Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Scientific Collaboration: Insights from Students and Educational Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present a study examining the use of GenAI for academic writing and scientific poster development by master's students. While the work is interesting, a review of the article revealed the following issues:
1. On line 6, the authors state that they used a mixed-methods approach to answer the research question. However, the data collection is only based on student interviews (qualitative study), suggesting that a mixed-methods approach was not implemented.
2. On line 55, the search query should be adjusted to "PUBYEAR > 2020 AND PUBYEAR < 2025" to reflect the 2021 to 2024 analysis results.
3. The results of the searches in section 2 should include the dates on which those searches were conducted because the number of results may vary over time, especially for 2024.
4. In section 3.4, the authors provide a list of AI tools used by the students. However, some of these tools are not considered AI-based (e.g., Google Scholar). Furthermore, regarding Scopus, did the students use the AI-powered version or only its traditional search functionality?
5. The authors state that the study focuses on enhancing scientific collaboration, which is understandable given that the interviews were conducted with students who were working in teams. Nevertheless, the results in Table 3 reflect individual student perceptions, with only one statement related to collaboration: "The AI-generated suggestions helped streamline our collaborative efforts." The article needs to clearly show how those tools improved student collaboration, which is a part of the article's title.
6. On line 176, the authors mention that at the end of the semester, students participated in a seminar where they had to present their work and received feedback on the effectiveness of AI tools in their collaborative work. Does this imply that the results of the interviews were shared during this seminar?
7. While the study is based on students' perceptions, it would be interesting, as a suggestion for the authors, to explore whether this group of students produced higher-quality work compared to previous semesters. This could also be assessed by analyzing the students' grades.
8. The authors do not include that the students signed an informed consent form to conduct the interviews.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for all efforts concerning the manuscript improvement and the valuable comments. Here is the list of comments and my replies.
Comment 1: On line 6, the authors state that they used a mixed-methods approach to answer the research question. However, the data collection is only based on student interviews (qualitative study), suggesting that a mixed-methods approach was not implemented.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The reference to a mixed-methods approach has been removed.
Comment 2: On line 55, the search query should be adjusted to "PUBYEAR > 2020 AND PUBYEAR < 2025" to reflect the 2021 to 2024 analysis results.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. The search query has been updated to "PUBYEAR > 2020 AND PUBYEAR < 2025" to reflect the correct timeframe of 2021 to 2024 (the line 75).
Comment 3: The results of the searches in section 2 should include the dates on which those searches were conducted because the number of results may vary over time, especially for 2024.
Response 3: Thank you for this remark. The dates on which the searches were conducted have now been added to section 2 for clarity and accuracy (the line 77).
Comment 4: In section 3.4, the authors provide a list of AI tools used by the students. However, some of these tools are not considered AI-based (e.g., Google Scholar). Furthermore, regarding Scopus, did the students use the AI-powered version or only its traditional search functionality?
Response 4: Thank you for highlighting this. Section 3.4 has been improved and clarified. I added that the students used the traditional/conventional search tools together with AI tools (lines 226-235).
Comment 5: The authors state that the study focuses on enhancing scientific collaboration, which is understandable given that the interviews were conducted with students who were working in teams. Nevertheless, the results in Table 3 reflect individual student perceptions, with only one statement related to collaboration: "The AI-generated suggestions helped streamline our collaborative efforts." The article needs to clearly show how those tools improved student collaboration, which is a part of the article's title.
Response 5: Thank you for this important observation. I have improved and clarified the connection between AI tool use and collaboration. Additional details were added to the results section to better explain how the tools impacted student collaboration, both in terms of individual and team dynamics (lines 276-286).
Comment 6: On line 176, the authors mention that at the end of the semester, students participated in a seminar where they had to present their work and received feedback on the effectiveness of AI tools in their collaborative work. Does this imply that the results of the interviews were shared during this seminar?
Response 6: Thank you for raising this point. I have improved and clarified this section. The interviews were conducted separately from the seminar, and no individual interview results were shared during that session. Students just shared feedback on how AI tools have influenced their scientific collaboration (lines 196-198).
Comment 7: While the study is based on students' perceptions, it would be interesting, as a suggestion for the authors, to explore whether this group of students produced higher-quality work compared to previous semesters. This could also be assessed by analyzing the students' grades.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, this was a one-semester study, so it was not possible to compare the students' work to previous semesters. However, I agree that this would be a valuable area for future research.
Comment 8: The authors do not include that the students signed an informed consent form to conduct the interviews.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I have clarified that I received the consent from students (lines 205-207).
I hope that the revision brought the intended quality of the paper. Thank you again for your thorough review.
Kind regards,
Author
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction
- Your introduction section mentions that it will shed light on specific attitudes towards AI in academic work, focusing on the practical benefits, challenges, and educational impact. However, the introduction does not sufficiently to address these relevant topics.
Literature Review
1. In this section, you discuss the literature search process at length, but I am uncertain about the purpose of including this here. Moreover, your literature does not seem to focus on your research question for in-depth exploration.
2. On page 4, in the second half, the paper discusses without clearly placing the arguments within the context of existing literature. What is the purpose of this section?
3. In section 2.2, "When students meet AI," the review does not clearly state what is intended to be studied, and there is a tendency towards simple statements.
Materials and Methods
1. Procedure: In this section, you mention that "A single researcher conducted the entire data collection, labeling, and analysis process." How do you ensure the reliability and validity of the coding? How did you develop the coding framework and handle the coded data?
2. Participants: I would like to know the specific details about your participants. How did you obtain consent forms?
3. Task Design: What is the specific content of the task design? How was the task design developed?
4. What coding tool did you use?
Results:
1. The results present three categories; how did you determine these categories?
2. The results only show the number of labels in student responses. What does this quantity indicate, and how do you prove the validity of this result?
Discussion and Further Implications
The discussion section lacks an in-depth analysis of existing literature. How does your study make theoretical and empirical contributions? It is necessary to explain this in conjunction with existing literature.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language in the thesis suggests further revision and polishing
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and efforts towards manuscript improvement. Below are my responses to your comments.
Introduction
Comment: Your introduction section mentions that it will shed light on specific attitudes towards AI in academic work, focusing on the practical benefits, challenges, and educational impact. However, the introduction does not sufficiently address these relevant topics.
Response: Thank you for this observation. The introduction has been revised to more clearly address the practical benefits, challenges, and educational impacts of AI in academic work, as mentioned. Relevant content has been expanded to better frame these topics (lines 33-48).
Literature Review
Comment 1: In this section, you discuss the literature search process at length, but I am uncertain about the purpose of including this here. Moreover, your literature does not seem to focus on your research question for in-depth exploration.
Response 1: I appreciate your feedback. In the lines 59-63 I provided a rationale for the literaturę review section. I have also ensured that the literature review now delves deeper into relevant studies that address AI in academic work. (lines 65-69, 125-140, 141-165). I also changed titles of sections to make them more informative.
Comment 2: On page 4, in the second half, the paper discusses without clearly placing the arguments within the context of existing literature. What is the purpose of this section?
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. I have revised this section to better situate the arguments within the context of the existing literature. The purpose of this section has been clarified, making it more relevant to the research question. (lines 59-63).
Comment 3: In section 2.2, "When students meet AI," the review does not clearly state what is intended to be studied, and there is a tendency towards simple statements.
Response 3: I appreciate this observation. Section 2.2 has been revised to provide a clearer outline of what is being studied, moving beyond simple statements to a more in-depth analysis of student interactions with AI (lines 141-165).
Materials and Methods
Comment 1: Procedure: In this section, you mention that "A single researcher conducted the entire data collection, labeling, and analysis process." How do you ensure the reliability and validity of the coding? How did you develop the coding framework and handle the coded data?
Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this. I have now provided a detailed explanation of how the coding framework was developed and how reliability was ensured through intra-coder reliability testing using Cohen’s Kappa. The process for handling the coded data is also elaborated (lines 191-195).
Comment 2: Participants: I would like to know the specific details about your participants. How did you obtain consent forms?
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. I have now added specific details regarding the participants, including the process of obtaining informed consent through emails from group leaders, in line with ethical guidelines (lines 205-207).
Comment 3: Task Design: What is the specific content of the task design? How was the task design developed?
Response 3: I appreciate your feedback. I have provided additional details regarding the specific content of the task design (lines 219-225)
Comment 4: What coding tool did you use?
Response 4: Thank you for the question. I have clarified that NVivo software was used to facilitate the coding and categorization process (line 189).
Results
Comment 1: The results present three categories; how did you determine these categories?
Response 1: Thank you for this observation. I have clarified in the methodological section (3.1 Procedure) how the categories were derived through thematic analysis of the interview data, following an iterative process of labelling, coding and categorization (lines 184-186).
Comment 2: The results only show the number of labels in student responses. What does this quantity indicate, and how do you prove the validity of this result?
Response 2: I appreciate your comment. I have added an explanation to clarify that "The number of labels in students’ answers indicates how frequently specific concepts or ideas appeared across the data " (lines 241-242). The validity of the results was ensured through a rigorous coding process and reliability testing (lines 189-195).
Discussion and Further Implications
Comment: The discussion section lacks an in-depth analysis of existing literature. How does your study make theoretical and empirical contributions? It is necessary to explain this in conjunction with existing literature.
Response: Thank you for this important point. The discussion section has been revised to include a more thorough analysis of existing literature, clearly highlighting the study’s theoretical and empirical contributions. The findings are now better connected to the broader academic discourse on AI in education (lines 276-286,292-327, 220-332, 343-357).
Comment: The English language in the thesis suggests further revision and polishing.
Response: Thank you for noting this. The manuscript has undergone a thorough review and revision to ensure clarity and precision in the English language throughout the text.
I hope these revisions adequately address your comments and improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Again, thank you for your valuable feedback.
Kind regards,
Author
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author/s
Your manuscript studies students' perceptions of integrating AI into scientific collaboration, especially in writing academic articles and creating scientific posters. It highlights the impacts of AI on improving efficiency and generating new ideas and points out the challenges such as technical difficulties and AI dependence.
You have emphasized the critical role of educators and policymakers in the effective integration of AI into academic practice and balancing its benefits with potential drawbacks to ensure students benefit from technological advancements while maintaining academic rigor. Your manuscript also reviews the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of using AI in scientific works. The qualitative interviews with students, assigning tasks using AI tools, and presenting AI-aided articles and posters are well designed. This manuscript also points out the small sample size and reliance on self-reported data as limitations, which indicates the need for more comprehensive research to present more generalizable results.
The manuscript does have certain weaknesses. Here they are, along with suggestions for improvement:
1. The abstract provides a clear overview of the research objective, methods, and key findings but lacks specificity in terms of sampling and analytical techniques. The concluding call for future research also could be more concise.
2. The introduction could be enhanced by elaborating on some specific challenges raised by AI in academic collaborations, specifically about ethical concerns, over-reliance and also its impact on learning outcomes.
3. You can improve the literature review by critical analysis of cited works and connecting them to the research questions. Providing a clear rationale for the chosen methodology and highlighting on unique contribution of this study to the field is also recommended.
4. While the method section describes the approach very well, providing more detailed explanations regarding coding process, including any measures taken to ensure inter-coder reliability is highly recommended. Discussing some alternative or complementary methods (e.g., quantitative analysis) also could enhance the robustness of the findings.
5. Adding statistical or quantitative validation could complement the qualitative findings.
6. A detailed explanation of how categories are formed is also recommended.
7. The discussion could be improved by adding a critical evaluation of the limitations of the study and their implications for the findings.
8. The discussion section could be more enhanced by offering more concrete recommendations for educators and policymakers on how to address the challenges of AI in educational settings.
9. There are some repetitive parts in the conclusion section and it also lacks a forward-looking perspective on how future research could address the limitations of this study.
Best regards
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable and thorough feedback. Below, I address each of your comments and explain the revisions made in response to your suggestions.
Comment 1: The abstract provides a clear overview of the research objective, methods, and key findings but lacks specificity in terms of sampling and analytical techniques. The concluding call for future research also could be more concise.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable remark. The abstract was revised to include more specific information on sampling and analytical techniques. Additionally, the call for future research was streamlined to make it more concise.
Comment 2: The introduction could be enhanced by elaborating on some specific challenges raised by AI in academic collaborations, specifically about ethical concerns, over-reliance, and also its impact on learning outcomes.
Response 2: I appreciate this suggestion. The introduction was expanded to address specific challenges associated with AI in academic collaborations, particularly focusing on ethical concerns, over-reliance on AI, and the potential impact on learning outcomes. These revisions provide a more comprehensive context for the study (see lines 33-48).
Comment 3: You can improve the literature review by critical analysis of cited works and connecting them to the research questions. Providing a clear rationale for the chosen methodology and highlighting the unique contribution of this study to the field is also recommended.
Response 3: The literature review was significantly improved by adding critical analysis of the cited works and making stronger connections between the literature and the research questions. I also provided a more detailed rationale for the chosen methodology and highlighted the unique contribution this study makes to the field (lines 52-58 methodology], 65-69 [rationale for literature review], 125-140 [analysis of literature positions]; 142-163, 171-174 [section 2.2 update with the research gap indication]).
Comment 4: While the method section describes the approach very well, providing more detailed explanations regarding the coding process, including any measures taken to ensure inter-coder reliability, is highly recommended. Discussing some alternative or complementary methods (e.g., quantitative analysis) could also enhance the robustness of the findings.
Response 4: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. The method section was updated with a more detailed explanation of the coding process, including measures taken to ensure inter-coder reliability (lines 182-195). Additionally, I included a discussion of quantitative methods as a complementary approach to enhance the robustness of the findings.
Comment 5: Adding statistical or quantitative validation could complement the qualitative findings.
Response 5: I agree with your suggestion. Statistical or quantitative validation was incorporated to complement the qualitative findings, improving the overall robustness of the analysis (lines 189-195).
Comment 6: A detailed explanation of how categories are formed is also recommended.
Response 6: A detailed explanation of how the categories were formed was added to clarify the process and ensure transparency in the methodology (lines 186-191).
Comment 7: The discussion could be improved by adding a critical evaluation of the limitations of the study and their implications for the findings.
Response 7: The discussion section was revised to include a critical evaluation of the study’s limitations and their implications. Considering the relatively small sample size, I proposed future longitudinal and more complex studies, which are included in the directions for future research (lines 306-347).
Comment 8: The discussion section could be enhanced by offering more concrete recommendations for educators and policymakers on how to address the challenges of AI in educational settings.
Response 8: Concrete recommendations for educators and policymakers were added to the discussion section, addressing how to mitigate challenges posed by AI in educational settings. These recommendations aim to guide the responsible and effective integration of AI (lines 348-357).
Comment 9: There are some repetitive parts in the conclusion section, and it also lacks a forward-looking perspective on how future research could address the limitations of this study.
Response 9: The conclusion was revised to remove repetitive elements and provide a forward-looking perspective. Practical aspects and future directions were added to highlight areas for continued research and application (lines 359-371).
Additional Revisions: The phrase "psychological states" was clarified and specified as "emotions, cognitive processes, and behaviors" to better reflect the complexity of these factors. Additionally, the overall style of the manuscript was improved by eliminating redundancies and enhancing clarity. The literature review was further refined and motivated. In the tables "exemplary comments" instead of answers" were added.
Once again, I would like to thank you for your detailed review and insightful comments. These revisions have strengthened the manuscript, and I remain committed to improving its quality.
Best regards,
Author
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll observations have been raised by the authors
Author Response
Comment 1: "All observations have been raised by the authors".
Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your time and efforts to help improve the manuscript. I appreciate your recognition that all observations have been addressed.
