Review Reports - From Fragmented Adoption to Institutional Articulation: A Six-Axis Framework for Capability-Enhancing Generative AI in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a timely, well-structured, and conceptually ambitious contribution to the literature on generative AI in higher education. Its principal strength lies in moving beyond an additive enumeration of institutional interventions and proposing a relational framework in which governance, curriculum, assessment, faculty development, digital ethics, and equity are understood as interdependent dimensions. The distinction between institutional articulation as an active organizational process and institutional coherence as the degree of alignment resulting from that process is particularly useful. The manuscript is clearly written, engages extensively with recent scholarship, and offers a potentially valuable framework for both institutional analysis and future empirical research.

I consider the manuscript suitable for publication after minor revision. I would encourage the authors to address the following points:

Clarify the methodological procedure underlying the conceptual synthesis. The manuscript describes its approach as a “selective integrative analysis and conceptual synthesis.” While this is entirely appropriate for a conceptual paper, the methodological account would benefit from greater transparency. Please provide a concise explanation of how the literature was identified and selected, what types of sources were prioritized, the approximate temporal scope of the review, and how the analytical progression from the literature to the six axes was undertaken. This need not be transformed into a systematic-review methodology; rather, the aim should be to make the conceptual derivation of the framework more transparent and reproducible at the level appropriate to a theoretical article.
Further sharpen the distinctive contribution of the six-axis framework in relation to existing institutional models. In particular, the manuscript already engages with Jayasinghe et al. (2026), whose review also identifies six areas of institutional intervention. The present manuscript makes an important conceptual move by treating student-centred strategies and technological infrastructure as cross-cutting dimensions while retaining digital ethics and equity as separate axes. I recommend making this distinction even more explicit so that readers can immediately identify what is genuinely novel about the proposed architecture and how it advances beyond prior taxonomies of institutional intervention.
Provide a more precise conceptual delimitation of “human capability formation.” This construct performs a central normative and evaluative role throughout the article, encompassing disciplinary knowledge, critical judgment, intellectual autonomy, ethical responsibility, adaptability, and responsible agency. Because it functions as the principal criterion through which institutional coherence is judged, it would be helpful to clarify whether “human capability formation” is intended as an author-defined integrative educational construct or whether it is conceptually connected to a specific established capability tradition. A slightly stronger theoretical delimitation would reinforce the conceptual foundations of the framework without requiring an extensive philosophical digression.
Clarify the status of the proposed indicators and operational framework. Table 1 is one of the manuscript’s strongest practical contributions because it connects the institutional axes with priority actions, indicative evidence, and risks of misalignment. Nevertheless, the text should emphasize even more clearly that these indicators are illustrative and conceptually derived rather than empirically validated measurement instruments. This clarification would help prevent readers from interpreting the operationalization as an already validated institutional assessment tool.
Retain and, if possible, slightly strengthen the distinction between organizational coherence and educational desirability. The observation that an institution may be internally coherent while still orienting GenAI primarily toward efficiency, automation, or output production is theoretically important. This qualification substantially strengthens the framework because it prevents institutional coherence from becoming a purely managerial criterion. I encourage the authors to foreground this point slightly more prominently when summarizing the theoretical contribution.
Correct several minor editorial and referencing issues. On page 7, the citation sequence “(Brynjolfsson, Chandar, & Chen, 2025; Leopold et al., 2025; ?)” contains an unresolved question mark that should either be replaced by the intended reference or removed. In addition, the wording on page 20, “differences in the capability’s students are able to develop,” should be corrected, presumably to “differences in the capabilities students are able to develop.” A final editorial check of citations, punctuation, line breaks, and DOI formatting would also be advisable.

Overall, the manuscript offers a coherent and potentially valuable conceptual framework for understanding institution-level GenAI integration in higher education. The argument is academically sound, the engagement with recent scholarship is substantial, and the future research agenda appropriately acknowledges the need for empirical validation across institutional, disciplinary, and national contexts. The revisions suggested above are primarily intended to increase methodological transparency, sharpen conceptual originality, and strengthen theoretical precision rather than to alter the central argument.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

RV01.00

I consider the manuscript suitable for publication after minor revision.

AA01.00 Answer

Thank you for this positive assessment of the manuscript and for recognizing the value of the articulation–coherence distinction. We have carefully revised the paper to improve methodological transparency, theoretical positioning, conceptual precision, and presentation while preserving its central six-axis architecture.

RV01.01

I would encourage the authors to address the following points.

1.- Clarify the methodological procedure underlying the conceptual synthesis. The manuscript describes its approach as a “selective integrative analysis and conceptual synthesis.” While this is entirely appropriate for a conceptual paper, the methodological account would benefit from greater transparency. Please provide a concise explanation of how the literature was identified and selected, what types of sources were prioritized, the approximate temporal scope of the review, and how the analytical progression from the literature to the six axes was undertaken. This need not be transformed into a systematic-review methodology; rather, the aim should be to make the conceptual derivation of the framework more transparent and reproducible at the level appropriate to a theoretical article.

AA01.01 Answer

We added a new subsection, Section 2.1, “Conceptual Synthesis Procedure,” clarifying that the framework was developed through selective integrative analysis and conceptual synthesis rather than a systematic review. The revision now specifies the main temporal scope, source types prioritized, iterative literature-identification process, criteria for identifying recurrent institutional functions, and the analytical progression leading to the six axes.

RV01.02

2.- Further sharpen the distinctive contribution of the six-axis framework in relation to existing institutional models. In particular, the manuscript already engages with Jayasinghe et al. (2026), whose review also identifies six areas of institutional intervention. The present manuscript makes an important conceptual move by treating student-centred strategies and technological infrastructure as cross-cutting dimensions while retaining digital ethics and equity as separate axes. I recommend making this distinction even more explicit so that readers can immediately identify what is genuinely novel about the proposed architecture and how it advances beyond prior taxonomies of institutional intervention.

AA01.02 Answer

We agree and have sharpened the framework’s positioning relative to existing models. Section 2.2 now explains explicitly why student-centred strategies are treated as a cross-cutting orientation, technological infrastructure as an enabling condition, and digital ethics and equity as distinct institutional axes. We also clarify that the framework’s novelty lies less in the presence of six categories than in their functional delimitation and configurational relationship.

RV01.03

03.- Provide a more precise conceptual delimitation of “human capability formation.” This construct performs a central normative and evaluative role throughout the article, encompassing disciplinary knowledge, critical judgment, intellectual autonomy, ethical responsibility, adaptability, and responsible agency. Because it functions as the principal criterion through which institutional coherence is judged, it would be helpful to clarify whether “human capability formation” is intended as an author-defined integrative educational construct or whether it is conceptually connected to a specific established capability tradition. A slightly stronger theoretical delimitation would reinforce the conceptual foundations of the framework without requiring an extensive philosophical digression.

AA01.03 Answer

We have substantially strengthened this conceptual delimitation. Human capability formation is now defined as an author-defined integrative educational construct informed by, but not reducible to, the capability approach associated with Sen and Nussbaum. We also distinguish capability from skill, competence, human capital, and training, and clarify its developmental and normative role in the framework.

RV01.04

04.- Clarify the status of the proposed indicators and operational framework.Table 1 is one of the manuscript’s strongest practical contributions because it connects the institutional axes with priority actions, indicative evidence, and risks of misalignment. Nevertheless, the text should emphasize even more clearly that these indicators are illustrative and conceptually derived rather than empirically validated measurement instruments. This clarification would help prevent readers from interpreting the operationalization as an already validated institutional assessment tool.

AA01.04 Answer

We agree and have made this status explicit throughout Section 4 and Table 1. The proposed actions and forms of evidence are now described as illustrative and conceptually derived, not as empirically validated indicators, standardized scales, maturity models, or ready-made assessment instruments. Their empirical validation is identified as a future research task.

RV01.05

05.- Retain and, if possible, slightly strengthen the distinction between organizational coherence and educational desirability. The observation that an institution may be internally coherent while still orienting GenAI primarily toward efficiency, automation, or output production is theoretically important. This qualification substantially strengthens the framework because it prevents institutional coherence from becoming a purely managerial criterion. I encourage the authors to foreground this point slightly more prominently when summarizing the theoretical contribution.

AA01.05 Answer

We have foregrounded this distinction more strongly in Sections 2.5, 3.4, 5.1, and the Conclusion. The revised manuscript now states explicitly that institutional coherence is organizationally important but educationally insufficient: a configuration may be internally coherent while remaining oriented toward efficiency, automation, or output production. Human capability formation therefore provides the substantive criterion for evaluating the educational desirability of coherent configurations.

RV01.06

06.- Correct several minor editorial and referencing issues. On page 7, the citation sequence “(Brynjolfsson, Chandar, & Chen, 2025; Leopold et al., 2025; ?)” contains an unresolved question mark that should either be replaced by the intended reference or removed. In addition, the wording on page 20, “differences in the capability’s students are able to develop,” should be corrected, presumably to “differences in the capabilities students are able to develop.” A final editorial check of citations, punctuation, line breaks, and DOI formatting would also be advisable.

AA01.06 Answer

Thank you. The unresolved citation marker has been removed/corrected, the wording has been revised to “differences in the capabilities students are able to develop,” and the manuscript has undergone a further editorial check of citations, punctuation, references, and formatting. The previously unmatched Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026) reference is now also cited in the text.

RV01.07

07.- Overall, the manuscript offers a coherent and potentially valuable conceptual framework for understanding institution-level GenAI integration in higher education. The argument is academically sound, the engagement with recent scholarship is substantial, and the future research agenda appropriately acknowledges the need for empirical validation across institutional, disciplinary, and national contexts. The revisions suggested above are primarily intended to increase methodological transparency, sharpen conceptual originality, and strengthen theoretical precision rather than to alter the central argument

AA01.07 Answer

The revision has been designed precisely to strengthen methodological transparency, conceptual originality, and theoretical precision without altering the central argument. The six-axis framework, the articulation–coherence distinction, and the future empirical agenda remain the core of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript develops a six-axis framework for institutional GenAI integration and groups the axes into three higher-order domains to explain why universities that adopt similar measures achieve different educational outcomes. Its central move separates institutional articulation, the work of connecting institutional functions, from institutional coherence, the alignment that work produces. This process-outcome distinction is the paper's strongest element and should be retained. Two further strengths merit note. The observation in Section 5.1 that a configuration can be internally coherent yet capability-substituting, because it is coherent around efficiency, is more precise than most comparable work. The four propositions in Section 6.1 are specific and testable; Proposition 2, which distinguishes coherence oriented to capability from coherence oriented to output, identifies a question the field needs answered.

My principal concern is the normative core. Human capability formation is the criterion against which the framework evaluates configurations, yet the paper twice sets its justification aside as out of scope (lines 83 to 85; lines 816 to 818). Because the apparatus exists to judge configurations against this norm, deferring the defence leaves the evaluative claim unsupported. The difficulty is most acute in Section 5.1, where the authors concede that a coherent configuration could be efficiency-oriented and educationally poor, and where the argument for prioritizing judgment, autonomy, and disciplinary formation is most needed. A full philosophical treatment is not required; one or two pages in the body would be sufficient.

The vocabulary compounds this. "Capability" recurs throughout without engagement with the tradition associated with the term. Sen and Nussbaum do not appear, and the construct resembles an Aristotelian-formation account combined with human capital more than the capability approach. The paper should either position the construct against that tradition or adopt a term that does not import it. Otherwise, a philosophically informed reader will assume an unacknowledged debt.

The theory is underdeveloped at a second point. Section 5.1 designates the framework a meso-level institutional mechanism, and Section 2.4 relies on socio-technical mediation, but neither claim is sourced. Coherence and articulation correspond to alignment and coupling in organizational theory, and a reader from that field will perceive rediscovery unless the manuscript engages it. The socio-technical language requires at least one anchor in science and technology studies or sociomateriality. Engaging these literatures would allow the authors to specify what the account adds rather than restating a known structure.

A genealogy problem also requires attention. The three higher-order domains, direction and purpose, academic enactment and validation, and responsibility and legitimacy, reconstruct at a finer grain the pedagogical, governance, and operational structure of Chan's (2023) framework, one of the most cited institutional policy frameworks in this area. Chan is not cited anywhere. The omission is substantive rather than bibliographic: the contribution depends on the reader seeing how a configurational, six-axis account differs from a prior dimensional one, and Chan is the obvious comparator. The framework should be positioned against Chan (2023), with a statement of what the articulation-coherence distinction adds that a dimensional model does not.

The affective dimension is a related and possibly more consequential gap, because it is internal to the coherence construct. Coherence is defined entirely through the structural compatibility of purposes, expectations, resources, and practices, with no relational or affective register. Two universities may hold identical policies yet diverge, because faculty in one experience the arrangement as shared and legitimate while faculty in another experience it as imposed oversight. The paper notes this twice, at the relational dimensions of teaching (line 446) and the feedback-versus-relationship trade-off (lines 562 to 563), then excludes affect from the construct on which the explanation depends. This is a definitional gap rather than an omitted topic. Teacher-emotion research has established that strain intensifies when educators face threats to their pedagogical values and relational integrity, and that emotional labour under such conditions contributes to burnout (Hargreaves, 2000; Kariou et al., 2021; Kelchtermans, 2005); trust is now treated as a central condition for AI adoption in education (Nazaretsky et al., 2025). The construct should either incorporate an affective register, with an account of how affect mediates enactment, or the authors should state why a framework about institutional articulation can proceed without one. A recent Canadian case study theorizes this extension and provides one worked treatment (Woodworth & Ballantyne, 2026).

Two axes are assigned more analytic weight than their current development supports. The assessment axis (lines 393 to 414) identifies the correct problem, the validity of the inference from performance to competence, but proceeds without the validity scholarship needed for precision. Kane (2013) and Messick (1989) are the obvious anchors, and argument-based validity is what the paper's "visible learning" approximates. The axis should be grounded there, with a statement of which inference AI-mediated assessment threatens and how process evidence addresses it. Separately, "visible learning" (line 208 onward) conflicts with Hattie's established construct of the same name; used here in an unrelated sense without citation, it may be interpreted as an error or an unacknowledged borrowing, and should be renamed or distinguished from Hattie. The faculty development axis (lines 415 to 447) treats faculty as the conduit through which intentions become practice, a transmission model that registers workload only as hours and recognition only as a budget line, which is where the affective considerations would be located.

One tension is unresolved. The abstract and introduction use mediation language, stating that articulation "shapes the relationship" between integration and capability formation, while Section 5.3 disclaims causal intent. The paper should commit to one.

The synthesis method needs more transparency. The three analytical moves in lines 109 to 117 do not report the corpus, the basis for selection, the time window, or the criterion for judging a function as recurrent. A PRISMA protocol is not expected for a concept paper, but a reader needs enough detail to see why these six functions emerged rather than another set. The single paragraph at lines 151 to 156 justifying the substitution of ethics and equity for infrastructure and student-centredness is too brief to support an originality claim resting on the axis set being more than a relabelling.

A final point concerns presentation. The manuscript repeats itself to the point that it impairs readability. The articulation-coherence distinction is defined in the abstract, redefined in the introduction, elaborated in Section 2.4, restated at the head of Section 3 and again in Section 3.4, and given a full subsection in Section 5.1; the five misalignment types from Section 3.4 reappear in the misalignment-risk column of Table 1. The table should carry that catalogue, the prose duplication should be removed, and the axis subsections should be trimmed, since they follow an identical template that becomes repetitive by the fourth axis. Two corrections: line 284 contains a citation printed as a literal question mark, and the reference list carries an Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026) entry with no corresponding in-text citation.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

RV02.00

AA02.00 Answer

Thank you for highlighting the articulation–coherence distinction, the separation between coherence and educational desirability, and the four research propositions as strengths of the manuscript. We have preserved these elements and strengthened their theoretical foundations throughout the revision.

RV02.01

AA02.01 Answer

We agree that the normative criterion required stronger justification. The revised manuscript now provides an explicit, though deliberately concise, normative grounding for human capability formation through the capability tradition and scholarship on the purposes of higher education. We clarify that efficiency, scalability, technological fluency, and employability may be legitimate institutional goods, but are educationally insufficient when achieved by weakening disciplinary understanding, judgment, autonomy, independent learning, or responsible agency.

RV02.02

AA02.02 Answer

We have addressed this concern directly. Sen and Nussbaum are now incorporated into Section 2.5, and human capability formation is explicitly positioned as an integrative educational construct informed by, but not reducible to, the capability approach. The revision also distinguishes capability from competence, skill, human capital, and training in order to avoid terminological ambiguity.

RV02.03

AA02.03 Answer

We agree and have strengthened both theoretical foundations. The manuscript now engages organizational theory through Weick and Orton and Weick on loose coupling and sociomaterial theory through Orlikowski. In addition, we replaced the stronger formulation of a meso-level explanatory mechanism with a meso-level relational explanatory account, making clear that the framework proposes theoretically relevant relationships rather than empirically established causal mechanisms.

RV02.04

AA02.04 Answer

Chan (2023) is now discussed explicitly in the Introduction, Section 2.2, and Section 5.1. We acknowledge that Chan already emphasizes interdependence among pedagogical, governance, and operational dimensions. Our distinctive contribution is therefore formulated more precisely as the distinction between institutional articulation as organizational process and institutional coherence as variable configurational outcome, together with human capability formation as the substantive criterion for evaluating that coherence.

RV02.05

AA02.05 Answer

We have addressed this concern by incorporating affect, trust, and perceived legitimacy as cross-cutting conditions of institutional enactment. We deliberately do not treat them as a seventh institutional axis because they concern how the six institutional functions are interpreted and enacted rather than constituting equivalent institutional functions themselves. This distinction is developed in Sections 2.5 and 5.2 and is also incorporated into the faculty-development axis and the future research agenda.

RV02.06

AA02.06 Answer

We have revised both axes substantially. The assessment discussion is now grounded in Messick (1989) and Kane (2013) and explicitly frames the problem as the validity of the inference from observed performance to student capability under AI-mediated conditions. “Visible learning” has been replaced by “demonstrable learning”, defined as credible evidence of student understanding, judgment, verification, transfer, and responsibility. Faculty development has also been expanded to include professional judgment, autonomy, affect, trust, perceived legitimacy, workload, and relational conditions of enactment.

RV02.07

AA02.07 Answer

We agree and have resolved this tension by consistently adopting a relational rather than causal formulation. The revised Abstract and Introduction no longer state that articulation “shapes” or “mediates” outcomes causally. The manuscript now explicitly states that the proposed relationships are hypothesized relational linkages rather than empirically established causal pathways, and Section 5.1 characterizes the framework as a meso-level relational explanatory account.

RV02.08

AA02.08 Answer

We have added a dedicated methodological subsection, Section 2.1, “Conceptual Synthesis Procedure.” It now specifies the approximate time window, types of sources prioritized, iterative search and citation-chain process, criterion for identifying recurrent institutional functions, and the analytical progression from the literature to the six-axis architecture. Section 2.2 also provides a fuller justification for treating student-centredness and infrastructure as cross-cutting/enabling conditions while retaining digital ethics and equity as distinct axes.

RV02.09

AA02.09 Answer

We have substantially reduced repetition across the manuscript. Recurrent definitions of articulation and coherence have been consolidated, the detailed catalogue of misalignments is now carried primarily by Table 1, and the six-axis subsections have been streamlined. We also corrected the unresolved citation marker and ensured that Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026) now has a corresponding in-text citation. A final editorial check has also been performed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript titled "From Fragmented Adoption to Institutional Articulation: A Six-Axis Framework for Capability-Enhancing Generative AI in Higher Education" presents valuable insights into the role of generative AI in higher education. However, I have a few comments regarding the paper's sourcing and methodology.

Many statements, particularly those concerning "capability development" or enhancement, should be supported by credible sources. Additionally, insights into strategy, curriculum frameworks, assessment, and development in HEIs often lack sufficient references. Is this information coming only from the authors, or is it based on previous insights from other studies? Additionally, I noticed a question mark in the sourcing of Paragraph 284; Is this an error?

Methods - I would appreciate an overview of the study's methodology in the manuscript. What kind of steps in the literature research have the authors taken during this study?

Sourcing - While the insights seem informed by a review of the existing literature, the integration of these sources into the overall argument is notably limited.

Overall, I consider this manuscript a valuable contribution to the field of Higher Education Institutions on the integration of Artificial Intelligence.

Sincerely,

The reviewer

Author Response

Reviewer 3

RV03.00

Overall, I consider this manuscript a valuable contribution to the field of Higher Education Institutions on the integration of Artificial Intelligence.

AA03.00 Answer

Thank you for your positive assessment of the manuscript and for recognizing its potential contribution to understanding institutional AI integration in higher education. We appreciate your comments on sourcing and methodology and have addressed these issues in the revised manuscript.

RV03.01

AA03.01 Answer

We have substantially strengthened the sourcing of the conceptual argument throughout the revised manuscript. Section 2 now explicitly connects capability development, institutional strategy, curriculum, assessment, faculty development, equity, and socio-technical mediation with the relevant literature. We also clarify in Section 2.1 that the six-axis framework represents an authorial conceptual synthesis derived from recurrent institutional functions identified across these research strands, rather than claims originating from a single prior framework. The unresolved question mark in the previous citation sequence has also been corrected; the intended reference, Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026), is now included and cited in the text.

RV03.02

Methods - I would appreciate an overview of the study's methodology in the manuscript. What kind of steps in the literature research have the authors taken during this study?

AA03.02 Answer

We have added a dedicated subsection, Section 2.1, “Conceptual Synthesis Procedure,” providing an overview of the methodological steps used to develop the framework. It specifies the principal temporal scope, the types of sources prioritized, the iterative use of topic-based searches and citation-chain exploration, the criterion used to identify recurrent institutional functions, and the three analytical moves through which overlapping categories were consolidated and the six-axis architecture was derived.

RV03.03

Sourcing - While the insights seem informed by a review of the existing literature, the integration of these sources into the overall argument is notably limited.

AA03.03 Answer

We agree that the literature should be integrated into the conceptual argument rather than function only as background citation. The revised Section 2 has therefore been reorganized to connect particular research strands directly with the framework’s analytical development: institutional responses and existing frameworks in Section 2.2, support and substitution, AI literacy, and assessment validity in Section 2.3, equity in Section 2.4, and organizational, sociomaterial, and capability foundations in Section 2.5. Section 5.1 further positions the resulting configurational account in relation to existing institutional and organizational frameworks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No	Element	Pages	Comment
1	Methodology	P. 3	Please add a detailed methodology section explaining the databases, selection criteria, number/type of sources, analytical procedure, and how the six axes were derived?
2	Enhancement	Pp. 4-7	The literature review is current, but it would be strengthened by identifying contradictory findings, competing conceptualizations, limitations of previous frameworks, and unresolved theoretical problems. The authors currently establish the importance of the problem effectively, but the critical gap could be sharper.
3	References	P.7	Incomplete citation: Brynjolfsson, Chandar, & Chen, 2025; Leopold et al., 2025; ?
4	Clarification	P. 7	Please clarify boundaries among six axes. There appears to be conceptual overlap among: governance and digital ethics; curriculum and assessment; equity and governance; faculty development and curriculum. For example, responsibility may appear under both governance and ethics, while curriculum and assessment are inherently interconnected.
5	Additional Assessment	P. 9	For example, faculty development can be assessed through participation rates, training intensity, pedagogical implementation, and faculty competence. Authors should clarify that these are examples for future empirical testing rather than validated measures.
6	Explanation & Justifications	16	The authors need to explain more rigorously why these six dimensions constitute the framework. Please, answer about " why each of six axes was included?"
7	Limitations	P.19	This manuscript acknowledges that its institutional focus may understate how students and faculty interpret, adapt, or resist formal institutional arrangements. This is an important issue rather than a minor limitation. Authors should discuss more explicitly; student agency; student interpretation of AI policies; student resistance and informal AI use outside institutional expectations.
8	Requirement	P.19	Infrastructure requires explicit conceptual treatment. Because infrastructure is identified as an important factor but is not one of the six axes. So explicitly explain why infrastructure is treated as a cross-cutting enabling condition rather than a seventh institutional axis.
9	Consistency	Pp. 22-24	I recommend a complete reference audit covering: in-text citation/reference correspondence; missing references; uncited references; DOI accuracy; author names; publication years; journal titles; volume/issue; article numbers/pages; URL formatting.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 4

RV04.01

Methodology. P. 3. Please add a detailed methodology section explaining the databases, selection criteria, number/type of sources, analytical procedure, and how the six axes were derived?

AA04.01 Answer

We have added a dedicated methodology subsection, Section 2.1, “Conceptual Synthesis Procedure.” Because the study is a selective integrative analysis and conceptual synthesis rather than a systematic review, it was not based on a predefined database-bounded corpus or a fixed number of included studies. We therefore report the procedure actually used rather than imposing retrospective systematic-review conventions: the principal temporal scope, source types prioritized, iterative topic-based searches and citation-chain exploration, criteria for identifying recurrent institutional functions, consolidation of overlapping categories, and the three analytical moves through which the six axes were derived. We believe this provides the level of methodological transparency appropriate to a conceptual article while avoiding an inaccurate representation of the study as a systematic review.

RV04.02

Enhancement. Pp. 4-7. The literature review is current, but it would be strengthened by identifying contradictory findings, competing conceptualizations, limitations of previous frameworks, and unresolved theoretical problems.

The authors currently establish the importance of the problem effectively, but the critical gap could be sharper.

AA04.02 Answer

Thank you for this suggestion. We have strengthened the critical dimension of the analytical background throughout Sections 2.2–2.5. The revised discussion now foregrounds several unresolved tensions: fragmented versus articulated institutional responses; dimensional versus configurational frameworks; capability-enhancing support versus capability substitution; technological access versus equitable capability gains; observed performance versus valid evidence of student capability; and formal structural coherence versus meaningful enactment. We also position the framework explicitly against Chan (2023) and Jayasinghe et al. (2026), clarifying both what these frameworks contribute and the unresolved analytical problem addressed by the present study.

RV04.03

References. P.7. Incomplete citation: Brynjolfsson, Chandar, & Chen, 2025; Leopold et al., 2025; ?

AA04.03 Answer

The incomplete citation was an editorial error and has been corrected. The revised manuscript now cites Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026) together with Brynjolfsson, Chandar, and Chen (2025) and Leopold et al. (2025), and the corresponding reference has been included in the reference list.

RV04.04

Clarification. P. 7. Please clarify boundaries among six axes. There appears to be conceptual overlap among: governance and digital ethics; curriculum and assessment; equity and governance; faculty development and curriculum. For example, responsibility may appear under both governance and ethics, while curriculum and assessment are inherently interconnected.

AA04.04 Answer

We agree that the six axes are necessarily interdependent, but the revised framework distinguishes them by their primary institutional function. Governance establishes strategic purposes, responsibilities, coordination, and institutional boundaries; digital ethics establishes normative requirements concerning acceptable use, accountability, privacy, oversight, and contestability. Curriculum specifies the capabilities and progression students are expected to develop, whereas assessment determines what constitutes defensible evidence that those capabilities have been formed. Faculty development concerns the professional judgment, pedagogical capacity, and organizational conditions required to enact those purposes, while equity concerns the distribution of the resources and opportunities required for meaningful capability development. Section 3 now makes these functional boundaries explicit while Section 3.4 explains why their interdependence remains central to the configurational framework.

RV04.05

Additional Assessment. P. 9. For example, faculty development can be assessed through participation rates, training intensity, pedagogical implementation, and faculty competence. Authors should clarify that these are examples for future empirical testing rather than validated measures.

AA04.05 Answer

We have clarified this point explicitly. Section 4 and Table 1 now describe the proposed actions and forms of evidence as illustrative and conceptually derived. They are not presented as validated measures, standardized scales, maturity indicators, or ready-made institutional assessment instruments. Their measurement properties and empirical validation are identified explicitly as matters for future research.

RV04.06

Explanation & Justifications. P16. The authors need to explain more rigorously why these six dimensions constitute the framework.

Please, answer about " why each of six axes was included?"

AA04.06 Answer

We have strengthened the justification for the composition of the framework in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. The six functions were retained because they recur across distinct strands of the recent institutional literature and represent analytically distinguishable organizational responsibilities. Governance addresses strategic direction and coordination; curriculum defines intended educational capabilities; assessment establishes valid evidence of their development; faculty development provides the professional capacity and conditions for enactment; digital ethics establishes normative responsibilities and safeguards; and equity addresses the distribution of the conditions required for capability-enhancing participation. The framework is deliberately presented as a parsimonious and conceptually defensible institutional core rather than as a formally demonstrated necessary-and-sufficient set.

RV04.07 Limitations, P19. This manuscript acknowledges that its institutional focus may understate how students and faculty interpret, adapt, or resist formal institutional arrangements. This is an important issue rather than a minor limitation.

Authors should discuss more explicitly; student agency; student interpretation of AI policies; student resistance and informal AI use outside institutional expectations.

AA04.07 Answer

We agree that student agency and interpretation are important to institutional enactment and should not be treated as a minor residual issue. The revised framework therefore distinguishes formal institutional architecture from enactment and explicitly recognizes that faculty and students may interpret, accept, adapt, or resist institutional arrangements differently. Section 4.1 also incorporates student participation into institutional review, emphasizing that student experience can reveal unclear expectations, unequal access, unintended assessment effects, dependency, and inappropriate patterns of use. These issues are therefore treated as evidence of the potential gap between formal institutional coherence and enacted practice rather than as an external consideration.

RV04.08

Requirement. P19. Infrastructure requires explicit conceptual treatment. Because infrastructure is identified as an important factor but is not one of the six axes. So explicitly explain why infrastructure is treated as a cross-cutting enabling condition rather than a seventh institutional axis.

AA04.08 Answer

We have clarified this point explicitly in Sections 2.1 and 2.2. Technological infrastructure is treated as a cross-cutting enabling condition rather than as a seventh institutional axis because its provision, authorization, quality, accessibility, and distribution are enacted principally through governance and equity and enable the operation of several other axes. By contrast, the six axes represent distinguishable institutional functions. This distinction allows infrastructure to remain analytically important without conflating enabling resources with the institutional responsibilities that constitute the core architecture.

RV04.09

Consistency.Pp.22-24. I recommend a complete reference audit covering: in-text citation/reference correspondence; missing references; uncited references; DOI accuracy; author names; publication years; journal titles; volume/issue; article numbers/pages; URL formatting.

AA04.09 Answer

We have conducted a complete reference audit covering in-text citation/reference-list correspondence, missing and uncited references, author names, publication years, journal and volume information, article numbers/pages, DOI and URL formatting. The previously incomplete citation has also been corrected, and the corresponding Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026) reference is now cited in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded satisfactorily to the substantive concerns raised in the first review. The capability-oriented normative foundation, organizational and sociomaterial positioning, relationship to Chan’s framework, relational-affective conditions of enactment, assessment-validity foundation, methodological explanation, and non-causal status of the proposed relationships are now substantially clearer. I therefore recommend acceptance after minor revision. Before acceptance, the authors should (1) embed Figure 1, which currently appears as a blank placeholder on page 11; (2) consolidate and correctly order the reference list and add the appropriate heading; and (3) reduce avoidable repetition, particularly where the articulation–coherence distinction, capability-versus-efficiency argument, and relational rather than causal status of the framework are restated. No further major conceptual revision is required.

Author Response

Review 2.

RV1. The authors have responded satisfactorily to the substantive concerns raised in the first review. The capability-oriented normative foundation, organizational and sociomaterial positioning, relationship to Chan’s framework, relational-affective conditions of enactment, assessment-validity foundation, methodological explanation, and non-causal status of the proposed relationships are now substantially clearer. I therefore recommend acceptance after minor revision. .

AA1. Thank you for this positive assessment and for recognizing that the substantive concerns raised in the first review have been satisfactorily addressed. We appreciate the reviewer’s careful evaluation of the revised manuscript and have made the remaining minor editorial revisions requested below.

RV2. Before acceptance, the authors should (1) embed Figure 1, which currently appears as a blank placeholder on page 11;

AA2. Figure 1 has now been properly embedded in the manuscript, and we have verified that it is displayed correctly in the revised PDF. The figure file has also been checked to ensure correct inclusion in the submission package.

RV3. (2) consolidate and correctly order the reference list and add the appropriate heading; and

AA3. The reference list has been consolidated into a single correctly ordered list, the appropriate “References” heading has been added and verified in the compiled manuscript, and the correspondence between in-text citations and reference entries has been checked.

RV4. (3) reduce avoidable repetition, particularly where the articulation–coherence distinction, capability-versus-efficiency argument, and relational rather than causal status of the framework are restated. No further major conceptual revision is required

AA4. We have further streamlined the manuscript to reduce avoidable repetition, particularly where the articulation–coherence distinction, the distinction between organizational coherence and capability-oriented educational desirability, and the relational rather than causal status of the framework were restated. The fuller conceptual explanations are retained only where they perform a distinct analytical function, while redundant formulations elsewhere have been shortened or removed. No changes have been made to the underlying conceptual architecture.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is good. The authors have now made all the corrections required.

Author Response

RV5. The manuscript is good. The authors have now made all the corrections required.

AA5. Thank you for your positive assessment and for confirming that the requested corrections have been satisfactorily addressed. We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and constructive feedback throughout the revision process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf