The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Personalized Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The study's strengths include its address of a high-impact topic in higher education, analysing the role of artificial intelligence in personalised learning. The systematic review is aligned with emerging trends in digital pedagogy and educational technology.  The PRISMA protocol has been followed to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the selection and analysis of the included studies. In addition, the assessment of bias through a categorisation system contributes to the methodological quality of the work.  The article offers a comprehensive overview of the benefits, challenges, and future prospects of using AI in education, providing a detailed analysis of the selected research.  The discussion highlights the impact of AI on teaching and institutional management, proposing relevant guidelines for teachers, administrators, and educational policy makers.    As points for improvement: Although the article summarises the reviewed research well, it could benefit from a more detailed analysis of the methodological limitations of the included studies. While the article mentions ethical challenges, it could strengthen this section by further exploring issues related to equity in access to AI technologies and the impact on teacher autonomy. The future research section could benefit from more concrete suggestions on recommended methodologies, study populations, and specific areas of focus.   The article presents a valuable contribution to the field of higher education and artificial intelligence. Its well-organised structure and rigorous methodological approach reinforce the validity of its findings. However, integrating a deeper analysis of the limitations of the selected studies, greater geographical diversity, and a broader discussion of ethical implications would further strengthen its scholarly impact.

Author Response

Comment 1: "Although the article summarises the reviewed research well, it could benefit from a more detailed analysis of the methodological limitations of the included studies."

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the discussion on the methodological limitations of the reviewed studies.  The additional content can be found on page 11, lines 290-295.

Comment 2: "While the article mentions ethical challenges, it could strengthen this section by further exploring issues related to equity in access to AI technologies and the impact on teacher autonomy."

Response 2: We acknowledge this important aspect and have expanded the discussion on ethical concerns, particularly regarding disparities in access to AI tools and the potential impact on teacher autonomy. The additional content can be found on page 11, lines 273-279.

Comment 3: "The future research section could benefit from more concrete suggestions on recommended methodologies, study populations, and specific areas of focus."

Response 3: We have revised the future research section to provide specific methodological recommendations, targeted study populations, and key focus areas. The additional content can be found on page 12, lines 319-324

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the topic of the article is highly relevant, given the impact of Artificial Intelligence on Education, in particular, on Higher Education. The paper is a systematic review that explores the integration of AI in personalized learning within higher education. However, I would like to make a few suggestions to help clarify and enhance the content.
With respect to the thematic analysis, and specifically the dimensions identified on page 4 in the section titled ‘data synthesis’, such as AI-based recommendation systems, intelligent tutoring, and real-time learning analytics, these topics do not appear to be clearly addressed in either the results or discussion sections of the article.
In the results section, on page 4, lines 139-140, the author(s) state: "the initial database search produced 1980 articles," while in the abstract (page 1, lines 8-9), they mention: "an extensive literature search was carried out across multiple databases, resulting in 17,899 records." There appears to be an inconsistency between these two statements.
In Figure 1 – the PRISMA Flow Diagram ( page 5) – ‘research available in English’ is listed as an exclusion criterion. I am unsure of this criteria, as all references seem to be in English. I would suggest that the author(s) include this information in the eligibility criteria section (page 2) and review the figure accordingly.
I also find the sentence on page 5, lines 168-169, somewhat unclear: why are levels mentioned? Wasn’t the focus exclusively on higher education? And, finally, I believe that on page 9, line 212, the number 34 is repeated. 

Author Response

Comment 1: "With respect to the thematic analysis, the dimensions identified in ‘data synthesis’ (page 4) such as AI-based recommendation systems, intelligent tutoring, and real-time learning analytics do not appear clearly addressed in the results or discussion sections."

Response 1: We appreciate this observation and have revised both the results and discussion sections to ensure explicit reference to these dimensions. The relevant changes are on page 8, lines 175-181.

Comment 2: "There appears to be an inconsistency in the number of articles found during the database search between the results section (page 4, lines 139-140) and the abstract (page 1, lines 8-9)."

Response 2: We acknowledge this inconsistency and have corrected the figures for accuracy. The Study Selection Process now states "The initial database search yielded 17899 articles." This change is reflected on page 4, line 142.

Comment 3: "In Figure 1 (PRISMA Flow Diagram, page 5), ‘research available in English’ is listed as an exclusion criterion. However, all references appear to be in English. Consider clarifying this criterion in the eligibility criteria section (page 2)."

Response 3: This is a typing error which has been corrected. The text now reads correctly: Research NOT available in English. Page 5, line 158

Comment 7: "The sentence on page 5, lines 168-169, is unclear regarding the mention of levels. Wasn’t the focus exclusively on higher education?"

Response 7: We recognize the ambiguity in our wording and have revised the sentence for clarity. The updated text, on page 5, lines 168-169, reads: "The 45 studies included in this review explored various applications of AI in personalized learning in higher education." Page 5, line 171

Comment 8: "On page 9, line 212, the number 34 is repeated."

Response 8: Thank you for catching this error. We have corrected the repetition on page 9, line 212, ensuring the number appears only once. Page 10, Line 221