You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • László Berényi1,*,
  • Ede Lázár2 and
  • Szilárd Madaras2

Reviewer 1: Chung Kwan Lo Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have included important literature in the field and addressed a timely topic. The following are several suggestions for improvement:
1. It may be a bit unwise to mention the Scopus database search in its current form. If the authors choose to do so, they must clearly outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria and explain why only Scopus was used, as Web of Science, for example, is also an important database. Besides, has quality appraisal been conducted? Furthermore, several relevant studies appear to be missing. The authors can refer to “The Influence of ChatGPT on Student Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda,” where Tables 6, 8, and 10 summarize multiple relevant studies. In their Page 4: “Among the included studies, we identified a set of observational studies (Boubker, 2024; Cai et al., 2023; Foroughi et al., 2023; Jo, 2023a; Liu & Ma, 2024; Saxena & Doleck, 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Tiwari et al., 2023; Zou & Huang, 2023) that used the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) and its subsequent versions, such as the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012), to inform their survey design.” It is observed that the authors’ Scopus search has missed several of these studies. Taking the research synthesis and these relevant studies into consideration can improve the quality and the comprehensiveness of the manuscript.
2. The phrase “466 items” seems inappropriate; it would be more accurate to state “466 valid responses.” In addition, the authors should justify why this constitutes an adequate sample size.
3. A data analysis section should be included between Lines 319 and 320.
4. Section 5 Discussion presents new findings (e.g., those in Figures 4 and 5). It is important to note that any findings should be reported in the results section. In addition, the discussion section should be reserved for comparing and contrasting the results of the present study with existing literature.
5. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 would be better placed within the discussion section, as they have to compare the research results with the literature as well as argue how this study contributes to advancing the literature and our understanding of the field. However, it is essential for the authors to reference more literature based on Section 2 and those mentioned in Comment 1.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable comments. Thank you for acknowledging the importance of the topic. Corrections were made based on your suggestions and those of other reviewers, including refinement and restructuring of the content.

Comment 1: It may be a bit unwise to mention the Scopus database search in its current form. If the authors choose to do so, they must clearly outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria and explain why only Scopus was used, as Web of Science, for example, is also an important database. Besides, has a quality appraisal been conducted? Furthermore, several relevant studies appear to be missing. The authors can refer to “The Influence of ChatGPT on Student Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda,” where Tables 6, 8, and 10 summarize multiple relevant studies. In their Page 4: “Among the included studies, we identified a set of observational studies (Boubker, 2024; Cai et al., 2023; Foroughi et al., 2023; Jo, 2023a; Liu & Ma, 2024; Saxena & Doleck, 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Tiwari et al., 2023; Zou & Huang, 2023) that used the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) and its subsequent versions, such as the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012), to inform their survey design.” It is observed that the authors’ Scopus search has missed several of these studies. Taking the research synthesis and these relevant studies into consideration can improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the manuscript.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The Scopus database was the authors’ choice since it is widely accepted in social and business sciences. During the research design, we mainly relied on Scopus sources. Of course, we know, and we do not question the relevance WoS sources. A complete review is difficult due to the great interest in ChatGPT; countless articles are written with different purposes and quality, while a narrower field (like using a special framework model) may be limited. We have screened the WoS sources; there is an overlap in the sources with the Delone & McLean ISS model that has defined our work, while other sources are valuable but distracted from the authors’ original intention. We have considered the suggestion and decided to restructure the literature review, incorporating new sources as well. More emphasis is given to the narrower topic.

 

Comment 2: The phrase “466 items” seems inappropriate; it would be more accurate to state “466 valid responses.” In addition, the authors should justify why this constitutes an adequate sample size.

Response 2: Thank you for this the next comments about refining the text. We have made the requested correction.

 

Comment 3: A data analysis section should be included between Lines 319 and 320.

Response 3: More details on the data analysis have been added, taking into account the other reviewers’ opinions as well.

 

Comment 4: Section 5 Discussion presents new findings (e.g., those in Figures 4 and 5). It is important to note that any findings should be reported in the results section. In addition, the discussion section should be reserved for comparing and contrasting the results of the present study with existing literature.

Response 4: Thank you for the advice. The discussion and conclusion sections have been reorganized, and these findings have been moved to the results section.

 

Comment 5: Sections 6.1 and 6.2 would be better placed within the discussion section, as they have to compare the research results with the literature as well as argue how this study contributes to advancing the literature and our understanding of the field. However, it is essential for the authors to reference more literature based on Section 2 and those mentioned in Comment 1.

Response 5: Thank you for the advice. Discussion and conclusion sections have been reorganized. The discussion section includes a comparison of the findings with previous studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper addresses an interesting topic, but several improvements could enhance clarity, readability, and structure:

  1. Language and Wording:

    • Line 15: Consider using “conducted” instead of “developed” for accuracy.

    • Line 34: Replace “a long” with “it has been long.”

    • Line 42: Rephrase as “as well as those described …” for clarity.

    • Line 136: “offers” may need reviewing in context for better phrasing.

    • Lines 168, 181–182: Some sentences are incomplete or grammatically awkward. For example, “Among the additional … by (Ngo et al., 2024)” is difficult to follow; consider reworking for clarity.

    • Line 193: Add a missing comma in “Nawaz et al. (2024), while …”

    • Line 217: “expectations and habit” should be pluralised.

  2. References and Formatting:

    • Line 123: There is a missing space in “1989)are.”

    • Lines 130–134: Consider adding references to support the statements made.

  3. Content and Readability:

    • The section “Influencing factors of ChatGPT use” is somewhat dense and repetitive. Consider organising it by individual factors rather than listing all in one sentence to improve readability.

    • Materials and Methods: Include the research question(s) to clarify the origin of the hypotheses.

    • Lines 390–391: “System quality (SQ) … on USE (0.245)” is unclear and awkwardly phrased; consider rewriting for clarity.

  4. Discussion:

    • The discussion largely reads as a conclusion. It would benefit from a comparison with existing research, particularly studies mentioned in the theoretical framework, to better contextualise your findings.

Addressing these points will enhance the clarity, readability, and scholarly rigour of your manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable comments on the content and editing issues.

 

Comment 1: Language and Wording:

Line 15: Consider using “conducted” instead of “developed” for accuracy.

Line 34: Replace “a long” with “it has been long.”

Line 42: Rephrase as “as well as those described …” for clarity.

Line 136: “offers” may need reviewing in context for better phrasing.

Lines 168, 181–182: Some sentences are incomplete or grammatically awkward. For example, “Among the additional … by (Ngo et al., 2024)” is difficult to follow; consider reworking for clarity.

Line 193: Add a missing comma in “Nawaz et al. (2024), while …”

Line 217: “expectations and habit” should be pluralised.

Response 1: Thank you for the advice on improving language. Although we try our best in writing, we have to admit that we are not native English speakers. These items are typical mistakes; we apologize for them. The corrections are made as requested.

 

Comment 2: References and Formatting:

Line 123: There is a missing space in “1989)are.”

Lines 130–134: Consider adding references to support the statements made.

Response 2: Thank you for noting the editing issues. We have made the corrections as requested.

 

Comment 3: Content and Readability:

The section “Influencing factors of ChatGPT use” is somewhat dense and repetitive. Consider organising it by individual factors rather than listing all in one sentence to improve readability.

Materials and Methods: Include the research question(s) to clarify the origin of the hypotheses.

Lines 390–391: “System quality (SQ) … on USE (0.245)” is unclear and awkwardly phrased; consider rewriting for clarity.

 

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the issues. The literature review section has been restructured based on the requests of other reviewers and including your comment. Now, sub-sections highlight the main factors. Research questions are included in the materials and methods section. The marked sentence is reformatted for clarity (Lines 410-412).

 

Comment 4: Discussion:

The discussion largely reads as a conclusion. It would benefit from a comparison with existing research, particularly studies mentioned in the theoretical framework, to better contextualise your findings.

Response 4: We agree with this comment. According to the requests of all reviewers, the discussion and conclusion sections have been reorganized. The discussion includes a comparison with existing research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer concerns appear to be addressed. Justifications have been provided to explain those changes in an alternative way.