Scoping Review on Digital Creativity: Definition, Approaches, and Current Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The diversity of definitions for digital creativity has been thoroughly discussed, yet the integration of a summary table comparing these definitions and their theoretical underpinnings would serve to enhance clarity and function as a valuable reference for readers. The methodology employed is robust; however, additional details concerning the inclusion and exclusion criteria utilised during the literature selection process would serve to enhance transparency. The simplification of complex sentences would improve readability and accessibility, rendering the manuscript more engaging for readers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. Below are the revisions we have implemented, incorporating each of your contributions to enhance this work.

Comments 1: The diversity of definitions for digital creativity has been thoroughly discussed, yet the integration of a summary table comparing these definitions and their theoretical underpinnings would serve to enhance clarity and function as a valuable reference for readers.

Response 1: In the results section, table 3 is deleted and replaced by a table on comparative analysis of definitions and theoretical approaches to digital creativity (line 456).

Comments 2: The methodology employed is robust; However, additional details concerning the inclusion and exclusion criteria used during the literature selection process would serve to enhance transparency.

Response 2: Additional details on the eligibility criteria are provided in lines 361-362 and 374-377 as suggested.

Comments 3: The simplification of complex sentences would improve readability and accessibility, rendering the manuscript more engaging for readers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds.

Response 3: The introduction has been rewritten using simpler sentences and a fluid narrative style to improve the accessibility and readability of the manuscript, as proposed (lines 131-320).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper entitled Scoping Review on Digital Creativity: Definition, Approaches, and Current Trends refers to relevant and actual topic. It is written in 37 pages, with 73 references, 4 figures and 4 tables. The abstract is informative. In the theoretical approach to the topic of creativity relevant authors in the field are analysed, and key conclusions on creativity as a phenomenon are drawn. By focusing research interest on digital creativity, the authors show their awareness of not just challenges in understanding creativity in contemporary digital context, but also of possibilities that digital technologies can provide in the process of creativity enhancement.  The research aim was to analyze the definitions, characteristics, and approaches of digital creativity across different application contexts, expanding on previous research through an analysis of the current state of these issues. So, two objectives with appropriate research questions were posed: 1) Identify and analyze the general and differential characteristics of creativity in the digital domain, 2) Assess and interpret current fields of study and trends in research on digital creativity. The aim and the research questions are clear and lead to relevant data, the both objectives were met. Methodology is clear and well explained. The authors followed the Guidelines for recommendations on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and, to minimize bias risk, they used Cochrane Collaboration Tool. Relevant information sources are chosen. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria are clear and transparent, as well as the process of electing 29 studies included in the review. Results are shown in a transparent manner, with tables and figures containing relevant data. Discussion is appropriate. Conclusions are sound. Research limitations are appropriately listed. Used literature is relevant, with 17 references published in last 5 years. Overall, the article is very interesting and provides a relevant scoping review on digital creativity pointing to several aspects: the complexity of the creative process in the digital environment,  the need to integrate emerging technologies into school curricula to prepare young people for future challenges, and the need for greater interdisciplinarity in research on digital creativity. I suggest: - not to use in keywords the same phrases already mentioned in the title (digital creativity).

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper entitled Scoping Review on Digital Creativity: Definition, Approaches, and Current Trends refers to relevant and actual topic. It is written in 37 pages, with 73 references, 4 figures and 4 tables. The abstract is informative. In the theoretical approach to the topic of creativity relevant authors in the field are analysed, and key conclusions on creativity as a phenomenon are drawn. By focusing research interest on digital creativity, the authors show their awareness of not just challenges in understanding creativity in contemporary digital context, but also of possibilities that digital technologies can provide in the process of creativity enhancement.  The research aim was to analyze the definitions, characteristics, and approaches of digital creativity across different application contexts, expanding on previous research through an analysis of the current state of these issues. So, two objectives with appropriate research questions were posed: 1) Identify and analyze the general and differential characteristics of creativity in the digital domain, 2) Assess and interpret current fields of study and trends in research on digital creativity. The aim and the research questions are clear and lead to relevant data, the both objectives were met. Methodology is clear and well explained. The authors followed the Guidelines for recommendations on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and, to minimize bias risk, they used Cochrane Collaboration Tool. Relevant information sources are chosen. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria are clear and transparent, as well as the process of electing 29 studies included in the review. Results are shown in a transparent manner, with tables and figures containing relevant data. Discussion is appropriate. Conclusions are sound. Research limitations are appropriately listed. Used literature is relevant, with 17 references published in last 5 years. Overall, the article is very interesting and provides a relevant scoping review on digital creativity pointing to several aspects: the complexity of the creative process in the digital environment, the need to integrate emerging technologies into school curricula to prepare young people for future challenges, and the need for greater interdisciplinarity in research on digital creativity. I suggest: - not to use in keywords the same phrases already mentioned in the title (digital creativity).

Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. In the keywords section, the term 'digital creativity' has been removed as suggested and others are added (see lines 42 and 43).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research provides an interesting overview of digital creativity; however, the concept of "digital creativity" seems rather generic and underdefined, lacking a clear theoretical framework. This could lead to confusion among readers regarding the focus of the study. The absence of an operational and clear definition limits the research's ability to offer a distinctive contribution to the field and the effective objectives of the article, which is the main lack of the article. A greater effort in clearly outlining the various aspects of digital creativity would be desirable.The authors acknowledge limitations in the methodology, such as the choice of specific search engines and a focus on studies in English and Spanish. It would be helpful to provide more transparency regarding the selection of sources and databases, along with a critical reflection on how these limitations may impact the validity of the results.  To explore other sources and languages could be critical for a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. The research presents some interesting points, but it lacks sufficient critical reflection on the topics covered, particularly regarding the effects of digital creativity in educational and professional contexts. Specifically, the educational approach is treated superficially, without a detailed analysis of the benefits and potential risks associated with the integration of digital technologies in teaching and professional practices. This could undermine the reliability of the research in suggesting practical solutions or policies for the integration of digital creativity. Another positive aspect of the research is its emphasis on the importance of an interdisciplinary approach, but here too, it lacks a critical perspective on the obstacles that may prevent true integration between different disciplines. While the authors suggest that future research could compare results and expand the understanding of the phenomenon, they do not provide concrete insights into how such interdisciplinary interactions might evolve. In particular, an analysis of emerging research methods, such as cognitive neuroscience applied to digital creativity, would be useful for providing new insights into the underlying mechanisms of creativity in digital contexts. While the research addresses an important and timely topic like digital creativity, its contribution to education and culture remains descriptive and didactic, without adding truly innovative value to the discipline. No original solutions or new research paths are proposed to address the emerging challenges. The approach to digital creativity remains positive and optimistic, without considering the risks or complexities that come with the use of technology in educational and cultural contexts. This gives the impression that the research is more of an attempt to summarize prevailing viewpoints rather than an effort to advance new ideas. Despite the wealth of references and data, the research at times risks appearing didactic, in the sense that it merely summarizes and catalogues existing studies without offering particularly new or original analysis on the topics covered. The discussion on technologies, their applications, and emerging trends is useful, but it lacks an integrated view that critically addresses the ethical, cognitive, and social challenges related to the use of technology in creativity. The side effects of over-relying on technology to stimulate creativity, as well as the potential inequalities in access to these tools, are not explored in depth. The work risks being read more as an educational exercise than as original, in-depth research. Most of the conclusions simply summarize emerging trends and confirm what is already known in the field of digital creativity, without truly challenging prevailing hypotheses or proposing new theories. The self-referential nature of the cited literature, which does not venture beyond the main studies or critically engage with more established approaches, contributes to making the work lack innovative insights. To have a truly significant impact, it would require a stronger critical stance and greater originality in the perspectives proposed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English seems to be sufficiently correct and comprehensible. However, the abstract should be revised, as it is merely a summary of the article’s content without outlining the development and objectives of the work. 

 

---

 

Revised version:

 

The English appears to be adequately correct and understandable. However, the abstract requires revision, as it currently serves only as a simple summary of the article's content without addressing the structure or the specific goals of the work. The abstract should provide a more comprehensive overview of the study's purpose, methodology, and intended outcomes, offering readers a clearer insight into the research's objectives and its broader implications.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your contributions to improving the manuscript. Below are the revisions we have implemented, incorporating each of your contributions to enhance this work.

Comments 1: The research provides an interesting overview of digital creativity; however, the concept of "digital creativity" seems rather generic and underdefined, lacking a clear theoretical framework. This could lead to confusion among readers regarding the focus of the study. The absence of an operational and clear definition limits the research's ability to offer a distinctive contribution to the field and the effective objectives of the article, which is the main lack of the article. A greater effort in clearly outlining the various aspects of digital creativity would be desirable.

Response 1: In order to clearly delimit the various aspects of digital creativity, a new table 3 is included, where the theoretical approaches and definitions are compared (line 456). New paragraphs have also been added in the results section to interpret the information in table 3 (426-454). On the other hand, an operationalization of the concept of digital creativity is carried out in the discussion section (lines 645-660), as suggested, through the proposal of a definition, which is based on the contributions of the different studies analyzed.

Comments 2: The authors acknowledge limitations in the methodology, such as the choice of specific search engines and a focus on studies in English and Spanish. It would be helpful to provide more transparency regarding the selection of sources and databases, along with a critical reflection on how these limitations may impact the validity of the results. To explore other sources and languages ​​could be critical for a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.

Response 2: Additional details on the eligibility criteria are provided in lines 361-362 and 374-377, as suggested. Different limitations of the study and how they affect the validity of the results are included (lines 739-750), following their instructions.

Comments 3: The research presents some interesting points, but it lacks sufficient critical reflection on the topics covered, particularly regarding the effects of digital creativity in educational and professional contexts. Specifically, the educational approach is treated superficially, without a detailed analysis of the benefits and potential risks associated with the integration of digital technologies in teaching and professional practices. This could undermine the reliability of the research in suggesting practical solutions or policies for the integration of digital creativity.

Response 3: Their suggestions in this regard have been included, in relation to the potential benefits and risks associated with the integration of technology in teaching and professional practices (lines 766-770).

Comments 4: Another positive aspect of the research is its emphasis on the importance of an interdisciplinary approach, but here too, it lacks a critical perspective on the obstacles that may prevent true integration between different disciplines. While the authors suggest that future research could compare results and expand the understanding of the phenomenon, they do not provide concrete insights into how such interdisciplinary interactions might evolve. In particular, an analysis of emerging research methods, such as cognitive neuroscience applied to digital creativity, would be useful for providing new insights into the underlying mechanisms of creativity in digital contexts.

Response 4: Information is added about the role of cognitive neuroscience in creativity in digital contexts (lines 651-658, 772-778).

Comments 5: While the research addresses an important and timely topic like digital creativity, its contribution to education and culture remains descriptive and didactic, without adding truly innovative value to the discipline. No original solutions or new research paths are proposed to address the emerging challenges. The approach to digital creativity remains positive and optimistic, without considering the risks or complexities that come with the use of technology in educational and cultural contexts. This gives the impression that the research is more of an attempt to summarize prevailing viewpoints rather than an effort to advance new ideas.

Response 5: Information is added about the risks or complexities involved in the use of technology in educational and cultural contexts (lines 766-770).

Comments 6: Despite the wealth of references and data, the research at times risks appearing didactic, in the sense that it merely summarizes and catalogs existing studies without offering particularly new or original analysis on the topics covered. The discussion on technologies, their applications, and emerging trends is useful, but it lacks an integrated view that critically addresses the ethical, cognitive, and social challenges related to the use of technology in creativity. The side effects of over-relying on technology to stimulate creativity, as well as the potential inequalities in access to these tools, are not explored in depth. The work risks being read more as an educational exercise than as original, in-depth research.

Response 6: Information on ethical, cognitive and social challenges is added in the introduction related to the use of technology in creativity (lines 287-295), as suggested.

Comments 7: Most of the conclusions simply summarize emerging trends and confirm what is already known in the field of digital creativity, without truly challenging prevailing hypotheses or proposing new theories. The self-referential nature of the cited literature, which does not venture beyond the main studies or critically engage with more established approaches, contributes to making the work lack innovative insights. To have a truly significant impact, it would require a stronger critical stance and greater originality in the perspectives proposed.

Response 7: An own definition of creativity is added in the discussion section and we position ourselves at a theoretical level (lines 644-660).

Comments 8: The English seems to be sufficiently correct and understandable. However, the abstract should be revised, as it is merely a summary of the article's content without outlining the development and objectives of the work.

Revised version:

Comments 9: The English appears to be adequately correct and understandable. However, the abstract requires revision, as it currently serves only as a simple summary of the article's content without addressing the structure or the specific goals of the work. The abstract should provide a more comprehensive overview of the study's purpose, methodology, and intended outcomes, offering readers a clearer insight into the research's objectives and its broader implications.

Response 9: The abstract is revised offering a clearer vision of the research objectives and its broader implications (lines 24-41), as suggested.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article includes a good and informative abstract, but it is oddly written with numbering. I suggest removing the numbering and instead writing the text in a more cohesive manner.

This is an interesting and important study. Very good to select scoping review as method.

I recall reading that the journal has adopted APA7. If that is the case, the references need to be revised accordingly.

The introduction is well-written and informative. However, there is a lack of flow between the paragraphs. The paragraphs present different content sequentially, but without any cohesion. Additionally, numbering is used here in connection with the objectives, which disrupts the readability. A fluid, narrative style is preferable here as well.

The introduction and previous research are intertwined in a single section. I recommend separating these into an introduction that identifies a research gap and concludes with the study's aim and research questions (written fluidly). This then followed by a section that elaborates on previous research.

I find a lack of a clear description of what a scoping review entails. In the literature search, "national databases" are mentioned, but this is the first time "national" is referenced. How does this influence the aim and research questions, and consequently, the results?

I was surprised to learn that the search was conducted in 2022, as I previously understood 2022 to refer to the time frame for when the research was published. Conducting a search in 2022 is different from examining research conducted in 2022. This distinction needs clarification.

I do not understand what "priority" means in the methodology section. ("Priority was given to studies in which the authors presented their own or others’ definitions of digital creativity or those of other authors.") A publication is either included or excluded, but how does prioritization work in this context?

I recommend moving Table 1 to an appendix.

Table 3 contains only raw data, not analyzed data. This critique applies to the entire results section, which currently consists of an arrangement of raw, unprocessed data. I suggest processing the data presented in the results section, and maybe move some parts from  discussion that are better suited for the results section. The answers to the study's aims and research questions should be addressed in the results section. Subsequently, in the discussion, the implications of the processed results should be examined in light of previous research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. Below are the revisions we have implemented, incorporating each of your contributions to enhance this work.

Comments 1: The article includes a good and informative abstract, but it is oddly written with numbers. I suggest removing the numbering and instead writing the text in a more cohesive manner.

Response 1: The numbering is removed, and the text is written more coherently (see lines 24-41).

Comments 2: This is an interesting and important study. Very good to select scoping review as method. I recall reading that the journal has adopted APA7. If that is the case, the references need to be revised accordingly.

Response 2: References are adapted to the APA 7th edition format, throughout the manuscript.

Comments 3: The introduction is well-written and informative. However, there is a lack of flow between the paragraphs. The paragraphs present different content sequentially, but without any cohesion. Additionally, numbering is used here in connection with the objectives, which disrupts the readability. A fluid, narrative style is preferable here as well.

Response 3: Fluidity is added to the content of the introduction, ensuring cohesion between paragraphs. The numbering related to the objectives is removed, and the objectives and research questions are written smoothly, as proposed (see lines 302-320).

Comments 4: The introduction and previous research are intertwined in a single section. I recommend separating these into an introduction that identifies a research gap and concludes with the study's aim and research questions (written fluently). This then followed by a section that elaborates on previous research.

Response 4: A section is created Introduction where the research gap is identified and which concludes with the objective of the study and research questions and a section with two subsections where the previous research is developed, following its successful recommendations (lines 131-167). A section on the present is also included (lines 168-320).

Comments 5: I found a lack of a clear description of what a scoping review entails.

Response 5: Information about the characteristics of scoping reviews and their uses is added in lines 330-340, following Tricco et al. (2018).

Comments 6: In the literature search, "national databases" are mentioned, but this is the first time "national" is referenced. How does this influence the aim and research questions, and consequently, the results?

Response 6: The lines 244-346 describe the selection of databases based on their characteristics and the research objective. The terms 'national' and 'international' have been omitted to avoid confusion. Thank you for the clarification.

Comments 7: I was surprised to learn that the search was conducted in 2022, as I previously understood 2022 to refer to the time frame for when the research was published. Conducting a search in 2022 is different from examining research conducted in 2022. This distinction needs clarification.

Response 7: The lines 353 and 354 clarify the timing of the search for publications in the various academic databases. Thank you for your contribution.

Comments 8: I do not understand what "priority" means in the methodology section. ("Priority was given to studies in which the authors presented their own or others' definitions of digital creativity or those of other authors.") A publication is either included or excluded, but how does prioritization work in this context?

Response 8: This information is removed as it is included in the inclusion and exclusion criteria (lines 361-362; lines 374-377). Thank you for the suggestion.

Comments 9: I recommend moving Table 1 to an appendix.

Response 9: I appreciate your suggestion, since it is a brief table, we have left it in the same place.

Comments 10: Table 3 contains only raw data, not analyzed data. This critique applies to the entire results section, which currently consists of an arrangement of raw, unprocessed data. I suggest processing the data presented in the results section, and maybe move some parts from discussion that are better suited for the results section. The answers to the study's aims and research questions should be addressed in the results section. Subsequently, in the discussion, the implications of the processed results should be examined in light of previous research.

Response 10: In the results section, table 3 is deleted and replaced by a table on comparative analysis of definitions and theoretical approaches to digital creativity (line 456).

Comments 11: The answers to the study's aims and research questions should be addressed in the results section. Later, in the analysis, the implications of the processed results should be examined in light of previous research.

Response 11: The study's aims and research questions are answered as suggested (lines 419, 426-430, 509,514).

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the research on digital creativity significant in the digital age. It provides a better understanding of creativity in the digital era, especially in education. The papers provide a literature review on digital creativity, enabling us to understand better how to approach it and the role digital technologies can play.

The paper is well structured, following the rules of the scientific paper. The methodology and results are well presented.

In the discussion, I would propose that authors add their definition of digital creativity based on the performed research.

In references, please check reference 7, it seems that the names of the authors are missing.

In the Results section, chapter 3.1 (rows 182-186), I would suggest checking the sentences in the first paragraph because the phrase "among others" repeats three times, and its use, especially in the 2nd session.

In the Discussion section, in the second paragraph (rows 295-296), I would suggest checking the sentence: "Along  this line, some definitions, such as Cybulski et al. [60], emphasized the role as a  facilitator of creativity." I did not understand who is a facilitator of creativity.

In the same session in paragraph 5 (row 315),  please check the part of the sentence that is " particularly those related to specific tools to support tools,..."- tools to support tools?

 

Author Response

Comments 1: I find the research on digital creativity significant in the digital age. It provides a better understanding of creativity in the digital era, especially in education. The papers provide a literature review on digital creativity, enabling us to understand better how to approach it and the role digital technologies can play. The paper is well structured, following the rules of the scientific paper. The methodology and results are well presented.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback. Below are the revisions we have implemented, incorporating each of your contributions to enhance this work.

Comments 2: In the discussion, I would propose that authors add their definition of digital creativity based on the performed research.

Response 2: A definition of digital creativity is included in the discussion section, as proposed, based on the research carried out (lines 644-660).

Comments 3: In references, please check reference 7, it seems that the names of the authors are missing.

Response 3: The names of the authors are added to the indicated reference.

Comments 4: In the Results section, chapter 3.1 (rows 182-186), I would suggest checking the sentences in the first paragraph because the phrase "among others" repeats three times, and its use, especially in the 2nd session.

Response 4: The proposed sentences are reviewed and “among others” is deleted, as suggested, and the paragraph is redrafted.

Comments 5: In the Discussion section, in the second paragraph (rows 608-610), I would suggest checking the sentence: "Along this line, some definitions, such as Cybulski et al. [60], emphasized the role as a facilitator of creativity. " I didn't understand who is a facilitator of creativity.

Response 5: Information is added to facilitate understanding, as suggested. Thanks for your clarification.

Comments 6: In the same session in paragraph 5 (row 315), please check the part of the sentence that is " particularly those related to specific tools to support tools,..."- tools to support tools?

Response 6: Information is reviewed and added to facilitate understanding, thank you for your contribution (lines 634-636).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the authors' responses to reviewer comments and the revised manuscript, I recommend proceeding with publication. The authors have systematically addressed all reviewer concerns with specific, targeted revisions, strengthened the theoretical framework and operationalization and enhanced methodological transparency and critical analysis, added valuable new perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, balanced optimistic and critical points of view regarding digital creativity and provided clearer implications for both research and practice. The manuscript now offers a robust contribution to the field through its comprehensive synthesis of digital creativity literature and clear theoretical framework. The revisions have markedly improved both the scientific rigor and practical utility of the work. While the abstract could potentially be further refined, the overall quality of the manuscript now meets publication standards.

Author Response

Comments 1: After reviewing the authors' responses to reviewer comments and the revised manuscript, I recommend proceeding with publication. The authors have systematically addressed all reviewer concerns with specific, targeted revisions, strengthened the theoretical framework and operationalization and enhanced methodological transparency and critical analysis, added valuable new perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, balanced optimistic and critical points of view regarding digital creativity and provided clearer implications for both research and practice. The manuscript now offers a robust contribution to the field through its comprehensive synthesis of digital creativity literature and clear theoretical framework. The revisions have markedly improved both the scientific rigor and practical utility of the work. While the abstract could potentially be further refined, the overall quality of the manuscript now meets publication standards.

Response 1: The abstract is further refined as suggested by adding the keywords 'cognitive neuroscience'. Many thanks for all your input.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx