A Literature Review on Intelligent Services Applied to Distance Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While I find the review comprehensive, it would be a major improvement to add a summary. This could have several forms, but e.g. synthesis of the three figures and what they mean instead of the annotated bibliography which is presented as both tables and plain text. 

While I have no complaints about the quality of the annotated bibliography, I find the article out of scope in its present form (aim and scope invites extended reviews). Hence, I recommend major modifications, in order to meet the scope. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
We appreciate your comments, suggestions and criticisms that served to greatly improve our work. Attached we send you a letter detailing all the changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is valuable, but the aims and the scope of the study need to be improved. Authors described what has been done, but they did not move further to the cause or the interest that such research may have nowadays or for a stage or public of the education sector. This is a key question for the interpretation of the results, otherwise some of them can be contested for certain levels of education (i.e. Preschool or even first years of primary education) or for some contexts of education (low digitalization). 

Tables 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are reiterative with the conent of the text, and only add location of the references. They could have been more useful if results where not presented by publications but constructing a discourse around the contents. Otherwise, these tables could be located in the appendix and in this way give some space to the scarce section of conclusion and future research.

In this concern, the figures are very illustrative and they have been not so explored or discussed, losing a good opportunity to explote a further reading of the results.

The last section of the paper needs to be improved, following the previous considerations or even other perspectives. But the way the conclusion is presented now adds little value to the results of the research and it has not been discused or compared with previous literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
We appreciate your comments, suggestions and criticisms that served to greatly improve our work. Attached we send you a letter detailing all the changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is relevant especially in the context of the current pandemic, which has highlighted the vital role of distance learning and the need for teachers to adapt teaching methods and materials to meet students’ needs. The authors make a synthesis of intelligent services applied in distance learning in a period slightly exceeding a decade, providing details for the articles considered in the literature review. The graphic representations in the article allow all those interested in the topic to quickly get the most relevant information in the articles referred to. However, there are a few things the authors could change in order to enhance the quality of this scientific work.

Comments and suggestions for authors

1. The concepts focused on are briefly defined, but no reference is made to how their role has changed over time. I would also have expected some references to their role during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. The authors considered the 51 articles, but 1. without any critical perspective and 2. without presenting the follow-up of these studies.
3. The existing section “Results and Discussions” actually puts emphasis on results only. I would recommend the introduction of a separate Discussion section, which could present the authors’ critical perspective and the relevance the systems described has in distance learning at present.
4. The authors should also attempt at establishing trends in the use of these systems over time.

Some typos/ language misuse/ slips should be remedied, as follows:

1. Abstract, 1^st line: “Educational” could be spelled with a lower-case letter
2. Abstract: “contributes to obtain” – “contributes to obtaining”
3. Introduction: in the last paragraph of the Introduction, I would suggest: “Following the Introduction, the second part addresses……”.
4. Introduction: “of the internet facilitated” - “of the internet has facilitated”
5. Introduction: “scenario boosted” - “scenario has boosted”
6. 1. the phrasing of the first characteristic “non-presential education….” should be reconsidered, as it is not clear.
7. 2 “VLE allows” – “VLEs allow”
8. 2 “growing use of VLE” - “growing use of VLEs”
9. 3 “this data allows the continuously update” - “these data allow the continuous update”
10. 4 “and translates it” - “and translates them”
11. “step consisting of” - “step consisting in”
12. 1 “intervention to learning process” - “intervention to the learning process”
13. 1 “and develop user” - “and the development of user”
14. 1 “according learning styles” - “according to their learning styles”
15. 1 “events e reminders” – “events e-reminders”???
16. 1 “notifications to the student” - “notifications to students”
17. 1 “provide the student” - “provide students”
18. 1 “groups of students were created were created based on”
19. “information from behavior” - “information according to the behavior”

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
We appreciate your comments, suggestions and criticisms that served to greatly improve our work. Attached we send you a letter detailing all the changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction and discussion have improved the manuscript a lot, and I recommend publication. 

One minor question, sections 2-4 in the introduction, is without references, while it draws on some references. The author might add these references for clarity. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you once again for your efforts to improve our work.
Attached is a letter with details of what was adjusted.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments were made in the previous review of the manuscript.

I think the article ramains de-contextualized while is not addressing the stage of education or context of education; in the introduction authors mention "school enviroments", in the section of conclusions "educational environments" when they are definitevely not the same. So it happens with distance learning and distance education all over the paper, when they are not preciselly the same thing and neither they are always essential assets like the authors stated. I think it should be very clear from the begining to the end of the work that such "digital mediation" (another term that is also used) and the research that has been analyzed here refered to certain stage and context of education, as well as changing the very wide and general assumptions that were not contrasted for every stage or context of education in this work or at least it has not been indicated.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you once again for your efforts to improve our work.
Attached is a letter with details of what was adjusted.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The adjustments the authors made add a lot to the quality of the paper. There is still just one language slip on p. 4: “The first step consisting in” - “The first step consisted in”.

So, from my perspective, after correcting the verb form, the paper can be published.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we thank you once again for your efforts to improve our work.
Attached is a letter with details of what was adjusted.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf