Empowering Soft Skills through Artificial Intelligence and Personalised Mentoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was an excellent and timely research article. There are a few minor comments to strengthen this report and are detailed below:

 Information on the demographic profile of these students and the courses they are enrolled in will give more context here

 

As the focus of this article will be the development of soft skills, further discussion on soft skills, what they are and which may be lacking in a digital age will strengthen this section of the report. 

 

Further information on how the questionnaire was validated required i.e was it piloted, how did you measure the robustness or validity of the survey. 

 

A section on data was analysed should be included. 

 

For the results, was any significance detected and if so this should be included in the figure and respective legend.

 

Formatting with subtitles should be consistent throughout.

minor spacing and grammer issues throughout.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor spelling and grammar check required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Firsty, I would like to thank you for the time you have taken to review our article. Without a doubt, your contributions serve to improve.

In relation to the comments and suggestions you made, we have tried to take them all into consideration:

• Sociodemographic information: in addition to age and the grade they were in, classification by sex is included.
• In the discussion section, the information about the digital skills demanded by the labor market has been expanded. We believe this suggestion has been very valuable.
• Validity of the questionnaire. As it is a satisfaction/opinion questionnaire, we only carry out a small preliminary test before the full launch. This information has been included in the new version.
• We have clarified the “analyzed data” section.
• Finally, at the format level, we have reviewed the spacing, the subtitles and the English translation.

We trust that this new version will be of higher quality and, of course, any additional suggestions will be welcome.

Greetings,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 General Overall Feedback:

Throughout the paper, some words need spaces between them. Below are just a few examples. Please review the entire manuscript for errors such as:

Line #3: toolsand

Line#18: whiledigital

Line#106: anacademic

Line#116: deeperunderstanding

Line#136: ofabstract

Line#143: strengthensoft

Line#168: wereinstructed

Line#170: consideredappropriate

 

The paper needs to be proofread and edited because it contains grammatical issues. Also, some sentences are incredibly long, losing their meaning.

The introduction is difficult to follow. The different sub-sections do not flow clearly, and very long sentences sometimes cause confusion.

The procedure (method) section requires some major re-work. It needs clarity and requires information on how the hypothesis testing is being. Currently, it is mostly presenting descriptive data. If this study is supposed to be descriptive, then the introduction must be framed as such. By stating that five hypotheses are being evaluated, it is implied that inferential analysis will be performed. However, inferential procedures or results have yet to be provided.

With they inferential analysis you must also specify the dependent and independent variables; how are they being measured.

Additionally, it should also be clear how the results are being calculated. For example, in Graph 1, you stated "37.7%." How was this number calculated? You also need to be clear about what type of data you collected. For example, did you have questions with dichotomous responses only, or was it on a Likert-type scale, or was it continuous data that you collected, etc.?

How did you define perception?

Overall, this paper requires major work in terms of the writing style and focus. There are a few additional comments related to different sections below.

Abstract:

Please check for typos. For example, on in sentence # 2 (line # 3) the word "toolsand" is combined. Likewise, on line #18, "whiledigital" is combined.

Did you mean "GPT Chat" or "Chat GPT"? I believe it should be "Chat GPT."  This should be addressed throughout the paper.

 

Introduction:

Please verify the formatting of the heading. Right after the word "Introduction," the word "Comprehensive education in the digital age" is written. I am unsure if this should be a sub-heading or something else.

Generally speaking, there should be at least three sentences in a paragraph. Please consider revising (or merging) the second paragraph (line #34-38)

Line 61-66: You have only cited two studies, but at the beginning of the paragraph, you are saying "Several Studies," which implies more than 2 or 3. You should consider either rephrasing or adding more citations to it.

Is a citation available to support this claim for the first sentence on Line # 68?

Check the wording of "Chat GPT" vs. "GPT Chat" in the hypotheses.

Procedure:

The procedure section needs to be more concise and clearer. For example, lines 182 through 185 are just one long sentence, and the essence of that sentence is that the "Chat+Tutoring" group was included in Phase 2. Please take a moment to revisit the entire procedure section and make it clearer. Avoid writing long sentences. You can break them down.

You can also use a table to show the different phases, the number of participants, the group involved, the objective, and the phase's outcome. See the example below. You don't have to use the table exactly as it is, but this is just to give you a rough idea. You can use other forms of visual aids to clarify the procedure.

  

Phase	Number of participants	Group Name	Tasks performed	Outcome
1	182	N/A	A B	X Y
2	92	Chat + Tutoring (Second Group)	C D	Z

  

Please provide some information about the items on the survey, such as their measurements, the number of items on the survey, etc.

Please provide information about the variables being measured and how are they calculated.

Give explicit names to the group and use those names to discuss them in the paper.

In the procedure section, explicitly state which hypothesis testing technique you are using. What data are going to be used for each of the hypothesis tests and how will the data be compiled for the testing purposes. What are the independent and dependent-variables?  Such information needs to be clarified.  

 

Results:

Naming the groups would be helpful for discussion and results. For example, the group name can be referred to on line 205. 

Line 205 through 214: you are referencing Graph 1 and stating two percentages (37.7% and 65%). Are the percentages derived from the chart? This is confusing. Please clear up the confusion. The same applies to Graph 2 (33% and 72%, Line 229 through 238). 

Be consistent with the naming convention. For example, the first chart is called "Graph 1," and the second chart is called "Figure 2." Then, refer to them using the given name. For example, on line 232, you said "See Graph 2," but it is actually called "Figure 2." Please fix this throughout the paper for all the figures/graphs. 

Line 217: What does "source: Own elaboration" mean? Is this implying self-reported data? 

Line 221: Check citation format. 

Overall:

In the initial part of the paper, you proposed 5 hypotheses. Please organize the results by each hypothesis, which you seem to have done, but please use subheadings. 

It needs to be clarified which inferential analysis techniques were used to test the hypothesis. Please clearly state the inferential analysis technique you used to test the different hypotheses. You can create a table to show your results in a summarized format. Each row in the table should display the various hypotheses and the relevant statistical values, e.g., p-value, alpha level, n, M, SD, etc. Right now, you are describing the results (descriptive analysis) mainly using percentages, and this is being used to validate the hypothesis.  

Discussion:

The discussion needs some clarity. For example, what is being stated in the very first sentence is quite confusing (line 301-307). There are one-sentence paragraphs (lines 319-322). The discussion can be strengthened by adding more clarity to the writing style. 

You should have more citation to support or refute your findings.  

Based on the modifications made to the procedure (method) and introduction, the discussion may also require some modification; this is because the discussion mentions "hypothesis." So far, this appears to be a descriptive study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see my other comments.  I have discussed the quality of language in there as well.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Firsty, I would like to thank you for the time you have taken to review our article. At first glance they may seem like a lot of comments/suggestions but, without a doubt, I think they are correct and will make the article more relevant. Therefore, we reiterate the effort and interest in our article.

We have tried to take all suggestions into consideration:

• At the formatting level: we have reviewed the spacing, reduced the length of the sentences, unified the “graph” nomenclature, verified wrong citation, unified the term “GPT Chat”, as well as grouping paragraphs that had few sentences. Likewise, the English translation has been revised.
• We appreciate the correct differentiation that you suggest in relation to the fact that a descriptive study should not present hypotheses, you are right. Therefore, we have replaced the “hypotheses” with “expectations” that we hoped to achieve, without trying to do a deep inferential analysis of precedents and consequences, but simply describing the data found.
• We have clarified the type of response to the questionnaire. And, in relation to the %, they are obtained precisely from the answers to said questionnaire, which are also reflected in the graphs.
• We have included more studies in each case that you indicated; We believe there is now greater scientific support for the claims.
• Fantastic idea to include a summary table to describe the phases of the procedure. It has also been included.
• We have tried to clarify and group the data based on the expectations (old hypotheses) that were raised.

 

We trust that this new version will be of higher quality and, of course, any additional suggestions will be welcome.

 

Greetings,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I appreciate that, once again, you have invested your time in proposing aspects for improvement for the article. I also appreciate that you noticed that the second version of the article improved on the first version.

In the version that I attach, have considerating your last comments, trying to dissolve possible doubts for the reader of the inferential or descriptive method. In addition, it also corrected the formal aspects of “GPT Chat” and provided greater clarity in the Results section.

Lastly, and most importantly, I don't think you are making it difficult, on the contrary; I interpret your comments as a tool for a more compelling article.

Thank you so much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx