Examining an Information System (IS) Solution to Increase UK University Students’ Engagement during Lecturing Activities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Examining an Information System (IS) Solution to Increase UK University Students’ Engagement During Lecturing Activities” has been investigated in detail.
The paper’s subject could be interesting for readers of journal. Therefore, I recommend this paper for publication in this journal but before that, I have a few comments on the text that should be addressed before publication:
· Please stick to the journal’s template for writing the manuscript
· Please ensure that the structure of the article includes an abstract, keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion (optional) sections
· Some abbreviations are missing in the text, please check the manuscript thoroughly to find the ones and add them in the table.
· Authors should clearly write what the motivation of this paper is.
· How did you evaluate the accuracy of obtained results?
· Mentioned results of present work in the conclusion section must be compared with the previous studies in the field
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors describe their design for a system to record student attendance and claim that this system will also improve student engagement with course content. There are two important weaknesses in the current presentation of this work.
Firstly, the theoretical basis from which the potential value of the work is derived, is rooted in the alleged connection between attendance and student engagement. This discussion is based solely of very few and very dated references. One is from 15 years ago and one is from 30 years ago. There is also one from this decade, but the findings of this more recent article do not support the authors' claims.
In the las decade, and particularly since the pandemic, there has been a paradigm shift in the way academic courses are delivered. One has to wonder whether the two older mentioned references are still relevant. Since this is the basis for the motivation for the work, it is not an issue that can be overlooked. The authors should look to more recent (and extensive) literature regarding the connection between physical attendance in lectures and engagement with the course content; if the more recent literature confirms the connection, then their work will be well supported.
Secondly, but more importantly, the article presents only a design for a system which has not yet been implemented. This would be sufficient for a conference announcement, where the authors discuss their plans and get feedback from other attendants. But for journal publication, the system would need to be first implemented and evaluated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
all comments have been addressed
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised their manuscript addressing the other reviewer's comments regarding the structure and presentation of their work. Basically, this new manuscript describes the same work.
Since my own concern was not about presentation but rather about the content itself, my opinion has not changed.
The authors have describe in theory the design of an IS system. The description is clear and well founded in recent literature. So, the question that remains is whether this theoretical discussion is within the scope of the journal and also provides significant enough contribution to merit journal publication. My personal, subjective opinion is that it does not. But it is not a strong opinion, in the end it is up to the academic editor's evaluation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors' rebuttal is compelling and the revised manuscript is very clear when it comes to what is and what is not included in the work. From that point of view, it is an honest, solid manuscript that could be published. The contribution is not major, but it is not trivial either, so it comes down to an editorial decision regarding whether the contribution is enough to merit publication in a journal such as knowledge.
