Digital Competence Assessment Methods in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting piece of research, based on a systematic literature review focused on the digital competence assessment methods in HE.

Although the structure of the paper is well designed and appropriate, I would like to highlight some concerns:

• the author(s) claim more than once that the topic is "under-researched" (which is not true), given the need for a systematic literature review carried out.
• Some references are missing (i.e. line 35)
• line 150, criteria is a plural Latin noun, therefore it needs "were" instead of "was".
• More compelling analyses are expected to systematically comment on every finding.

I will be glad to further revise this article, after a careful revision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback. The response is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the topic of digital competence is a very timely topic in the post-corona era.

In order to improve the quality of the paper, the following modifications are suggested.

1. Summary of research methods, results, and implications would be better to be included in abstract.
2. It is necessary to summarize and present the analysis of concepts, elements, and frameworks for international research as the theoretical foundations.
3. It is better to analyze the factors and the constructs of localized frameworks in order for readers to understand the difference between international studies and local studies.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback. Response is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript explain a interest subject but there are several sections that requiere your attention. In this regards, it would be more useful to add a recent citations and the correspondent references.

In addition, the authors should explain more details about the process of analysis of materials. When the search was made? What day was? What are the boleans terms used? What are the criterias that have been used in this review? What are the reasons that the authors used these academic basadates and not others? Also, it would be more interesting include information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The content of table 1 could be organized by alphabetical orden of the authors.

Moreover, the authors should add more citations in the conclusions and discusision sections. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback. Response is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report