Review Reports - An Exploratory Comparative Analysis of Librarians’ Views on AI Support for Learning Experiences, Lifelong Learning, and Digital Literacy in Malaysia and Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the paper is well written and adds valuable insights to the literature on the topic (library services and AI tools).

The references used clearly show that the authors have conducted a proper survey of current research and publications on the subject.

If academic and university libraries were among the respondents (as indicated in the "Research methodology and results" section of the article), I would miss library applications of other important areas of AI. (At least at the level of mention.) University and academic library services include various plagiarism detection tools, and even AI-generated text detection tools. It would have been worth writing about these too.

It would be interesting to see the full questionnaire and the answers with a link to a data repository or in the article.

Author Response

Thank you for providing valuable inputs for the improvement of our paper. We have tried our best to address all the comments made by the reviewer. Here, we have attached the actions taken based on the reviewer's comments. The revisions are highlighted in yellow, and the complete list of actions taken is provided in the table attached to the article. Please let us know if the revision is still not up to expectations, and we will be very happy to make any necessary changes. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1.21 Avoid using "to delve into" as a verb. It a popular way of describing things, but it isn't informative enough.

p.1.26 "across various dimensions" = Vague. Can you be more specific?

p.1.32 "provide valubale insights for future research" = Such as?

p.1.35 This needs to be more concrete.

p.1.42 This requires references.

p.1.42 "for quite some time" = Vague.

p.1.43 Why did it become apparent in the recent years? Moreover, referring to recent years makes your work very time-dependent. Avoid that.

Use the references as [1-3], rather than [1][2][3]. Apply this throughout the remainder of your work.

I also miss references in several paragraphs.

The capital letter use of Artificial Intelligence needs to be applied consistently throughout your work. If you introduce the abbreviation AI, please continue using it.

p.2.76 This summary refers back to countries with the current sentence construction. That is incorrect. Please revise.

I would also let your manuscript be checked by a native English speaker.

p.2.88 You referred to "viewpoints" in the abstract instead of perspective. Keep this consistent.

p.4 I miss a link between section 2.2 and 2.3. Moreover, the header "learning experiences" can be more specific. Whos learning experiences?

The main concepts are all relevant these days, but I miss a more natural realistic context in which these are all combined and integrated.

Section 2.6 I miss references here.

Figure 1 does not resemble the information in the previous sections. Do you mean "for learning experiences" instead of "for learning"?

Nationality = national background? This makes it more apparent that you refer to the Indonesian and Malaysian contexts.

You use both one and many decimal numbers. Keep this consistent.

The discussion is written in a different style compared to other sections of your manuscript.

In addition, three or more authors: first authors + et al.

p.12.512 You cannot give credits to one author (or one group of authors). Please revise.

p.13.541 I would be careful with stating it like that. You contribute to the field; you do not know how great that contribution will be. Humble is the way forwards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Librarians' perceptions of AI is an important topic in need of further research, and this paper makes a solid contribution to this emerging area. I believe the paper warrants publication, though there are a few changes that would greatly strengthen the paper.

First, it was not clear until near the end of the paper why the study design focused on comparing attitudes between Indonesia and Malaysia. This critical aspect of the design is introduced without comment or justification at the beginning of the paper, and then there are some conflicting comments on this comparative approach throughout the paper. At points, Indonesia and Malaysia are described as having similar cultures and histories and at other points, their differences are emphasized. In the discussion, there is finally a solid reason for the comparative approach: to assess the viability for collaborative approaches to implementing AI in libraries that bridge both countries. If this is the case, this justification needs to be included in the introduction.

A second related point is that the description of the theoretical framework is very hard to follow. It's difficult to tell what factors are seen to influence librarians' perceptions of AI. The figure seems to suggest that nationality is the main factor shaping how librarians' perceive AI, but this is overly simple and not born out by the study results. I would recommend revising the theoretical framework or removing it altogether. As this is an exploratory study, there's not necessarily an expectation that you have a theory of perceptions of AI fully worked out at this point.

A third point of revision regards how AI as a concept is developed and contextualized. While I appreciate that some history and precedents for ChatGPT are introduced, this falls short of a nuanced development of this complex concept. Significantly, the paper does not deal at all with critical perspectives or challenges associated with AI (e.g. the risk of generative AI producing outputs that contain errors and misinformation, the risk of generative AI perpetuating cultural biases inherent to its training data). These issues need to be considered in the literature review. In the discussion, the findings are also not dealt with in a nuanced way. The ways that AI can be integrated into library services are talked about in a very general way and without any consideration of how they would integrate with the human labor currently applied to those tasks (e.g. there are discussions of how AI could provide chat reference services without recognition of how librarians already use virtual chat platforms to provide convenient online reference to patrons).

A final related point for revision: it is not clear why the application of AI for lifelong learning and digital literacy is the focus of the research. Similar to how the decision to employ a comparative study design needs to be justified early in the paper, so too does this decision to scope the research on this particular facet of AI for library services.

There are some other minor points that could be considered in revision, which I've marked up in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is strong and ideas are clearly expressed. There are some minor issues (some repetition of the same word in a sentence) that can be resolved through a round of copy editing.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments are not intended to demean the authors' efforts but rather to help identify gaps in their manuscript. This will enable them to quickly make amendments and improve the quality of their research paper. The title and topic of this study are both intriguing and pertinent. With technological advancements proliferating, the world is undergoing significant changes. Additionally, libraries are witnessing a transformation in the way users seek information. The authors have tried to consolidate their findings in a brief and simple manner, which, in my opinion, raises more questions than answers. The following are my observations.

General Observations: This is a scientific paper, so the authors should refrain from using ambiguous language and sentences. All sentences and statements should be backed up with either appropriate citations or empirical evidence. This has been noted in this manuscript in several places. The paper also lacks some concrete evidence on what AI is all about. The paper has also not comprehensively mentioned what these AIs in libraries are, but they seem to use a lot of words to justify their points. Also, the methodology, target population, and sampling methods are questionable. The discussion seems not to be giving the readers any new findings. The discussion area failed to discuss the findings but focused on the literature review. The study has not clearly mentioned how many libraries are in Malaysia and Indonesia. Do the authors know what a theoretical Framework is? That section needs to be redone. This being a comparative study, the conclusion does not indicate what comparisons were being conducted in the study. I wish, therefore, to take the authors through their research study/manuscript so that my observations can be seen.

In line 39, paragraph one of the paper, the authors say that AI has a rich history. What does a rich history stand for? Please provide an explanation or citation for this statement.

In lines 79. 80, 81… “The early phase of AI implementation in these libraries provides a favorable opportunity to comprehend the viewpoints and attitudes of librarians on the role of AI in important domains such as increasing learning experiences, promoting lifelong learning, and enhancing digital literacy”… please Provide the citation of this statement. Also, the authors seem to have already concluded the research paper before they commence the research. The same applies to line 84. “Due to the limited utilization of AI in the realms of learning experiences, lifelong learning, and digital literacy, there exists a noticeable gap in understanding how libraries perceive the potential benefits of AI in these areas.” Please provide a citation to this statement.

In line 258, under the title heading 2.5 Digital Literacy (line 246), the authors introduce a totally different term and provide its meaning without citing the source of the term “Knowledge Literacy.”

In line 263, they mention that Digital literacy is a component of Information Literacy. This also needs a citation.

The headings 2.5 Digital Literacy (line 246) need to be expounded with more real examples since it is a literature review section. The study does not clearly mention how AI can influence Digital Literacy, keeping in mind that there is also a digital divide that is more prominent in developing countries. The other sections also need more explanations; these are section 2.2, Artificial Intelligence in Libraries, in line 127. 2.3 Learning Experience, in line 164, and 2.4 Lifelong Learning, in line 204. The sections do not clearly elaborate on how AI influences the learner’s behaviors. I would advise the authors to cite real examples.

The literature review in section 2, line 97, also needs to discuss libraries. I feel it would enable readers to have a general idea of libraries in the two countries. In general, the literature review needs a few amendments so that it can offer proper guidance to the reader.

Section 2.6 Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development This study seems not to have a theoretical framework. The section is also not well structured. The authors seem to be not been keen on that area. It needs amendments. Let the hypothesis be well elaborated. Figure 1. It needs citations. Was it developed by the authors? Let it be said so. The Figure needs more elaboration on what it entails and its significance to the study. That is missing as well.

Section 3. Research Methodology and Results, line 353. This section portrays a lot of ignorance. The authors state on lines 369 and 370 that a valid sampling frame was absent, and libraries were identified from their respective websites. How were respondents identified then? This section needs a thorough revision. I am also wondering why this study's target population encompassed all public libraries, specialized libraries, university and college libraries, and school libraries, as stated in lines 368 and 369. This is a very big population, and the librarians there are serving users with different digital literacy, and different learning experiences. This study should be zeroed to either school libraries only, Academic/college libraries only, or public libraries only. Furthermore, the analysis never mentions the representation of the respondents in regard to the type of library they came from. Another thing is that for a good study to capture perspective, qualitative research would be more appropriate, or maybe mixed method research; why did the authors decide to use quantitative research? An explanation should be provided. I am also not sure if 59 and 85 are representative samples to be able to compare the two countries.

The Findings and Discussion of the Study. Although the study has tried to elaborate on the findings using its hypothesis, the discussion seems to have many inconsistencies. I would advise that the authors attach the questionnaires they used to collect the data so that some of these raised questions can be well understood since the study seemed to be so condensed. This being a comparative study, its conclusions need to well elaborate on the comparison that seems to be missing in this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is okay, and the concept and sentence structure seem perfect.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the work done to address my recommendations and suggestions. Overall, the authors have thoroughly addressed most of the key suggestions made in my report. I do feel strongly that the literature review should provide a more nuanced overview of AI in libraries that at least acknowledges critiques and potential issues with the technology, though I recognize that the authors were also coming up against guidance from the editor to shorten this section. While the findings of the survey are significant and worth publishing, the paper risks oversimplifying and misrepresenting the role of AI in libraries without this critical context included. I have also sent this note to the editor, though ultimately the decision is up to them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language writing is solid. There are a few minor typos that should be caught in a final run of copy editing.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment	Action Taken
I appreciate the work done to address my recommendations and suggestions. Overall, the authors have thoroughly addressed most of the key suggestions made in my report.	Thank you so much for your kind words and valuable feedback. We truly appreciate your input, as it helps us enhance and improve our article.
I do feel strongly that the literature review should provide a more nuanced overview of AI in libraries that at least acknowledges critiques and potential issues with the technology, though I recognize that the authors were also coming up against guidance from the editor to shorten this section.	Thank you for your suggestion and for informing the editor about the need to add a more nuanced overview of AI in libraries. We have added a new sub-heading, “2.5 Critiques and Potential Issues of AI in Libraries,” with four paragraphs, highlighted in turquoise [Line 174 – 217]
While the findings of the survey are significant and worth publishing, the paper risks oversimplifying and misrepresenting the role of AI in libraries without this critical context included. I have also sent this note to the editor, though ultimately the decision is up to them.	Thank you for your suggestion and for informing the editor about the need to add a more nuanced overview of AI in libraries. We have added a new sub-heading, “2.5 Critiques and Potential Issues of AI in Libraries,” with four paragraphs, highlighted in turquoise [Line 174 – 217]
The English language writing is solid. There are a few minor typos that should be caught in a final run of copy editing.	Thank you for commending our English quality and also for highlighting the spelling errors. We have corrected the spelling errors as highlighted in green.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a thorough revision of their manuscript, and I do commend them. However, some areas can be improved for clarity and easy reading. The methodology section, for instance, is so condensed; it should be straight and to the point; some information shared in that section is not necessary, and I hope with the assistance of the editor, it can be cleaned up. In line 234, academics and librarians are mentioned. This sentence is not clear what the authors meant by saying academics, yet the study is not only focused on academic libraries but all types of libraries in general. I am still puzzled by line 244. There is no sampling frame. This sentence creates a bad trajectory for future research. Why couldn't the authors even mention that they used saturation theory? Also noted is that the title has been adjusted to the term "An Exploratory." I am not sure why this has been done. In the entire document, I do not see this concept used anywhere or even explained. Please read what is an exploratory study. All in all, the authors have improved the quality of their manuscripts with the assistance of the editor; these few observations can be amended to enhance the flow and clarity of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fair but needs to be slightly adjusted, I have mentioned my reviews on this already.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment	Action Taken
The authors have done a thorough revision of their manuscript, and I do commend them. However, some areas can be improved for clarity and easy reading.	Thank you very much for your commendation, and we truly appreciate your inputs that help us improve our article.
The methodology section, for instance, is so condensed; it should be straight and to the point; some information shared in that section is not necessary, and I hope with the assistance of the editor, it can be cleaned up. In line 234, academics and librarians are mentioned. This sentence is not clear what the authors meant by saying academics, yet the study is not only focused on academic libraries but all types of libraries in general.	Thank you for highlighting this oversight. The term "academics" we used was intended to refer to academic staff or faculty members. We have replaced "academics" with "faculty members" (i.e., one professor, two associate professors, and four senior lecturers). [Line 275-276] and Line [280]
I am still puzzled by line 244. There is no sampling frame. This sentence creates a bad trajectory for future research.	Thank you for your feedback and concern regarding the absence of a sampling frame and the use of saturation theory in our study. We do agree that in quantitative research, the establishment of a clearly defined sampling frame is crucial to ensure equitable selection of every member of the population. However, it is not uncommon for articles to transparently acknowledge the absence of a sampling frame when it does not exist. Several studies provide clear examples where researchers have openly stated the lack of a sampling frame in their methodologies: 1. Zamani, S. H., Rahman, R. A., Yusof, L. M., & Naganathan, H. (2024). WELL building for developing countries: critical design criteria for residential buildings in Malaysia. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. 2. Ambad, S. N. A., Kalimin, K. M., Ag Damit, D. H. D., & Andrew, J. V. (2021). The mediating effect of psychological empowerment on leadership styles and task performance of academic staff. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(5), 763-782. 3. Al-Sharafi, M. A., Al-Emran, M., Iranmanesh, M., Al-Qaysi, N., Iahad, N. A., & Arpaci, I. (2023). Understanding the impact of knowledge management factors on the sustainable use of AI-based chatbots for educational purposes using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 7491-7510.
Why couldn't the authors even mention that they used saturation theory?	Thank you for raising this query. We opted not to utilize saturation theory in this study. Saturation theory, typically employed in qualitative research, aims to ensure data adequacy by reaching a stage where no new information or themes emerge from further data collection. In contrast, our quantitative survey focuses on achieving precise estimates and analyzing variables across a representative sample of the population.
Also noted is that the title has been adjusted to the term "An Exploratory." I am not sure why this has been done. In the entire document, I do not see this concept used anywhere or even explained. Please read what is an exploratory study.	Thank you for raising this query. An exploratory study can still be a survey (quantitative) because it seeks to uncover insights and gather preliminary data on a research topic. Surveys allow for the collection of quantitative data from a larger sample, providing a broad overview and enabling comparisons across different groups or variables. We have added the word "exploratory" to the title and included it twice in the text, as per the editor's suggestion. We concur with the editor's recommendation. Below are examples of articles that utilize surveys for exploratory studies 1. Li, J., & Kim, C. (2023). Household food shopping locations beyond residential neighborhoods: An exploratory study using a GPS-based household survey. The Professional Geographer, 75(1), 90-101. 2. Amoozadeh, M., Daniels, D., Nam, D., Kumar, A., Chen, S., Hilton, M., ... & Alipour, M. A. (2024, March). Trust in Generative AI among students: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 67-73). 3. Ncube, B., Mars, M., & Scott, R. E. (2023). Perceptions and attitudes of patients and healthcare workers towards the use of telemedicine in Botswana: An exploratory study. PloS one, 18(2), e0281754. Based on the above justifications, we will proceed with our revision to include "exploratory study" in the title and throughout the text of the article. This will more accurately reflect the scope and approach of our research.
All in all, the authors have improved the quality of their manuscripts with the assistance of the editor; these few observations can be amended to enhance the flow and clarity of the manuscript.	Thank you for your valuable feedback and for acknowledging the improvements made to our manuscript with the editor's assistance. We appreciate your observations and have made the necessary amendments to further enhance the flow and clarity of the manuscript, as indicated in [Lines 275-276] and [Line 280].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx