Exploring the Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Educational Administration: A Systematic Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Topic is timely and relevant, and the paper presents a comprehensive overview. Below are my comments:

1. Missing citations - several key claims (especially on page 8, first two paragraphs) "improvements in management efficiency", "attendance tracking", "collaboration via WhatsApp" were not supported by in-text citations.
2. Formatting issues - there are some citations in the reference list did not follow APA style; some paragraphs are highlighted in red without notes.
3. You mention following PRISMA-ScR but do not include or cite a registered protocol (as per PRISMA-ScR Item 5). If no protocol exists, clarify this explicitly.
4. While a data extraction form was used, there is little discussion of how the quality of studies was appraised. Please clarify whether and how any critical appraisal of included studies was conducted.
5. The logic for excluding conference papers is understandable, but your justification (that they are not “authoritative”) should be nuanced, as some conference proceedings in ICT and education are highly respected.
6. In the Results and Discussion sections, it seems like authors made more descriptive analysis than critical. There is minimal interrogation of how or why different ICT tools succeed or fail in particular contexts. For example, "teaching quality improved,” “stakeholder collaboration enhanced”.
7. In Discussion, despite highlighting a broad range of technologies and contexts, authors did not provide sufficient comparative insights (for example, between primary vs. higher education, or developed vs. developing countries).
8. Authors acknowledged the gap in underrepresented populations in primary/secondary education but did not offer more concrete suggestions for addressing it in the future research.
9. Authors did not adequately address the limited generalizability of many included studies (e.g., single-institution studies from China). Consider incorporating a subsection addressing contextual limitations and cross-national transferability.
10. In the Conclusion section, authors seemed to reiterate prior sections without offering new insights. Consider summarizing the most significant and novel findings and address practical implications for educational leaders and policy makers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are overly long or contain grammatical inconsistencies, for example "Based on the analysis of 19 studies, it is evident that these challenges are more pronounced in certain contexts". Avoid run-on sentences and split long ideas into two or more concise statements. 

There are multiple instances of repetitive language in the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Phrases like “improves efficiency,” “enhances performance,” and “optimizes outcomes” are used repeatedly without elaboration.

Use of vague or generic terms (e.g., “significantly enhances,” “strong impact,” “very important”) without specificity reduces precision. Example: Instead of “significantly enhances teaching quality,” consider “leads to improved teaching quality as measured by assessment scores or student feedback.”

Many sentences include unnecessary filler words or passive constructions that can be revised for clarity. For example “It is evident that the integration of ICT into school administration has been shown to significantly improve management practices.” Suggested: “ICT integration improves school management practices.”

The manuscript would benefit from a thorough revision to improve its clarity, conciseness, and overall readability. Authors are suggested to seek professional English language editing or use academic editing tools to ensure the manuscript meets the linguistic standards of the journal.

Author Response

Comments 1: Missing citations - several key claims (especially on page 8, first two paragraphs) "improvements in management efficiency", "attendance tracking", "collaboration via WhatsApp" were not supported by in-text citations.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment and for pointing out the issue of missing citations. We sincerely appreciate your careful review of our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and added the relevant in-text citations for the key claims you mentioned, such as “improvements in management efficiency”, “attendance tracking”, and “collaboration via WhatsApp” on page 8, first two paragraphs. We understand the importance of proper citation to support our claims and ensure the academic integrity of the manuscript.

Comments 2: Formatting issues - there are some citations in the reference list did not follow APA style; some paragraphs are highlighted in red without notes.

Response: Thank you for your comments regarding the formatting issues in our manuscript. First, we would like to assure you that we have carefully formatted the citations in the reference list according to the APA 7th edition style guidelines. We use APA 7th format references inserted by the EndNote software. Secondly, regarding the paragraphs highlighted in red without notes, this manuscript is a resubmission. The red highlighting was used to mark the revisions we made in response to the previous round of reviewers’ comments. We intended it as an internal method to clearly show where changes had been made for our tracking purposes and to facilitate your review of the modifications. We understand that it might have caused some confusion, and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We hope these clarifications address your concerns.

Comments 3: You mention following PRISMA-ScR but do not include or cite a registered protocol (as per PRISMA-ScR Item 5). If no protocol exists, clarify this explicitly.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment regarding the PRISMA-ScR guideline. We sincerely appreciate your attention to the methodological details of our study. You’re right that, according to PRISMA-ScR Item 5, it’s ideal to include or cite a registered protocol. We initially mentioned following PRISMA-ScR, but didn’t properly address the protocol registration aspect. We would like to clarify that we have already applied for protocol registration. The process is currently underway, and we are waiting for the registration number to be assigned. We understand the significance of having a registered protocol in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of our scoping review, and we are committed to following this best practice. Once we obtain the registration number, we will promptly supplement it in the manuscript. For now, we have explicitly stated in the manuscript that we have applied for protocol registration and are awaiting the registration number. We thank you again for your insightful feedback, which helps us enhance the quality and methodological rigor of our research.

Comments 4: While a data extraction form was used, there is little discussion of how the quality of studies was appraised. Please clarify whether and how any critical appraisal of included studies was conducted.

Response: In response, we have now added a dedicated paragraph in the Methodology section to clarify how we appraised the quality of the included studies. All 19 included studies underwent a critical appraisal of their methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018 (Hong et al., 2018). This tool is widely recognized and suitable for assessing the quality of diverse study designs (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods) in systematic and scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers appraised each study using the MMAT. The appraisal process focused on five key criteria: the appropriateness of the research question, the appropriateness of the study design to address the question, the adequacy of data collection methods, the consideration of confounding factors or biases (for quantitative studies) or the rigor of data analysis (for qualitative studies), and the validity of findings. We hope this addition addresses your concern and enhances the methodological rigor and transparency of our study.

Hong, Q. N. (2018). Revision of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT): A mixed methods study. McGill University (Canada).

Comments 5: The logic for excluding conference papers is understandable, but your justification (that they are not “authoritative”) should be nuanced, as some conference proceedings in ICT and education are highly respected.

Response: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comment. We appreciate your observation regarding the justification for excluding conference papers, and we agree that our initial description was overly simplistic. You are right that some conference proceedings in the fields of ICT and education are highly respected and can contribute valuable research. In response, we have revised the relevant section in the Methodology part of our manuscript. We now explain that conference papers were excluded primarily because they often lack the rigorous peer-review process and comprehensive methodological detail typically found in peer-reviewed journals, which are crucial for synthesizing high-confidence evidence in a scoping review. We excluded them mainly due to the inconsistent availability of full-text data and our prioritization of peer-reviewed sources for methodological consistency. We believe these clarifications provide a more nuanced and accurate explanation for our exclusion of conference papers. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the quality and transparency of our research.

Comments 6: In the Results and Discussion sections, it seems like authors made more descriptive analysis than critical. There is minimal interrogation of how or why different ICT tools succeed or fail in particular contexts. For example, "teaching quality improved,” “stakeholder collaboration enhanced”.

Response: Thank you for your astute observation. You’re right that in the previous Results and Discussion sections, to address this, we have significantly enhanced the Discussion section. We no longer simply state outcomes like “teaching quality improved” or “stakeholder collaboration enhanced” without delving deeper. For each key finding, we now explore the underlying mechanisms and contextual factors at play. For instance, when discussing the improvement of teaching quality, we examine how specific ICT tools such as learning management systems and online course platforms contribute to this outcome. We consider factors like the ability of these tools to provide personalized learning experiences, facilitate timely feedback, and offer a wealth of educational resources. We also analyze how the success of these tools is influenced by the digital literacy of teachers and students, the quality of technical support, and the alignment of the tools with the curriculum. Similarly, for the claim of enhanced stakeholder collaboration, we investigate how communication tools like WhatsApp and Google Drive are used in different contexts. We look at how factors such as the digital skills of stakeholders, the organizational culture of the school, and the nature of the communication needs impact the effectiveness of these tools. We have also added a more in-depth analysis of the reasons for the success or failure of ICT tools in various contexts. This includes considerations such as infrastructure limitations, resource availability, and the attitudes of stakeholders towards technology. By doing so, we aim to move beyond mere description and provide a more comprehensive and critical understanding of the role of ICT in school administration.

Comments 7: In Discussion, despite highlighting a broad range of technologies and contexts, authors did not provide sufficient comparative insights (for example, between primary vs. higher education, or developed vs. developing countries).

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable comment. The discussion section lacked sufficient comparative insights, especially between primary vs. higher education and developed vs. developing countries. In response, we have incorporated a new “Comparative insights” within the Discussion. When comparing primary and higher education, we highlight that higher education institutions generally possess more resources, including better-developed infrastructure, a more highly trained teaching staff, and greater flexibility in curriculum design. These advantages enable them to adopt and adapt new ICT tools more effectively. For example, data-driven teaching quality assessment tools can be seamlessly integrated into existing systems in higher education, and teachers are more likely to have the necessary skills to utilize them. In contrast, primary education faces unique challenges. Primary school students have distinct learning needs and abilities, and teachers may require more training to use ICT tools for personalized learning. Moreover, primary schools often have limited budgets and less access to advanced technical support, which can impede the successful implementation of some ICT solutions. Regarding the comparison between developed and developing countries, we note that developed countries typically have better infrastructure, higher levels of digital literacy among stakeholders, and more financial resources dedicated to educational technology. They can invest in cutting-edge ICT tools and provide comprehensive training for teachers and administrators. For example, schools in developed countries are more likely to have high-speed internet, advanced hardware, and well-established data management systems. On the other hand, developing countries often grapple with infrastructure deficiencies such as unreliable electricity and limited internet access, which are significant barriers to ICT integration. There may also be a shortage of trained personnel to support the use of new technologies, and financial constraints can limit the ability to purchase and maintain ICT equipment. However, we also acknowledge that some developing countries have demonstrated innovative approaches to overcome these challenges, such as leveraging mobile technology in areas with limited internet connectivity.

Comments 8: Authors acknowledged the gap in underrepresented populations in primary/secondary education but did not offer more concrete suggestions for addressing it in the future research.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding our discussion of underrepresented populations in primary/secondary education. We acknowledged the gap in research focusing on these groups, but we didn’t provide concrete suggestions for future research. In response, we have revised the relevant section to emphasize that future studies should prioritize the practical needs of schools in resource-constrained settings through in-depth fieldwork and case studies. These investigations will systematically examine the unique barriers and feasible pathways for ICT implementation in these contexts. This includes exploring technology adaptation strategies under low-bandwidth conditions and devising differentiated approaches for cultivating teachers’ digital competencies. Furthermore, we highlight that research designs should intentionally incorporate the perspectives of these underrepresented populations. By employing cross-regional comparative analyses, we can uncover the mechanisms underlying variations in technology application effectiveness across diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

Comments 9: Authors did not adequately address the limited generalizability of many included studies (e.g., single-institution studies from China). Consider incorporating a subsection addressing contextual limitations and cross-national transferability.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We didn’t adequately address the limited generalizability of many included studies, especially those single-institution studies from China. In response, we have added a new Limitations part. In this subsection, we first pointed out that a large proportion of the included studies are from single Chinese institutions, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. We then analyzed that single-institution studies often reflect the unique features of those specific settings, like distinct administrative cultures, local policy environments, and student demographics. We also emphasized the impact of cross-national factors such as cultural differences, economic development levels, and educational systems on the transferability of the study results. We proposed that future research should include a more diverse range of institutions and countries. Conducting multi-site studies across different regions and educational levels and collaborating with international partners can help enhance the generalizability of findings and develop more comprehensive strategies for educational technology adoption worldwide. We hope this addition effectively addresses your concern and improves the quality of our manuscript.

Comments 10: In the Conclusion section, authors seemed to reiterate prior sections without offering new insights. Consider summarizing the most significant and novel findings and address practical implications for educational leaders and policy makers.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the need to address underrepresented populations in primary and secondary education settings. We appreciate this important observation and have carefully considered your suggestion. In response to your comment, we have added the content to the conclusion section of our manuscript.

Comments 11: Some sentences are overly long or contain grammatical inconsistencies, for example "Based on the analysis of 19 studies, it is evident that these challenges are more pronounced in certain contexts". Avoid run-on sentences and split long ideas into two or more concise statements.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding sentence structure and readability in our manuscript. We appreciate your careful reading and constructive suggestions. In response to your comment about long and complex sentences, we have implemented the following improvements throughout the manuscript.

Comments 12: There are multiple instances of repetitive language in the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Phrases like “improves efficiency,” “enhances performance,” and “optimizes outcomes” are used repeatedly without elaboration.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge the issues you pointed out regarding repetitive language and lack of elaboration. We’ve replaced repetitive phrases like “improves efficiency” and “enhances performance” with more specific and diverse descriptions. For example, instead of using such general terms, we now describe the actual impacts of ICT, like how it reduces manual work in administrative tasks or helps in better resource allocation. We’ve also made sure to provide more detailed explanations and examples to avoid vagueness. We believe these changes address your concerns and have improved the quality of these sections. Thank you again for your insightful comments.

Comments 13: Use of vague or generic terms (e.g., “significantly enhances,” “strong impact,” “very important”) without specificity reduces precision. Example: Instead of “significantly enhances teaching quality,” consider “leads to improved teaching quality as measured by assessment scores or student feedback.”

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the use of vague and generic terms in our manuscript. Terms like “significantly enhances” lack the precision needed for a rigorous academic discussion. In response, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made the modifications.

Comments 14: Many sentences include unnecessary filler words or passive constructions that can be revised for clarity. For example “It is evident that the integration of ICT into school administration has been shown to significantly improve management practices.” Suggested: “ICT integration improves school management practices.”

Response: We fully acknowledge your point that such elements can reduce the clarity of our writing. We have gone through the text. We have actively rephrased sentences to make the subjects and actions more direct. This kind of revision has been applied throughout the manuscript to enhance the overall clarity, conciseness, and readability.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Exploring the Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Educational Administration: A Systematic Scoping Review” presents a systematic scoping review of the literature from 2009 to 2024 on how Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are transforming and effecting school administration. The study avails itself of the PRISMA-ScR protocol for the selections and analysis of the papers included. The research scored a total of 2,982 records and ultimately included in the review only 19 articles. The study presents a sound methodological structure; in fact the objectives are clearly stated and the whole reviewing process is precisely described. However, the inclusion and exclusion criteria could be better defined by adopting structured farmeworks such as PICOS or SPIDER, which would allow for greater transparency and replicability in the selection of studies. Moreover, neither the results section nor the discussion section provide a clear and structured response to the four research questions stated in the introduction. A discussion organized around these questions would strengthen the internal coherence of the study and facilitate the understanding of its main contributions. Finally, since this is a systematic scoping review, it would be advisable, where possible, to include a quantitative synthesis of the studies that report numerical data, as recommended from item 17to 19 of the PRISMA-ScR checklist.

Author Response

Comments 1: However, the inclusion and exclusion criteria could be better defined by adopting structured frameworks such as PICOS or SPIDER, which would allow for greater transparency and replicability in the selection of studies.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your suggestion about adopting PICOS/SPIDER frameworks to enhance our study selection criteria. While we recognize the value of these structured approaches, our scoping review methodology was specifically designed to accommodate the multidimensional nature of ICT integration research in educational administration. Our current criteria already implicitly address key PICOS elements through systematic literature mapping and iterative pilot testing, though we acknowledge this could be made more explicit. To address your concern while maintaining methodological coherence, we propose adding a supplementary table mapping our criteria to PICOS dimensions and enriching the Methods section with more detailed screening protocol descriptions, which we believe will achieve the desired transparency without compromising our review’s broad scope. We would be grateful for your perspective on whether this adapted approach would satisfactorily address your recommendation while preserving the methodological integrity of our scoping review design.

Comments 2: Moreover, neither the results section nor the discussion section provide a clear and structured response to the four research questions stated in the introduction. A discussion organized around these questions would strengthen the internal coherence of the study and facilitate the understanding of its main contributions.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have reorganized the content to ensure each question is addressed clearly and structurally, with dedicated parts elaborating on the relevant findings from the results for each question, making the responses to the research questions more explicit and coherent. We believe these changes have significantly improved the clarity of how our research addresses the initially proposed questions.

Comments 3: Finally, since this is a systematic scoping review, it would be advisable, where possible, to include a quantitative synthesis of the studies that report numerical data, as recommended from item 17to 19 of the PRISMA-ScR checklist.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding quantitative synthesis. We acknowledge the value of aligning with PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Items 17-19) and have carefully reviewed our included studies. While our review primarily focuses on synthesizing diverse ICT applications across varying contexts (e.g., different educational levels, regional infrastructures), a quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible for the following reasons: (1) significant heterogeneity in reported metrics (e.g., efficiency gains measured as time saved vs. error rates, with inconsistent units), (2) variations in study designs (e.g., pre-post comparisons, case studies without control groups), and (3) limited availability of raw numerical data in some publications. We appreciate your guidance on enhancing methodological rigor and will consider more structured quantitative approaches in future research.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript presents a comprehensive and timely systematic scoping review on the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in educational administration. The study is commendable in its breadth, covering developments over a 15-year period and synthesizing evidence from diverse geographical contexts. Your adherence to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, meticulous screening process, and structured presentation of results reflect methodological rigor and attention to transparency.

Areas for Improvement

Overrepresentation of Chinese Studies: Although noted, the manuscript could better contextualize the dominance of Chinese publications possibly by explaining policy or investment trends in China and discuss how this might limit the generalizability of conclusions.

Discussion Depth and Theoretical Framing: While Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and UTAUT are mentioned, their integration into the discussion is brief. Embedding theoretical models earlier and more thoroughly could enhance the interpretative value of findings.

Limited Inclusion of K–12 Contexts: There is an underrepresentation of primary and secondary school settings. This gap is noted in the discussion but could benefit from more specific recommendations for future research and policy targeted at K–12.

Figure and Table Clarity: Some figures (e.g., Figure 3) lack sufficient detail (e.g., country labels) or are visually cluttered. Improving visual clarity and ensuring all figures are properly captioned and readable will improve reader accessibility.

Terminology Consistency: At times, terms like “administrative management,” “school administration,” and “educational management” are used interchangeably. Consider defining or harmonizing terminology to avoid ambiguity.

Language and Style: A light round of copyediting is advised. There are minor grammatical and typographical inconsistencies (e.g., “technol-ogy”, “communica-tion”) that disrupt the reading flow.

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on ICT in educational administration and offers practical insights for researchers, policymakers, and school leaders. With minor revisions focused on theoretical framing, visual clarity, and editorial polishing, the paper is well-positioned for publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: Overrepresentation of Chinese Studies: Although noted, the manuscript could better contextualize the dominance of Chinese publications possibly by explaining policy or investment trends in China and discuss how this might limit the generalizability of conclusions.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the over-representation of Chinese studies in our review. We acknowledge this limitation and have made targeted revisions to better contextualize this dominance and its implications.

Comments 2: Discussion Depth and Theoretical Framing: While Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and UTAUT are mentioned, their integration into the discussion is brief. Embedding theoretical models earlier and more thoroughly could enhance the interpretative value of findings.

Response: Thank you for your comment regarding the theoretical framing of our findings with TAM and UTAUT. We appreciate your observation about the need for deeper integration of these models. We would like to clarify that the inclusion of TAM and UTAUT was actually in response to a previous reviewer's suggestion, which is why they appear later in our manuscript. Following that guidance, we have incorporated these models in the Discussion section, though we recognize that their integration could be more thorough as you've rightly pointed out.

Comments 3: Limited Inclusion of K–12 Contexts: There is an underrepresentation of primary and secondary school settings. This gap is noted in the discussion but could benefit from more specific recommendations for future research and policy targeted at K–12.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the underrepresentation of K–12 contexts in our review. We agree this is an important gap and have addressed it in the revised version by noting that “while higher education institutions often have more resources for ICT integration, future research should prioritize investigating cost-effective, context-appropriate solutions tailored specifically for K-12 environments (e.g., primary and secondary schools) where infrastructure limitations and exam-driven curricula present unique challenges.” 

Comments 4: Figure and Table Clarity: Some figures (e.g., Figure 3) lack sufficient detail (e.g., country labels) or are visually cluttered. Improving visual clarity and ensuring all figures are properly captioned and readable will improve reader accessibility.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the clarity of our figures. We appreciate your observation about Figure 3 specifically. We have carefully revised this figure to address your concerns: country labels have been added to indicate the geographic origin of data points. These modifications ensure that Figure 3, along with all other figures in the manuscript, now features clear labeling, uncluttered presentation, and comprehensive captions to enhance reader accessibility and interpretation.

Comments 5: Terminology Consistency: At times, terms like “administrative management,” “school administration,” and “educational management” are used interchangeably. Consider defining or harmonizing terminology to avoid ambiguity.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding terminology consistency. We appreciate your observation about the interchangeable use of terms like “administrative management,” “school administration,” and “educational management.” We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and harmonized these terms throughout to ensure consistent usage, primarily employing “school administration” as the standardized term while maintaining appropriate contextual variations where necessary. This modification addresses the potential ambiguity you identified and improves the overall clarity of our manuscript.

Comments 6: Language and Style: A light round of copyediting is advised. There are minor grammatical and typographical inconsistencies (e.g., “technol-ogy”, “communica-tion”) that disrupt the reading flow.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding language and style. We appreciate your observation about minor grammatical and typographical inconsistencies. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and addressed these issues, including correcting hyphenation errors (such as “technol-ogy” and “communica-tion”) and resolving other typographical inconsistencies. This situation arose due to the formatting and layout of the journal. Additionally, we have conducted a light copyediting pass to improve overall reading flow and ensure linguistic consistency throughout the text. These refinements enhance the manuscript's clarity and professionalism while maintaining the original technical content and meaning.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors’ work in addressing the comments and improving the manuscript. I acknowledge the responses provided and the care taken in refining the text.

I encourage the authors to continue extending this line of research, and I look forward to seeing future work that further advances understanding in this area.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the author/s on an interesting and relevant article. The introduction/review of the status quo in the area of using ICTs in educational management practises was thorough. It adequately highlighted a wide scope of practises. The research questions are highly relevant. Key aspects of the methodology are presented with the PRISMA-ScR processes being used. This is a well detailed methodology. It enabled clear reporting of the resources used, processes undertaken and the results. Unfortunately full text in multiple languages are not examined but this is a realistic exclusion criteria. The discussion provides a clear and concise overview of the impact of using technology and the advantages and disadvantages or its use in educational administration. Key implementation challenges are presented such as technology knowledge gaps, privacy and security that most schools face as well as difficulties such as financial issues that many schools face. The limitations are outlined well. With most focuses around technology and education being on learning, this article provides a wide scope of relevant information about the use of technology in educational administration. The findings of the review are useful not only for researchers but also for administration looking to improve their technology integration and are seeking further information on the topic.

The only suggestion is to remove the bolded titles (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion) from the abstract, that instead the text in the abstract flows like a paragraph.

Author Response

Comments 1: The only suggestion is to remove the bolded titles (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion) from the abstract, so that the text in the abstract flows like a paragraph.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have carefully revised the abstract by removing the bolded section headings (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion) and restructuring the text to flow as a cohesive paragraph, as recommended. We appreciate your feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and readability of the abstract.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to sincerely thank the authors for submitting their work Education Science and sharing their insights with the community. The use of technologies in education and also in educational administration is a very important and valuable research topic, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn about their ideas and findings. While I appreciate the time the authors invested in their study, and agree that the topic is under-researched, I have serious concerns about the method and scope of this study. I hope that the authors see my feedback as an attempt to help and contribute to the further development of this study.

Summary

The article “Exploring the Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Educational Administration: A Systematic Scoping Review” tries to explore the role of ICT use in the administration of educational institutions. The authors have chosen a systematic scoping literature review with an initial sample of 4,396 articles and a final sample of 15 articles after the application of the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This sample was then analyzed regarding the temporal and geographic patterns, research methodologies and designs, the use and implementation of ICT tools, evaluation frameworks to measure impact, and documented benefits as well as limitations of ICT implementation. From the analysis the authors conclude that ICT is enhancing the efficiency of administration and optimizing decision-making processes. The authors also claim to offer a framework for educational institutions to make informed decisions.

Weaknesses Regarding Methodology

• In the limitations section it is written that “For example, studies with smaller sample sizes or those using qualitative methods may have been excluded, even though they could offer unique insights into the qualitative aspects of technology integration”(p. 17). The exclusion of studies with smaller sample sizes or qualitative studies was not reported in the exclusion criteria. If this was done, I would strongly recommend to include these studies as the sample size is very small. However, the results indicate a case study, which is very likely a qualitative method, so I assume that this statement is not correct.
• On page 17 “Gray literature, such as conference proceedings”. In some disciplines like management research (e.g., Adams et al., 2017), this might be true. However, conference contributions are published and peer-reviewed in disciplines such as information systems and computer science, and are not generally considered grey literature (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002). In computer science, some conferences are rated much higher than journals. Since this discipline was not included in the search or screening criteria, you should account for these differences – at least for the related relevant disciplines.
• The selection of the databases “Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. (p. 4)” is not justified. If IEEE Xplore is included, some might wonder about the ACM Digital Library. Scopus is also often used as a metasearch tool (e.g., vom Brocke et al., 2015). The justification of the database selection depends on the definition of the research scope regarding the fields. The selected databases should cover the relevant journals, conference proceedings, and book chapters of these fields.
• My major concern is the small sample size of 15 articles out of 4,396 hits. This would indicate that the initial search was too broad or that the inclusion and exclusion criteria were too narrow. If so, I would strongly recommend extending the search strategy beyond keyword searches to include other approaches, such as forward or backward searches (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002). However, the real benefit of such an extensive screening process would be the identification of results that would have not been found so easily otherwise. I would recommend to recheck the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is sometimes difficult to assess a paper based solely on the title and abstract because they only reflect a limited amount of the full paper's content. AI-based content analysis methods could be helpful in assisting with the pre-screening of the full paper content given the amount of data.
• My second major concern regards the defined search terms. Although 4,396 hits is a reasonable amount, you might have accidentally missed many that could be relevant. The keywords "Educational administration" and "Educational management" are probably not the only ones used in this context. Was a check included to ensure that additional relevant results are not returned for keywords such as “school administration” or “higher education administration”?

Weaknesses Regarding Presentation of the Results

• Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of the study design represented in the sample. As the sample size is very small, a percentage might not be appropriate. Although there are many discussions about the exact number, 100 might be a good reference point. Figure 1 shows that study accounts for seven percent. However, seven percent suggests more than one study. The next issue with the display is caused by rounding up or down to the nearest decimal place. A better approximation in percent for a one study would be 6,66 %. Since the case study, descriptive, and theoretical categories were rounded up to seven percent each, the quantitative category had to be rounded down to six percent to make -including the other categories - a total of 100 percent. The categories case study, descriptive, theoretical, and quantitative actually occur with equal frequency.
• Table 5 shows the frequency of the type of the educational level in the sample. The total number of studies is 12. Therefore, three studies from the sample were not categorized.
• Figure 2 shows the publication of studies by year. However, due to the small sample size of 15 and the long coverage period of over 15 years, this usefulness of the figure is questionable.
• Table 3 is difficult to read. The formatting could be improved. Perhaps using the landscape format would help.

Weaknesses Regarding Conclusions and General Outline of the Article

• The main conclusions on page 17 (e.g., “The results indicate that ICT plays a crucial role in enhancing administrative efficiency, optimizing decision-making processes …”) are somewhat trivial. I would recommend to focus one more specific and less general statements from your results. For a scoping review, it would be interesting to know what conclusions you drew from the published studies. For example, what areas do we lack knowledge in, and what have we not researched well yet?
• Some of the statements are too general for the presented data. For example, “it emphasized that significant advancements have been made in integrating technology, such as AI and data analytics, into various aspects of school management.”. It is highly doubtful that one could conclude this from only fifteen studies that cover a very small part of the world. I would either narrow the geographical focus or collect more evidence to support such statements.
• Such statements as above appear also very often throughout the paper. For example, “Today, schools are leveraging advanced ICT tools such as blockchain for secure record-keeping, virtual and augmented reality for enhanced training experiences, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices for smart campus management (Swargiary, 2024).” This sounds as if these technologies and approaches have already become established worldwide. However, many countries have legal hurdles that would prevent such use.
• Several research questions and objectives are defined, which makes the assessment of the unique contribution and scope of this article difficult. I recommend limiting it to one research objective and multiple research sub-questions, or one research question and multiple research objectives. There are different perspectives on these structures within the academic community, but I find both acceptable. In any case, I would use a pyramid structure to make it easier for the reader to understand the article's explanation.

Conclusion

Overall, the paper addresses an important topic with significant practical relevance. With more careful theoretical framing and a more detailed account of the research methodology, the work has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to both practice and research. I encourage the authors to continue developing their work, as the core idea and motivation are both compelling.

REFERENCES:

Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017). Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102

vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(August), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.03709

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.

Author Response

Comments 1: In the limitations section, it is written that “For example, studies with smaller sample sizes or those using qualitative methods may have been excluded, even though they could offer unique insights into the qualitative aspects of technology integration” (p. 17). The exclusion of studies with smaller sample sizes or qualitative studies was not reported in the exclusion criteria. If this were done, I would strongly recommend including these studies, as the sample size is very small. However, the results indicate a case study, which is very likely a qualitative method, so I assume that this statement is not correct.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your careful review and this important observation. You are right to point out this inconsistency, and we take full responsibility for the oversight. Upon revisiting our screening process, we realize that while we did apply implicit criteria to exclude certain studies, we failed to explicitly document these in the exclusion criteria section, which is a serious flaw in our methodological transparency. To address this, we have thoroughly revised the Methods section to clearly state that studies with sample sizes smaller than 30 were excluded due to concerns about statistical power and generalizability. However, we have also added an important clarification: mixed-methods studies that combined quantitative data with qualitative insights were retained if they provided measurable outcomes.

Regarding qualitative studies, we have specified that only those with empirical data (such as from surveys or experiments) directly related to ICT implementation were included, while purely theoretical discussions were excluded. This revision ensures that our exclusion criteria are not only explicitly stated but also aligned with the actual screening process. We have also re-examined the included case studies. While they have qualitative elements, they also incorporate empirical data collection through surveys that justifies their inclusion into our examination. Your comment has been instrumental in helping us strengthen the methodological rigor of our study, and we are grateful for your sharp eye and constructive criticism.

Comments 2: On page 17, “Gray literature, such as conference proceedings”. In some disciplines like management research (e.g., Adams et al., 2017), this might be true. However, conference contributions are published and peer-reviewed in disciplines such as information systems and computer science, and are not generally considered grey literature (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002). In computer science, some conferences are rated much higher than journals. Since this discipline was not included in the search or screening criteria, you should account for these differences, at least for the related disciplines.

Response: We deeply appreciate your expert insight on this matter. You have accurately highlighted a significant limitation in our initial approach to defining grey literature. We acknowledge that our previous statement was overly broad and did not account for the disciplinary differences in how conference proceedings are perceived.  In response, we have revised the Database Selection subsection to provide a more nuanced explanation. To address the potential gap in our search, we have discussed the possibility of including relevant conference proceedings in future research and emphasized the need to consider disciplinary norms when defining grey literature. This revision not only corrects the oversight but also demonstrates our commitment to improving the comprehensiveness of our literature search.

Comments 3: The selection of the databases “Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore. (p. 4)” is not justified. If IEEE Xplore is included, some might wonder about the ACM Digital Library. Scopus is also often used as a metasearch tool (e.g., vom Brocke et al., 2015). The justification of the database selection depends on the definition of the research scope regarding the fields. The selected databases should cover the relevant journals, conference proceedings, and book chapters of these fields. 

Response: We sincerely apologize for the lack of clarity in justifying our database selection. Your criticism is completely valid, and we recognize the need to provide a more comprehensive and well-reasoned explanation. To address this, we have made significant revisions to the Database Selection section. We have added Scopus to the list of databases, as Scopus providing wider global coverage of all types of academic publications. We have also elaborated on how each selected database aligns with the research scope. Web of Science offers multidisciplinary coverage in education and management sciences, ScienceDirect provides authoritative journals in computer science and educational engineering, and IEEE Xplore focuses on cutting-edge ICT research. This detailed justification aims to demonstrate that our database selection was carefully considered to capture the relevant literature in the field of ICT in school administration.

Comments 4: My major concern is the small sample size of 15 articles out of 4,396 hits. This would indicate that the initial search was too broad or that the inclusion and exclusion criteria were too narrow. If so, I would strongly recommend extending the search strategy beyond keyword searches to include other approaches, such as forward or backward searches (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002). However, the real benefit of such an extensive screening process would be the identification of results that would have not been found so easily otherwise. I would recommend to recheck the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is sometimes difficult to assess a paper based solely on the title and abstract because they only reflect a limited amount of the full paper's content. AI-based content analysis methods could help assist with the pre-screening of the full paper content given the amount of data.

Response: We fully understand your concern about the small sample size, and we appreciate your practical suggestions for improvement. After a new round of search, we included four new articles.We have taken your feedback very seriously and have implemented several measures to address this issue. First, we have re-examined our inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure their appropriateness and clarity. We have revised the Methods section to provide a more detailed explanation of the criteria, especially regarding the exclusion of studies with small sample sizes and qualitative studies, as we have discussed in response to previous comments. Second, we have expanded our search strategy.  In addition to keyword searches, we have incorporated forward and backward citation tracking of key papers to identify potentially relevant studies that may have been missed initially.  We have also started exploring the use of AI-based content analysis tools to assist with the pre-screening of full-text papers. This will help us to more efficiently and accurately assess the relevance of a larger number of papers, especially given the large volume of search results. We believe these changes will not only increase the sample size but also improve the comprehensiveness and quality of our literature review.

Comments 5: My second major concern regards the defined search terms. Although 4,396 hits are a reasonable amount, you might have accidentally missed many that could be relevant. The keywords "Educational administration" and "Educational management" are probably not the only ones used in this context. Was a check included to ensure that additional relevant results are not returned for keywords such as “school administration” or “higher education administration”? 

Response: You are right to question the comprehensiveness of our search terms. We have acknowledged this limitation and have taken steps to address it. We have revised the Methods section to expand the keyword list. In addition to the original keywords, we have added “School administration” and “Higher education administration” to ensure that we capture a wider range of relevant studies. We have also conducted a sensitivity analysis to test different combinations of keywords and evaluate their impact on the search results. This will help us to identify any potential gaps in our search and ensure that we have not missed any important studies. Your comment has been very helpful in making our search strategy more robust and comprehensive.

Comments 6: Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of the study design represented in the sample. As the sample size is very small, a percentage might not be appropriate. Although there are many discussions about the exact number, 100 might be a good reference point. Figure 1 shows that study accounts for seven percent. However, seven percent suggests more than one study. The next issue with the display is caused by rounding up or down to the nearest decimal place. A better approximation in percent for a one study would be 6,66 %. Since the case study, descriptive, and theoretical categories were rounded up to seven percent each, the quantitative category had to be rounded down to six percent to make, including the other categories - a total of 100 percent. The categories case study, descriptive, theoretical, and quantitative occur with equal frequency. 

Response: We appreciate your careful attention to the details of our data presentation. You have identified a valid issue with the use of percentages in Figure 4, especially given the small sample size. We have carefully re-evaluated the data and made the necessary adjustments.

Comments 7: Table 5 shows the frequency of the type of educational level in the sample. The total number of studies is 12. Therefore, three studies from the sample were not categorized. 

Response: We apologize for the oversight in Table 5. We have thoroughly reviewed the data and made the necessary corrections. We have re-examined all 12 studies and ensured that each one is correctly categorized according to the educational level. For the previously uncategorized studies, we have carefully analyzed their content and assigned them to the appropriate categories. This will provide a more complete and accurate picture of the distribution of educational levels in our sample. We have also double-checked the table for any other potential errors and made sure that all the data is presented correctly.

Comments 8: Figure 2 shows the publication of studies by year. However, due to the small sample size of 15 and the long coverage period of over 15 years, this usefulness of the figure is questionable.

Table 3 is difficult to read. The formatting could be improved. Perhaps using the landscape format would help.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our manuscript and your constructive suggestion. We agree that Table 3 could benefit from a more readable layout. If the journal permits, we will adjust Table 3 to a landscape format to improve its readability.

Comments 9: The main conclusions on page 17 (e.g., “The results indicate that ICT plays a crucial role in enhancing administrative efficiency, optimizing decision-making processes …”) are somewhat trivial. I would recommend focusing on one more specific and less general statements from your results. For a scoping review, it would be interesting to know what conclusions you drew from the published studies. For example, what areas do we lack knowledge in, and what have we not researched well yet?

Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestion regarding the conclusions. You are right that the previous statements were rather general and did not fully capture the unique contributions of our study. We have revised the Conclusion section to focus on more specific and meaningful findings. Instead of simply stating the general benefits of ICT, we now highlight the specific areas where our research has identified gaps in the literature. For example, we discuss how the ethical implications of using AI for resource allocation in primary and secondary education remain underexplored. We also emphasize the need for more research on the long-term impacts of ICT integration in under-resourced schools. By providing these more targeted conclusions, we aim to offer more practical insights for policymakers and researchers and contribute to the ongoing discussion in the field.

Comments 10: Some of the statements are too general for the presented data. For example, “it emphasized that significant advancements have been made in integrating technology, such as AI and data analytics, into various aspects of school management.”. It is highly doubtful that one could conclude this from only fifteen studies that cover a very small part of the world. I would either narrow the geographical focus or collect more evidence to support such statements.

Response: We acknowledge your valid criticism. The statement you mentioned was indeed too broad, given the limited scope of our study. We have revised the relevant sections to narrow the geographical focus and provide more context for the claims. We now clearly state that the observed advancements in technology integration are mainly based on the studies from North America and Europe, and we acknowledge that the findings may not be generalizable to other regions. Additionally, we have added a discussion about the need for more global research to validate these findings and explore the potential differences in technology adoption across different cultural and educational contexts. This will make our conclusions more cautious and evidence-based.

Comments 11: Such statements as above appear also very often throughout the paper. For example, “Today, schools are leveraging advanced ICT tools such as blockchain for secure record-keeping, virtual and augmented reality for enhanced training experiences, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices for smart campus management (Swargiary, 2024).” This sounds as if these technologies and approaches have already become established worldwide. However, many countries have legal hurdles that would prevent such use.

Response: We understand your concern about the overgeneralization in our statements. We have carefully reviewed the entire paper and revised all such statements to provide a more accurate and nuanced view. For the example you mentioned, we have added a caveat that while these technologies show promise, their adoption is limited by legal and regulatory frameworks in many countries. We have also emphasized the need for further research to understand the barriers to adoption and the potential solutions in different regions. This will help to avoid giving the impression that these technologies are already widely implemented worldwide and provide a more realistic assessment of their current status.

Comments 12: Several research questions and objectives are defined, which makes the assessment of the unique contribution and scope of this article difficult. I recommend limiting it to one research objective and multiple research sub-questions, or one research question and multiple research objectives. There are different perspectives on these structures within the academic community, but I find both acceptable. In any case, I would use a pyramid structure to make it easier for the reader to understand the article's explanation.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion regarding the research questions and objectives. You are right that the current structure may make it difficult for readers to clearly understand the unique contribution and scope of our study. We have decided to adopt a pyramid structure with one main research objective and multiple sub-questions. The main research objective is “To evaluate ICT’s impact on school administration efficiency and equity.” The sub-questions include “Which technologies most effectively reduce administrative burdens?”, “What are the key barriers to ICT adoption in under-resourced schools?”, and “How does ICT integration affect student learning outcomes?”. This structure provides a clear and logical framework for our study, making it easier for readers to follow our research process and understand the significance of our findings. We believe this revision will enhance the clarity and coherence of our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a thorough and well-described review of articles about Information and Communication Technology in school administrations. It reflects the benefits and challenges of ICT in this context and presents the results of an extensive literature review. 

Table 3 is very hard to read, maybe a landscape format would be a better choice for the layout if the journal allows this format for tables.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments 1: Table 3 is very hard to read, maybe a landscape format would be a better choice for the layout if the journal allows this format for tables.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our manuscript and your constructive suggestion. We agree that Table 3 could benefit from a more readable layout. If the journal permits, we will adjust Table 3 to a landscape format to improve its readability.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely and methodologically grounded scoping review of the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in educational administration. It offers a valuable contribution by mapping a broad range of technological tools and their applications across multiple educational levels. Among its strengths are its adherence to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, clear documentation of selection and data extraction procedures, and its effort to synthesize key trends and challenges in ICT integration.

That said, there are several areas in which the manuscript could be improved to enhance its clarity, analytical depth, and overall scholarly contribution. The manuscript would benefit from a stronger theoretical framing. While it references important developments in the field, it does not engage explicitly with established theoretical models such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), or institutional theory. Anchoring the discussion in one or more of these frameworks would strengthen the conceptual foundation and help the authors interpret their findings within a broader scholarly context.

Although the manuscript does an excellent job cataloging the range of ICT tools and their uses, the synthesis of findings often reads more like a descriptive list than a critical analysis. A deeper, more interpretive discussion that compares the relative impact of different technologies—such as AI tools versus communication platforms—would enrich the review and offer more meaningful insights into how these tools are shaping educational administration.

The scope of evidence included in the review raises concerns. Out of more than 4,000 search results, only 15 studies were included in the final synthesis. While the inclusion criteria are clearly defined and methodologically justified, the authors should address this sharp narrowing more directly. It would be helpful to reflect on what this limited number of eligible studies suggests about the current research landscape and to discuss whether the exclusion of non-English studies might introduce language bias or limit the review’s global applicability.

The implications and recommendations offered in the conclusion could be made more specific. As written, the suggestions are broad and somewhat generic. Providing more targeted recommendations—perhaps by educational level or regional context—would improve the practical utility of the study for policymakers and practitioners. Identifying best practices or implementation strategies tailored to different educational environments would also strengthen the review’s applied relevance.

There are several instances of redundancy, especially in the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Key points made earlier in the manuscript are repeated without significant elaboration. These sections could be revised for conciseness and focus, helping to improve the overall readability and impact of the paper.

Despite these limitations, the manuscript is well-organized, clearly written, and addresses a highly relevant topic. It is likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the fields of educational leadership, technology integration, and institutional management. With some refinement, it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to ongoing conversations about digital transformation in educational administration.

Author Response

Comments 1: While it references important developments in the field, it does not engage explicitly with established theoretical models such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), or institutional theory. Anchoring the discussion in one or more of these frameworks would strengthen the conceptual foundation and help the authors interpret their findings within a broader scholarly context.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestion. You are right that integrating established theoretical models can significantly enhance the conceptual depth of our study. We have carefully revised the Discussion section to incorporate the TAM and the UTAUT. We discuss how the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, as proposed by TAM, are reflected in the studies we reviewed. For example, we found that in 11 out of 19 studies, the ease of use of ICT tools was a significant factor influencing their adoption in school administration. Similarly, we explore how UTAUT’s emphasis on social influence and facilitating conditions is supported by our findings, with 7 out of 19 studies showing that peer adoption and institutional support played crucial roles in technology acceptance. By anchoring our discussion in these well-established frameworks, we aim to provide a more comprehensive and theoretically grounded interpretation of our results, which will also facilitate the comparison of our findings with previous research in the field.

Comments 2: Although the manuscript does an excellent job cataloging the range of ICT tools and their uses, the synthesis of findings often reads more like a descriptive list than a critical analysis. A deeper, more interpretive discussion that compares the relative impact of different technologies, such as AI tools versus communication platforms, would enrich the review and offer more meaningful insights into how these tools are shaping educational administration.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important area for improvement. We fully acknowledge that our initial synthesis leaned too heavily toward description rather than critical analysis, and we appreciate your guidance on strengthening this aspect. In response, we have significantly revised the Discussion section to include a comparative analysis of the relative impacts of different ICT tools.

Comments 3: The scope of evidence included in the review raises concerns. Out of more than 4,000 search results, only 15 studies were included in the final synthesis. While the inclusion criteria are clearly defined and methodologically justified, the authors should address this sharp narrowing more directly. It would be helpful to reflect on what this limited number of eligible studies suggests about the current research landscape and to discuss whether the exclusion of non-English studies might introduce language bias or limit the review’s global applicability.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your critical observation regarding the limited number of included studies and their implications. After a new round of search, we included four new articles. We acknowledge that while our stringent inclusion criteria ensured methodological rigor, they may have contributed to a narrow representation of the global research landscape, particularly from underrepresented regions and non-English publications. To address this, we have expanded the Discussion to explicitly analyze how geographic and language biases may have affected our findings, highlighting the overrepresentation of North American and European studies in our sample.

Comments 4: The implications and recommendations offered in the conclusion could be made more specific. As written, the suggestions are broad and somewhat generic. Providing more targeted recommendations—perhaps by educational level or regional context—would improve the practical utility of the study for policymakers and practitioners. Identifying best practices or implementation strategies tailored to different educational environments would also strengthen the review’s applied relevance.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important area for improvement. We fully acknowledge that our initial synthesis leaned too heavily toward description rather than critical analysis, and we appreciate your guidance on strengthening this aspect. In response, we have significantly revised the Discussion section to include a comparative analysis of the relative impacts of different ICT tools.

Comments 5: There are several instances of redundancy, especially in the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Key points made earlier in the manuscript are repeated without significant elaboration. These sections could be revised for conciseness and focus, helping to improve the overall readability and impact of the paper.

Response: We’ve eliminated redundancy by removing repeated points about ICT benefits and streamlining the Conclusion. This makes the manuscript more concise and focused.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I greatly appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing the comments, and while these have largely been implemented, some concerns remain. I hope my additional explanations help improve the paper.

Previous comments

-----

Comments 2: On page 17, “Gray literature, such as conference proceedings”. In some disciplines like management research (e.g., Adams et al., 2017), this might be true. However, conference contributions are published and peer-reviewed in disciplines such as information systems and computer science, and are not generally considered grey literature (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002). In computer science, some conferences are rated much higher than journals. Since this discipline was not included in the search or screening criteria, you should account for these differences, at least for the related disciplines.

Response to Comments 2: We deeply appreciate your expert insight on this matter. You have accurately highlighted a significant limitation in our initial approach to defining grey literature. We acknowledge that our previous statement was overly broad and did not account for the disciplinary differences in how conference proceedings are perceived.  In response, we have revised the Database Selection subsection to provide a more nuanced explanation. To address the potential gap in our search, we have discussed the possibility of including relevant conference proceedings in future research and emphasized the need to consider disciplinary norms when defining grey literature. This revision not only corrects the oversight but also demonstrates our commitment to improving the comprehensiveness of our literature search.

=>

Comment 2.1) I was unable to locate the paragraph in which this issue is discussed for the purposes of future research. If it would be possible for you to provide the page and line number, that would be very much appreciated.

Comment 2.2) The previous statement remained unchanged in the article. I previously tried to point out that the statement "Gray literature, such as conference proceedings" is incorrect because it is not true if you consider other disciplines like information systems or computer science literature in your review.

-----

Comments 4: My major concern is the small sample size of 15 articles out of 4,396 hits. This would indicate that the initial search was too broad or that the inclusion and exclusion criteria were too narrow. If so, I would strongly recommend extending the search strategy beyond keyword searches to include other approaches, such as forward or backward searches (e.g., Webster & Watson, 2002). However, the real benefit of such an extensive screening process would be the identification of results that would have not been found so easily otherwise. I would recommend to recheck the inclusion and exclusion criteria. It is sometimes difficult to assess a paper based solely on the title and abstract because they only reflect a limited amount of the full paper's content. AI-based content analysis methods could help assist with the pre-screening of the full paper content given the amount of data.

Response to Comment 4: We fully understand your concern about the small sample size, and we appreciate your practical suggestions for improvement. After a new round of search, we included four new articles.We have taken your feedback very seriously and have implemented several measures to address this issue. First, we have re-examined our inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure their appropriateness and clarity. We have revised the Methods section to provide a more detailed explanation of the criteria, especially regarding the exclusion of studies with small sample sizes and qualitative studies, as we have discussed in response to previous comments. Second, we have expanded our search strategy.  In addition to keyword searches, we have incorporated forward and backward citation tracking of key papers to identify potentially relevant studies that may have been missed initially.  We have also started exploring the use of AI-based content analysis tools to assist with the pre-screening of full-text papers. This will help us to more efficiently and accurately assess the relevance of a larger number of papers, especially given the large volume of search results. We believe these changes will not only increase the sample size but also improve the comprehensiveness and quality of our literature review.

=>

Comment 4.1): In the response you stated that you have conducted an additional forward and backward search. However, I could not find any information about that within the new version. Was it successful or not? How many were added?

Comment 4.2): My major concern was that analyzing only 15 (now 19) articles might not be enough to make a significant contribution. I still wonder if this sample is really the one that matters. Although I understand the stated exclusion criteria, I am still doubtful about the methodological focus and concluded implications of the article. For example, why are only quantitative studies considered relevant when determining the research interest, as shown in Figure 2? I have the same concern regarding the country analysis. As I mentioned in my previous concern, I strongly recommend reconsidering the scope of the study. The contribution to the community and justification of the sample size are unclear for the current version. While I understand that your research design led to the final sample size, which may seem objective, I want to highlight that your research design limits the potential outcome, which also limits your contribution because your analysis is based on limited data.

-----

Table 3 is difficult to read. The formatting could be improved. Perhaps using the landscape format would help.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our manuscript and your constructive suggestion. We agree that Table 3 could benefit from a more readable layout. If the journal permits, we will adjust Table 3 to a landscape format to improve its readability.

=> I think this was not addressed yet. Please check with the editor.

-----

New comments

Comment 13: On page 4 it is stated that the literature search was conducted on October 29, 2024. However, as stated in the response, a new search was conducted and this information is no longer correct.I would suggest to update this information.

Comment 14: In the previous version a total number of 4.396 results were indicated. In the second search (inducing the additional database Scopus and additional keywords) the total number of results is only 2.982. That seems a bit odd. Please verify the accuracy or indicate if I have overlooked something.

Minor comments

• Please proofread the article again. E.g. "platformsare" (p. 15), "fourstudies" (p. 15), ".AI" (p. 18), ").." (p. 19) etc.
• Please check the usage of abbreviations throughout the article. E.g. "AI" (p. 2, 18) and "artificial intelligence" (p. 15, 16)
• Please check consistence within the article. E.g. "four studies" (p. 14) and "3 studies" (also p. 14). I would recommend writing out all numbers below 12.
• Table 5: I would recommend to differentiate between "other education" and studies with a mixed focus. There is a difference and therefore it does not makes sense to group both into one category.
• I would add a separate subsection "Future research" after Limitations that includes all relevant the statements about possible future research directions (e.g., p. 14, 19). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I also have addressed them in the general comment section:

• Please proofread the article again. E.g. "platformsare" (p. 15), "fourstudies" (p. 15), ".AI" (p. 18), ").." (p. 19) etc.
• Please check the usage of abbreviations throughout the article. E.g. "AI" (p. 2, 18) and "artificial intelligence" (p. 15, 16)
• Please check consistence within the article. E.g. "four studies" (p. 14) and "3 studies" (also p. 14). I would recommend writing out all numbers below 12.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript and your time and effort in the review process. This article is a resubmission of education-3671771. We have revised the manuscript to address the questions and comments raised by the reviewers. The selection criteria, discussion, and limitations of the article have been revised and detailed, and the relevant content has been marked. The following is the response to the reviewer's comments:

Reviewer 2:

Comment 2.1) I was unable to locate the paragraph in which this issue is discussed for future research. If it would be possible for you to provide the page and line number, that would be very much appreciated.

Response to comment 2.1:

Thank you for highlighting this point. We apologize for the oversight and for not clearly stating this. A discussion of reconsidering conference proceedings and grey literature and their disciplinary differences has been added to the “Database selection and search strategy” section. The reasons why conference proceedings were not considered for evaluation are discussed again in the limitations section.

Comment 2.2) The previous statement remained unchanged in the article. I previously tried to point out that the statement "Gray literature, such as conference proceedings" is incorrect because it is not true if you consider other disciplines like information systems or computer science literature in your review.

Response to comment 2.2:

Thank you for your continued attention to this important issue. To avoid inaccurate definitions, we have removed the reference to grey literature in the manuscript and directly explained the reason for not using conference papers to reflect a more nuanced understanding.

Comment 4.1): In the response you stated that you have conducted an additional forward and backward search. However, I could not find any information about that within the new version. Was it successful or not? How many were added?

Response to comment 4.1:

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading and valuable feedback. Based on your suggestions, we narrowed the search scope, added new keywords and conducted additional reverse citation searches. As a result of this expansion work, we identified and included an additional 4 articles, and the final number of included studies increased from 15 to 19. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript (Section 3.1, paragraph 2), and the PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1) has been updated to reflect this process. We also conducted a reverse search of the included studies, and the results showed that the literature they cited did not meet our inclusion criteria for reasons including not being limited to conference papers and not being in the searched databases.

Comment 4.2): My major concern was that analyzing only 15 (now 19) articles might not be enough to make a significant contribution. I still wonder if this sample is really the one that matters. Although I understand the stated exclusion criteria, I am still doubtful about the methodological focus and concluded implications of the article. For example, why are only quantitative studies considered relevant when determining the research interest, as shown in Figure 2? I have the same concern regarding the country analysis. As I mentioned in my previous concern, I strongly recommend reconsidering the scope of the study. The contribution to the community and justification of the sample size are unclear for the current version. While I understand that your research design led to the final sample size, which may seem objective, I want to highlight that your research design limits the potential outcome, which also limits your contribution because your analysis is based on limited data.

Response to comment 4.2:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful concerns. We understand your reservations about the limited number of included studies (currently 19), and we recognize that the small sample size may raise questions about generalizability and impact. In response, we need to clarify a few points: First, our goal was not to broadly cover the full picture of ICT in education, but to critically sort out the empirical evidence of the impact of ICT integration in school education administration, which is a highly specific and underexplored area. To ensure methodological transparency and comparability of research findings, we focused on peer-reviewed quantitative studies reporting measurable results and developed targeted and rigorous inclusion criteria. We recognize that this is a trade-off between breadth and analytical depth, but it is a deliberate design choice consistent with the goals of the scoping review. Only 19 studies met the criteria out of more than two thousand records after researching, which is itself an important and novel finding. This suggests that despite the increasing emphasis on digital transformation in education, empirical evaluation of ICT applications in administrative areas has long been scarce. The small sample size is not a limitation of our methodology but rather highlights a critical gap in literature. We explicitly highlight this point in the Discussion and Implications sections, calling for further empirical research in this area.

Regarding the exclusion of qualitative studies, we would like to state that we fully appreciate the value of qualitative and mixed methods research, especially in understanding complex socio-technical systems. However, this review deliberately prioritizes studies reporting quantitative and outcome-driven results to assess effectiveness and impact, dimensions that are often easier to measure in quantitative studies. This focus is not a judgment on the value of other methods, but a necessary boundary-setting step to ensure analytical coherence and clarity for such scoping reviews. Regarding country-level representation, we agree that country-based comparative analysis should be interpreted with caution. Our mapping of country distribution is merely descriptive and aims to contextualize the geographical scope of the current research rather than to generalize. This is in line with the elements that a review needs to include.

Overall, we believe that the contribution of this review is not in quantity, but in focus and specificity. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic synthesis of empirical evidence on the impact of ICTs in the area of school management, which is distinct from the usual focus on pedagogy or e-learning. Even though the sample size may be somewhat limited, it provides actionable insights for school leaders, policymakers, and future researchers working on administrative innovation and digital governance.

Comment：

Table 3 is difficult to read. The formatting could be improved. Perhaps using the landscape format would help.

Response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our manuscript and your constructive suggestion. We agree that Table 3 could benefit from a more readable layout. If the journal permits, we will adjust Table 3 to a landscape format to improve its readability.

=> I think this was not addressed yet. Please check with the editor.

Response:
Thank you very much for your review. We have adjusted the table to horizontal for clarity.

New comments

Comment 13: On page 4, it is stated that the literature search was conducted on October 29, 2024. However, as stated in the response, a new search was conducted, and this information is no longer correct. I would suggest updating this information.

Response to comment 13:

Thank you for your suggestion. The latest date has been changed to June 10^th, 2025.

Comment 14: In the previous version, a total number of 4.396 results were indicated. In the second search (inducing the additional database Scopus and additional keywords) the total number of results is only 2.982. That seems a bit odd. Please verify the accuracy or indicate if I have overlooked something.

Response to comment 14:

Thank you for your careful observation. You are correct to point out the numerical inconsistency between the old and new versions. We apologize for the confusion this may have caused. The discrepancy occurred because in the revised search strategy, we refined the included keywords and removed some redundant or overly broad terms, such as the addition of keywords such as School administration in Wos. Although the updated search strategy included a new database (Scopus), the more precise search strategy resulted in fewer initial results with higher relevance.

Minor comments:

Thank you for your corrections on the grammar of the article. We will make some thorough grammar corrections during the proofreading stage to improve the rigor of the language.

The Authors