimensions of this rapidly evolving area.

Some comments are provided on the manuscript. In summary the key areas to consider for strengthening the paper are:

• Increased clarity, early focus on the key research question. Also be mindful of the various ways that the main aim/key research question is referred to or framed within the article. It is recommended to review the instances of where the aim/research question is framed and refine for better consistency (and therefore clarity).
• Be consistent in use of key terms e.g. ‘digital teaching competence’  or ‘teacher digital competence’ – keep with teacher digital competence throughout.
• There is some definition of digital teaching competence early on, however, given that the concept of teacher digital competence is central to the paper the concept needs further explanation as does the concept that ChatGPT is a tool to transform digital competence. Explaining clearly these concepts more clearly in the introductory part of the paper will help to make the paper stronger.
• Some statements require citations to support e.g. lines 69-70, lines 105-106.
• Lines 53-66 A smoother transition can be facilitated here by stating something like “ AI technologies are among the l tools increasingly used in education. AI is a field …Most recently, conversational AI tools such as ChatGPT entered education…” {then go on with other details that are in the manuscript}. For accuracy and clarity, it’s important to make sure that Chat GPT is defined in terms of the type of AI that it is. AI and chatgpt are used interchangeably quite a lot which I believe contributes to confusion and lack of understanding of the tool.

Please refer to the manuscript for further comments.
I hope these are useful comments.
Best wishes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers

I hope this message finds you well. We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which have contributed significantly to the improvement of our work.

Changes have been made around the main research objective, as well as the consistent use throughout the article of consistent digital competence, allowing for a better understanding of the text. The definition of digital competence and the importance of ChatGPT in transforming digital competence has been expanded. On the other hand, reviewer changes have been made to support research and comprehension errors.

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to suggest a few minor revisions that could further strengthen the quality and clarity of this systematic review.

First, I recommend adding a column on the limitations of each study in the systematic literature review table. While the table effectively summarizes key aspects such as country, type of study, participants, and results, the inclusion of a dedicated limitations column would enrich the critical analysis of the reviewed studies. This addition would allow readers to better understand the specific weaknesses or constraints present in each study, such as small sample sizes, reliance on self-reported data, or limited generalizability due to a focus on a specific educational level or geographical area. Including this information aligns with best practices in systematic reviews and would provide a more comprehensive overview of the current state of research.

Additionally, I recommend ensuring consistency in the size and layout of the figures throughout the manuscript. Some figures, such as the PRISMA flowchart and the Sankey diagram, appear to vary in scale and resolution. Standardizing the figure sizes will improve the visual coherence of the paper and enhance readability, making it easier for readers to follow the flow of information and interpret the graphical data presented.

Finally, I suggest incorporating a future trends or research directions section towards the end of the paper, ideally following the conclusions. While the discussion thoroughly addresses the current findings, a dedicated section outlining potential future research avenues would strengthen the contribution of this study. This section could highlight the need for longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of ChatGPT on teachers’ digital competence, explore the application of AI tools in underrepresented regions or educational levels, and anticipate future advancements in AI technology. Furthermore, it could address the importance of developing ethical frameworks and sustainable practices in the integration of AI in education. Including this section would provide valuable guidance for researchers and educators interested in advancing this area of study.

Author Response

Dear editor and reviewers

I hope this message finds you well. We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which have contributed significantly to the improvement of our work.

A limitations column has been added to the table to enrich the critical analysis of the collected studies. Also, the size of the figures and the diagram has been made consistent. However, a section on future trends/lines of research has been incorporated after the conclusions to highlight the need for long-term longitudinal studies. Finally, ethical frameworks and sustainable practices for the integration of AI in education have been developed.

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I kindly ask the authors to re-provide a clean version of the manuscript and a detailed response to the comments raised, clearly highlighted in the manuscript using a specific color.

My raised comments:

This is a timely and insightful article. However, several key concerns should be addressed:

Limited Literature in the Introduction – The current literature review needs expansion to strengthen the theoretical foundation and better justify the research gap. Consider incorporating relevant studies such as Al-Hattami (2025, 2023, 2021) and Yu (2024), etc.

Methodology Justification: The chosen methodology should be clearly explained and supported by previous research to enhance its credibility.

Selection Criteria: Provide a rationale for limiting the selection to scientific articles published between 2022 and 2024. Justifying this choice will strengthen the study’s validity.

Implications for Theory and Practice: Include a dedicated section discussing the study’s contributions to existing theories and its practical relevance for educators, policymakers, and institutions.

Best of luck with your revision!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,   We sincerely thank you for your kind words and valuable comments on our manuscript.  Below you will find our detailed responses to each of the points raised. All changes have been clearly highlighted in the revised manuscript using red color for easy reference.   1. Limited literature in the introduction We appreciate your suggestion to expand the literature review. Consequently, we have incorporated several recent and relevant studies in the introduction.   2. Rationale for the methodology We have revised the methodology section to include a clearer rationale for the chosen approach, supported by relevant academic sources. This includes an explanation of its suitability for our research objectives and alignment with similar studies in the field. It has also been modified in the introduction.   3. Selection criteria We have added a rationale for selecting scientific articles published between 2022 and 2024. This period was chosen to ensure the inclusion of the most recent and relevant research, reflecting the rapidly evolving nature of the subject under investigation. this is found in the methodology section. 4. Implications for theory and practice As suggested, we have added a specific section describing the theoretical and practical implications of our results. This includes possible contributions (section 6.3.).

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is now significantly improved and is suitable for publication in its current form, pending one minor revision:
Please provide a brief justification for the use of VOSviewer software by referencing relevant past research that has successfully employed it for similar bibliometric or network analyses.

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for your contributions to improve the quality of the article. Therefore, a brief justification of the use of the software has been established and you have mentioned to me articles that have employed this software to achieve their stated objectives in the study.