Exploring the Adoption of Robotics in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Institutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After thoroughly reviewing the reviewed paper entitled "Exploring the Adoption of Robotics in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Institutions," it is my assessment that the manuscript is much better and suitable for publication with some modifications in its current form. If the paper is a review, all the reviewed papers should be cited at least in an appendix and the word review should be in the title. Also it contains several significant flaws and inconsistencies in the citation style ( There are some in APPA style and others in mdpi style)

General concept comments
You say that you have analyzed 4241 papers. The list of the articles selected should be mentioned in an annex.

 Could you please provide details on how the review process was conducted, given that you ultimately analyzed 4241 articles for your systematic review? Specifically, how many people were on the review team? How was the review carried out? Was there any cross-checking of work among team members? How long did the entire process take? Not explaining these aspects makes the process followed appear less credible, raising concerns about the thoroughness and transparency of the review process. Additionally, can you please clarify if the review involved several iterative steps, including reiterating, refining, testing, reading, and coding articles? How long did these steps take? Did you use any AI-assisted tools during the review?

The PRISMA guidelines specifically ask authors to follow, quite strictly, the procedures https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-checklist and you didn’t uploaded this check list to know if you have followed it.

Figure 3 is not mentioned in the text. What is figure 3 about? It is not adequately explained, leaving readers unclear about its significance and interpretation.

Author Response

You say that you have analyzed 4241 papers. The list of the articles selected should be mentioned in an annex.

• Could you please provide details on how the review process was conducted, given that you ultimately analyzed 4241 articles for your systematic review? Specifically, how many people were on the review team? How was the review carried out? Was there any cross-checking of work among team members? How long did the entire process take? Not explaining these aspects makes the process followed appear less credible, raising concerns about the thoroughness and transparency of the review process. Additionally, can you please clarify if the review involved several iterative steps, including reiterating, refining, testing, reading, and coding articles? How long did these steps take? Did you use any AI-assisted tools during the review?
• The PRISMA guidelines specifically ask authors to follow, quite strictly, the procedures https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-checklist and you didn’t uploaded this check list to know if you have followed it. Figure 3 is not mentioned in the text. What is figure 3 about? It is not adequately explained, leaving readers unclear about its significance and interpretation.

 

 

Response

Firstly, this is a comprehensive study, and a systematic approach was used to explain how the initial selection of 4,241 papers was reached. All team members actively participated in the review process, which took four weeks to finalize. The analysis began with a keyword search in the online database (Web of Science). This was followed by a screening process which is where we were removing duplicates and exclude documents that were not relevant to the topic.

The methodology or review process, as indicated above, took four weeks. The study is comprehensive and utilized a systematic diagram to illustrate the step-by-step analysis process, nevertheless that mistake have been rectified.

Figure 3 represents a dashboard titled "Main Information on the Document," which provides a summary of key data points. It includes:

• The total number of documents reviewed,
• The time span over which these documents were published,
• The frequency with which these documents have been cited,
• This information will serve as a foundation for identifying trends and gaps in the literature.

Proposed Future Study:

A future systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines and the PRISMA checklist, is recommended. This study will rigorously assess the body of literature and provide a more structured and detailed analysis of trends and research gaps.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The application of robotics and artificial intelligence in the teaching and learning process within higher education is of vital importance today. As such, this type of papers and articles try to shed light on this field.

The introduction and review of the literature and state of the art seems adequate.

The article is too generic, although it is clear that the PRISMA tool is used for systematic bibliographic studies, and explains in this case how to do it by presenting the different relationships between them and geographical distributions.

I believe that once the inclusion criteria for each of the bibliographic references have been established, it seems necessary to establish the same criteria in the exclusion mode.

The incorporation of robotics into the educational processes of Higher Education Institutions is too generic, since the concept of artificial intelligence and robotics itself is too generic, if the different subjects to which it is applied are not delimited.

In the conclusions section, it highlights the large gap that exists between the different continents in the study of this field and its application to AI. From my point of view, something much more specific should have been commented on, indicating examples of how these topics are applied in higher education and how they are applied, since the results are evident.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The application of robotics and artificial intelligence in the teaching and learning process within higher education is of vital importance today. As such, this type of papers and articles try to shed light on this field.

• The introduction and review of the literature and state of the art seems adequate.
• The article is too generic, although it is clear that the PRISMA tool is used for systematic bibliographic studies, and explains in this case how to do it by presenting the different relationships between them and geographical distributions.
• I believe that once the inclusion criteria for each of the bibliographic references have been established, it seems necessary to establish the same criteria in the exclusion mode.
• The incorporation of robotics into the educational processes of Higher Education Institutions is too generic, since the concept of artificial intelligence and robotics itself is too generic, if the different subjects to which it is applied are not delimited.
• In the conclusions section, it highlights the large gap that exists between the different continents in the study of this field and its application to AI. From my point of view, something much more specific should have been commented on, indicating examples of how these topics are applied in higher education and how they are applied, since the results are evident.

Response 

• Introduction was rephrased
• The study is a comprehensive review, however used systematic diagram mistakenly to show the step by step analysis process, and this mistake was rectified.
• Inclusion and exclusion mode were rectified
• Delimiting the concept of AI and robotics is Included as a Criteria
• Conclusion was corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a comprehensive exploration of the adoption of robotics in higher education institutions (HEIs). The study is well-structured and provides valuable insights into the factors influencing robotics uptake, the integration of robots to improve teaching and learning, and the perceived benefits of robotics implementation.

There are a few typographical and grammatical errors throughout the paper that should be addressed.

The references section is comprehensive, but some citations are missing publication details. Please ensure all references are complete and correctly formatted.

The adapted review provides a positive overall assessment, highlighting the paper’s significant contribution to the field and its potential as a valuable resource with minor revisions.

Author Response

Reviewers Comments

• The paper presents a comprehensive exploration of the adoption of robotics in higher education institutions (HEIs). The study is well-structured and provides valuable insights into the factors influencing robotics uptake, the integration of robots to improve teaching and learning, and the perceived benefits of robotics implementation.
• There are a few typographical and grammatical errors throughout the paper that should be addressed.
• The references section is comprehensive, but some citations are missing publication details. Please ensure all references are complete and correctly formatted.
• The adapted review provides a positive overall assessment, highlighting the paper’s significant contribution to the field and its potential as a valuable resource with minor revisions.

 

response 

I sincerely appreciate your positive overall assessment of the paper and your helpful suggestions for improvement. I believe these revisions have further strengthened the manuscript, and I am confident that the final version addresses the minor issues raised.

 

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

This is an interesting manuscript that aims at examining, through a bibliometric analysis and a systematic review methodology, the following research questions:

• What factors influence robotics uptake in HEIs?

• How can robots be integrated to improve teaching and learning in Higher Education Institutions?

• To what extent is robotics implementation perceived to be beneficial to HEIs?

Based on a careful study of the manuscript, I would like to highlight the following points:

1. In the Introduction section, I do not think that a connection between Artificial Intelligence and Robotics is necessary. On the contrary, I think that it should be reinforced with more arguments on why Robotics should be utilized in higher education institutions (HEIs). Additionally, in the Introduction, I would expect there to be even a brief reference to previous research that is either literature reviews or bibliometric analyses in the field of HEIs, related to Robotics. This reference will highlight what is different about this particular manuscript and what its contribution to the field is.

2. Regarding Methodology, I suggest using the PRISMA framework in the research protocol.

3. The results, as presented, do not seem to address the aforementioned three research questions. I suggest either reconstructing the content so that it aligns with these questions or formulating new questions that relate to the results.

4. In the Implications section, there are arguments that do not strongly derive from the results. For example, “Based on the findings and literature presented above, … in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).” “Robots empower personalized learning, … challenges.” I believe that the formulation of the implications should have a stronger connection to the results.

5. The manuscript needs to articulate the limitations of the bibliometric analysis as well as proposals for future research.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

After thoroughly reviewing the paper entitled "Exploring the Adoption of Robotics in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Institutions," it is my assessment that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form. The paper contains several significant flaws and inconsistencies that undermine its credibility and the validity of its findings. Below are the key points leading to this conclusion:

General concept comments
Methodological Confusion: The abstract states that a Systematic Review (line 17) methodology was used, yet the manuscript is marked as an article rather than a review. This discrepancy raises questions about the clarity and focus of the research approach. If it is indeed a review, the authors should clearly identify the gap in knowledge that their paper aims to address.

 

In line 23 they say that it offers “realistic guidelines”,  but this assertion is not substantiated adequately within the paper. The guidelines proposed lack empirical support and practical validation, casting doubt on their realism and applicability.

Referencing Issues: There are multiple issues with the referencing style and accuracy. For instance, the first reference is incorrectly numbered as [5] instead of [1], which does not align with the journal's referencing style. Furthermore, the references cited in the introduction and throughout the paper do not consistently support the claims made. For example, references [5,36] are cited in a context unrelated to their actual content, leading to confusion and misleading arguments.

AI and robotics are mixed all the time.

Line 35: “ Higher education institutions recognize the transformative potential AI holds in enhancing the way content is delivered [8].” à I don’t understand why there is this reference here

Line 42: the reference is about robotics, not about AI

Line 50: first time the acronym HEI appears and it is not explained (it is explained in the abstract but not in the paper)

Line 51: “this paper aims to conduct 51 a comprehensive exploration into the adoption of robotics in teaching and learning in the 52 higher education space”

Line 64: the 2 references given [14,18] are about HEI but you use the word “however”, I don’t understand

The rationale for selecting certain works in the "Related Works" section is not clearly articulated. The paper mentions analyzing challenges in robotics implementation but does not provide a coherent basis for focusing on specific studies or the timeline of references.

How have you decided which works you read about? Why do you start with 3 of  them which you decide they are the basis for the sentence you write in line 98: “Considering the challenges identified in implementing robotics in education, it is crucial to gradually introduce the focus of the paper: exploring the adoption of robotics in 99 teaching and learning within Higher Education Institutions.”

Line 101: you base your research in a reference from 2019!!!

Line 262: You say that you have analyzed 8909 papers, but in the references you just include 40 in the final references list. The filtering process used to narrow down from 8909 to 40 papers is not adequately explained, raising concerns about the thoroughness and transparency of the review process.

Line 276: Suddenly you speak about ERIC but you have previously say that only Web of Science data base has been analyzed. How can you retrieve conclusions about ERIC then?

What is figure 3 about? It is not adequately explained, leaving readers unclear about its significance and interpretation.

Figure 5 and 6 are not mentioned in the text

They don’t answer to the research questions

 

The results section lacks concrete evidence and detailed analysis, making the conclusions seem unsupported. The data and analysis presented are insufficient to substantiate the results. This disconnect between the results and the preceding discussion weakens the overall argument.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is ok

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting literature study! 

However, figures are not well prepared. Concerning figure 1, it is not possible to detect any relations if you display all of them. Same goes for figure 4. In figure 6, the wordcloud, you should not display all the different forms of the word "robot" like "robotic, robot, robots etc" but cluster them.