Principals’ Digital Leadership Competencies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Teachers’ Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article implies the disclosure of digital leadership competencies. Can we say that the ISTE-A dimensions are digital leadership competencies? Please explain.
2. In the theoretical part:  ISTE-A dimensions (Visionary Leadership; Digital age Learning Culture; Excellence in Professional Practice; Systemic Improvement; Digital Citizenship) are not based on scientific sources. It is not enough to write down the provisions mentioned in the document.
3. Justify the links between visionary leadership and digital leadership based on scientific insights.
4. Why did teachers participate in the study, and not the leaders themselves? Please explain.
5. Why was no analysis of the dimensions of digital leadership conducted to find causal relationships, e.g. from education, etc.
6. The presented research results do not reveal new/important insights from a scientific point of view.
7. The discussion part lacks a contextual analysis of the research results explaining the obtained results.
8. I suggest that the conclusions part refuse, leaving the discussion part.
9. I suggest that the recommendations part refuse, because they repeat the conclusions and discussion parts. Leave the Implications of the Study part.
10. Although you mention in the research results part that the research results obtained are not significant from a gender perspective, the entire study is devoted to this topic. Maybe you can find a more significant aspect of the research results and present it.

Author Response

Most of the reviewers’ comments have been addressed, and below are answers to some queries.

 

1. The title of the article implies the disclosure of digital leadership competencies. Can we say that the ISTE-A dimensions are digital leadership competencies? Please explain.

 

Answer to the above question:

The ISTE-A dimensions can be considered digital leadership competencies. The article identifies five key dimensions—visionary leadership, digital age learning culture, excellence in professional practice, systemic improvement, and digital citizenship as outlined by the ISTE-A standards. These dimensions encompass the skills and knowledge required for principals to effectively lead in a digital environment, such as fostering innovation, integrating technology, and promoting ethical digital practices. The study confirms that high school leaders meet these standards, validating them as essential competencies for digital leadership in education. Thus, the ISTE-A dimensions provide a structured framework for principals to navigate the challenges and opportunities of the 4IR in schools.

 

2. In the theoretical part:  ISTE-A dimensions (Visionary Leadership; Digital age Learning Culture; Excellence in Professional Practice; Systemic Improvement; Digital Citizenship) are not based on scientific sources. It is not enough to write down the provisions mentioned in the document.

 

 

Answer to the above question:

The ISTE-A dimensions are grounded in research and scholarly discourse, as evidenced by citations to studies such as Zhong (2016, 2017), Hamzah et al. (2021), and ISTE (2018), which validate these standards as empirically supported frameworks.

 

 

3. Justify the links between visionary leadership and digital leadership based on scientific insights.

 

My answer to question two is sufficient to proffer an answer to this, as one of the dimensions is being queried. Meanwhile, I have jointly offered an answer to all the dimensions above.

 

4. Why did teachers participate in the study, and not the leaders themselves? Please explain.

Answer to the above question:

Teachers provide an unbiased view of principals' digital leadership competencies, avoiding potential self-reporting biases (e.g., overestimation of skills by leaders themselves). The study emphasizes "teachers' perceptions" (Table 5) to gauge how leadership practices are observed and experienced in daily school operations. More so, the ISTE-A framework cited in the study evaluates leaders based on their impact on stakeholders. Teachers, as direct recipients of leadership actions (e.g., professional development, digital culture), are better positioned to assess whether principals meet standards like "digital age learning culture" or "systemic improvement" (Zhong, 2016; Hamzah et al., 2021).

 

 

 

5. Why was no analysis of the dimensions of digital leadership conducted to find causal relationships, e.g., from education, etc.

 

Answer to the above question:

The goal was to assess current competencies against ISTE-A standards, not to explore causation. The authors prioritized answering "What are teachers' perceptions?" (Research Question 1) over why certain patterns emerged. The study’s design prioritized evaluation of ISTE-A compliance, leaving causal analysis to future research, which is a deliberate choice aligned with its stated objectives. The recommendations section explicitly calls for further investigation into factors influencing digital skills.

 

6. The presented research results do not reveal new/important insights from a scientific point of view.

 

 

Answer to the above question:

The study explicitly targets a research gap noted by scholars like Zhong (2017) and Veithzal & Rony (2024), who highlight the scarcity of empirical studies on digital leadership competencies in high school settings, particularly in Oyo State, Nigeria, a region underrepresented in 4IR-related education research (Introduction & Literature Review). The study reveals that female leaders exhibited slightly higher digital skills than males (Table 6), an insight contradicting prior studies like Gupta et al. (2023), which found males to be more digitally literate in India, and adding to global debates on gender and digital leadership discussion. While ISTE-A standards are widely cited, the study provides empirical evidence that Nigerian school leaders meet these benchmarks (Table 5), challenging assumptions about technological readiness in Global South educational systems (see Conclusions). Hence, the study advances science by testing theoretical frameworks (ISTE-A) in a new cultural context (Validation of ISTE-A in Non-Western Contexts. It also reveals gender dynamics in digital skills and provides evidence-based strategies for digital transformation.

 

 

 

 

 

7. The discussion part lacks a contextual analysis of the research results, explaining the obtained results.

 

 

Answer to the above question:

The study's discussion part contextualizes its findings by comparing gender-based digital skill differences with prior research (e.g., Gupta et al., 2023) and linking Nigeria's ISTE-A compliance to global 4IR challenges. It highlights practical implications, like AI training for leaders, while acknowledging limitations (e.g., rural-urban disparities). It grounds results in scholarly debates and regional needs, with recommendations for future causal research.

 

 

8. I suggest that the conclusions part refuse, leaving the discussion part.
9. I suggest that the recommendations part refuse, because they repeat the conclusions and discussion parts. Leave the Implications of the Study part.

 

These points 8 and 9 contradict the second reviewer, who suggested that the conclusion section be strengthened by adding critical reflections, discussions of limitations, and global relevance, which the authors have done.  

 

 

10. Although you mention in the research results part that the research results obtained are not significant from a gender perspective, the entire study is devoted to this topic. Maybe you can find a more significant aspect of the research results and present it.

 

Answer to the above question:

The study's main contribution is not gender analysis, which showed minimal differences, but validation of Nigerian school leaders' strong compliance with digital leadership standards (ISTE-A). This finding fills a critical research gap about 4IR readiness in African education systems, offering concrete evidence that these leaders. While gender comparisons provided secondary insights, the study's real significance lies in its actionable framework for improving digital leadership.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments are included in the attachment. Please review these comments and recommendations carefully. However, remember that the feedback may only cover a portion of your article's content. Therefore, it's essential to thoroughly examine your work to improve it and increase its chances of publication in this MDPI journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally written in understandable English, and the overall meaning is clear. However, several areas need improvement in grammar, sentence structure, and word choice to meet the standards of a high-quality international journal.
Some sentences are too long, repetitive, or overly formal, which affects readability.
Additionally, transitional phrases between paragraphs and sections can be improved for better flow, and terms like “digital leadership” and “4IR” are somewhat redundant.

Author Response

Most of the reviewers’ comments have been addressed and painted in red, and below are answers to some other queries.

1. The title of the article implies the disclosure of digital leadership competencies. Can we say that the ISTE-A dimensions are digital leadership competencies? Please explain.

 

Answer to the above question:

The ISTE-A dimensions can be considered digital leadership competencies. The article identifies five key dimensions—visionary leadership, digital age learning culture, excellence in professional practice, systemic improvement, and digital citizenship as outlined by the ISTE-A standards. These dimensions encompass the skills and knowledge required for principals to effectively lead in a digital environment, such as fostering innovation, integrating technology, and promoting ethical digital practices. The study confirms that high school leaders meet these standards, validating them as essential competencies for digital leadership in education. Thus, the ISTE-A dimensions provide a structured framework for principals to navigate the challenges and opportunities of the 4IR in schools.

 

2. In the theoretical part:  ISTE-A dimensions (Visionary Leadership; Digital age Learning Culture; Excellence in Professional Practice; Systemic Improvement; Digital Citizenship) are not based on scientific sources. It is not enough to write down the provisions mentioned in the document.

 

 

Answer to the above question:

The ISTE-A dimensions are grounded in research and scholarly discourse, as evidenced by citations to studies such as Zhong (2016, 2017), Hamzah et al. (2021), and ISTE (2018), which validate these standards as empirically supported frameworks.

 

 

3. Justify the links between visionary leadership and digital leadership based on scientific insights.

 

My answer to question two is sufficient to proffer an answer to this, as one of the dimensions is being queried. Meanwhile, I have jointly offered an answer to all the dimensions above.

 

4. Why did teachers participate in the study, and not the leaders themselves? Please explain.

Answer to the above question:

Teachers provide an unbiased view of principals' digital leadership competencies, avoiding potential self-reporting biases (e.g., overestimation of skills by leaders themselves). The study emphasizes "teachers' perceptions" (Table 5) to gauge how leadership practices are observed and experienced in daily school operations. More so, the ISTE-A framework cited in the study evaluates leaders based on their impact on stakeholders. Teachers, as direct recipients of leadership actions (e.g., professional development, digital culture), are better positioned to assess whether principals meet standards like "digital age learning culture" or "systemic improvement" (Zhong, 2016; Hamzah et al., 2021).

 

 

 

5. Why was no analysis of the dimensions of digital leadership conducted to find causal relationships, e.g., from education, etc.

 

Answer to the above question:

The goal was to assess current competencies against ISTE-A standards, not to explore causation. The authors prioritized answering "What are teachers' perceptions?" (Research Question 1) over why certain patterns emerged. The study’s design prioritized evaluation of ISTE-A compliance, leaving causal analysis to future research, which is a deliberate choice aligned with its stated objectives. The recommendations section explicitly calls for further investigation into factors influencing digital skills.

 

6. The presented research results do not reveal new/important insights from a scientific point of view.

 

 

Answer to the above question:

The study explicitly targets a research gap noted by scholars like Zhong (2017) and Veithzal & Rony (2024), who highlight the scarcity of empirical studies on digital leadership competencies in high school settings, particularly in Oyo State, Nigeria, a region underrepresented in 4IR-related education research (Introduction & Literature Review). The study reveals that female leaders exhibited slightly higher digital skills than males (Table 6), an insight contradicting prior studies like Gupta et al. (2023), which found males to be more digitally literate in India, and adding to global debates on gender and digital leadership discussion. While ISTE-A standards are widely cited, the study provides empirical evidence that Nigerian school leaders meet these benchmarks (Table 5), challenging assumptions about technological readiness in Global South educational systems (see Conclusions). Hence, the study advances science by testing theoretical frameworks (ISTE-A) in a new cultural context (Validation of ISTE-A in Non-Western Contexts. It also reveals gender dynamics in digital skills and provides evidence-based strategies for digital transformation.

 

 

 

 

 

7. The discussion part lacks a contextual analysis of the research results, explaining the obtained results.

 

 

Answer to the above question:

The study's discussion part contextualizes its findings by comparing gender-based digital skill differences with prior research (e.g., Gupta et al., 2023) and linking Nigeria's ISTE-A compliance to global 4IR challenges. It highlights practical implications, like AI training for leaders, while acknowledging limitations (e.g., rural-urban disparities). It grounds results in scholarly debates and regional needs, with recommendations for future causal research.

 

 

8. I suggest that the conclusions part refuse, leaving the discussion part.
9. I suggest that the recommendations part refuse, because they repeat the conclusions and discussion parts. Leave the Implications of the Study part.

 

These points 8 and 9 contradict the second reviewer, who suggested that the conclusion section be strengthened by adding critical reflections, discussions of limitations, and global relevance, which the authors have done.  

 

 

10. Although you mention in the research results part that the research results obtained are not significant from a gender perspective, the entire study is devoted to this topic. Maybe you can find a more significant aspect of the research results and present it.

 

Answer to the above question:

The study's main contribution is not gender analysis, which showed minimal differences, but validation of Nigerian school leaders' strong compliance with digital leadership standards (ISTE-A). This finding fills a critical research gap about 4IR readiness in African education systems, offering concrete evidence that these leaders. While gender comparisons provided secondary insights, the study's real significance lies in its actionable framework for improving digital leadership.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The corrections and explanations made are clear.