Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence Adoption for European Union Elderly in the Context of Digital Skills Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Shorten the title.

The length of the background in the abstract part may need to be reduced as it seems too long.

Abstract, emphasizing the importance of focusing on seniors? What does this mean?

The authors may reveal the research gaps in the introduction part.

The first two paragraphs need citation.

What are the research questions?  pLease state in introduction.

A brief introduction of coming sections shall be listed at the end of the introduction part.

Add hypotheses to the paper.

The authors should provide a literature review part after the introduction part.

The problem of digital divide like elderly find the technology stuffs are difficult to use etc should be highlighted, see Exploring the market requirements for smart and traditional ageing housing units: A mixed methods approach, Smart Cities, 2022

What is research process? The title may be changed to “Method”.

Section 4 should be placed before research method, after introduction.

Research method should use PRISMA approach to tell the process of getting the papers: Delving into the Digital Twin Developments and Applications in the Construction Industry: A PRISMA Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16436

The name of research methods may be listed and introduction of these methods are necessary.

Section 3 may be named “Results” and subtitles are recommended to be used in this section.

531 lines onwards should use paragraph instead of point forms.

Please check the content of table 2, why 566 there?

Section 7 is missed.

In fact, there are some countries with over 100 marks in Hofstede model, therefore the authors may consider the distribution of groups.

How culture affects people’s perception on AI need to review previous literature Artificial intelligence in local government services: Public perceptions from Australia and Hong Kong, T Yigitcanlar, Government Information Quarterly 40 (3), 101833

The authors should provide a discussion part before conclusion part.

Copy edit “Essentially, the priority to recognize and accommodate cultural diversity in efforts”, “In a world strongly influenced by technology in all fields and spheres of action”.

Based on the analyzed scientific evidence, there is a progressive interest in the 1147

adoption of AI among the elderly, why? Many of the research mentioned digital divide. Please get the answer from the previous part.

“Overall, while people over 65 tend to have more advanced digital skills and progress faster in this regard” This sounds like different from digital divide?

 The authors then said "The gap in digital skills proficiency between different age groups, with older 1158
adults generally lagging younger generation"? Contradiction?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Polish English

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

First of all, we would like to kindly thank you for your recommendations regarding our research. Your comments and suggestions were very helpful for us in refining the overall paper, in order to provide a better flow of ideas and understanding of our research results.

The suggested revisions were taken into consideration in updating the manuscript, addressing both the points raised by you and other reviewers.

We hope the present format of the article now meets with your requirements and standards of quality.

In order to understand how the current format of the paper responds to your suggestions, the undertaken changes were summarized in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The topic of this paper is extremely interesting and the authors have done a substantial amount of work. The scope is quite ambitious. However, I feel the paper would benefit from a narrower and clearer focus. This feels almost like a summary of a much larger and more comprehensive text, where each component would have received the sufficient level of attention. As it is, I feel that too much is covered at a relatively superficial level. At the same time, it is not clear to me how different components (e.g. the bibliometric analysis and the analysis in terms of Hofstede's dimensions) fit together as parts of a coherent whole.

 

On a similar note to the above, is the focus of the paper on skills actually? Or AI use? or both (and if so how do they relate to each other)? AI is such a buzz word at the moment that it is important not to give the impression it was included as an afterthought. Moreover, I feel the argument about the importance of AI is quite repetitive. I think a few well referenced, clear and precise sentences on actual advantages and specific domains of application would be more effective. At the same time, since it is a key concept in the study a clear definition of competence (as opposed to skills, capability, effectiveness etc) would be in order.

 

Particularly in the initial sections the paper seems to be a bit underreferenced. As an example, I think the authors should engage a bit more with literature on digital inequalities. The claim that " the gender-based digital skills gap has undoubtedly narrowed in recent times" needs to be substantiated by a reference and possibly qualified. Does this apply to the EU as a whole? There is a substantial body of literature on age-related digital inequalities (see for instance some work by Leopoldina Fortunati or Mireia Fernandez-Ardevol). In relation to the skills gap, they may wish to engage with the work on second level digital divide by Eszter Hargittai) and subsequent developments. Later in the paper, the link to Hofstaede's dimensions seems to rely solely on one reference. It would be advisable to engage with multiple sources, including critical ones.

 

I have some concerns about sampling. It is important to be consistent about the threshold for old age. Is it 60 (in at least one reference) or 65 (in other parts of the paper)? Why was 74 chosen as upper limit? Also, why was Cyprus excluded? When selecting the texts for the biometric analysis, it is not clear whether the start date was 1974 or 2013, or if articles started appearing only in 2013, or if only such articles were considered? Given the focus on culture, has the language of publications been taken into account? I assume the analysis refers to publications in English, right? I find it strange that so many papers focus on falls. While this is definitely a serious concern, my own quick search on scholar reveals a broader range of subjects. I wonder if any unintentional bias skewed the results? The claim that there is a gap in the literature concerning competency would be strengthened by a larger sample and/or by a search specifically including digital competency as keyword. The fact that it is not the main focus of any of the top ten articles does not mean it is not covered at all. Is it perhaps mentioned as part of the text of the articles, perhaps among the findings/ conclusions/ recommendations? It might also be interesting to know if this changes once search results are limited to the European context.

 

I am also concerned about suggestions and recommendations based on the findings. The analysis of frequent terms is interesting but the language is very tentative. What do the "suggestions" based on such analysis actually mean? Likewise, the analysis in relation to Hofstede's dimensions seems to be limited to speculations and these tend to be vague and not closely linked to the recommendations. I wonder if referring to examples and best practices from different countries would help. I realise this would entail substantial reworking of this section....

 

The paper needs robust proof-reading. A few examples, mainly from the initial section:

 

• In the sentence "In the near future, it is expected that embracing AI to become a necessity, not just a choice, in order to remain relevant and thrive within the rapidly evolving landscape. " substitute "to" with "will"?

• In the sentence "while until 2050, the percentage of the global population ..." substitute "until" with "by"?

• In "regarding AI successfully implementation " should be "successful"?

• In "EU member states are progressing in a different way " should be "differently"?

• In "human capital has been assessed as main deficient " should be "mainly?"?

• The sentence "considering as a factor to be understood" seems ungrammatical.

• In "the final examination performed in the present research assumed the focus on the cultural sphere " I think "a focus" would capture what the authors mean. However, I would not use "assume" here....

• Note the use of "Deutsch " instead of "Dutch" in Section 7.

•  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is problematic. I tried to point out general issues and some specific examples in the comments to the authors. Please note there are problems  throughout the paper. Robust proof reading is needed by a fully proficient editor, in my opinions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

First of all, we would like to kindly thank you for your recommendations regarding our research. Your comments and suggestions were very helpful for us in refining the overall paper, in order to provide a better flow of ideas and understanding of our research results.

The suggested revisions were taken into consideration in updating the manuscript, addressing both the points raised by you and other reviewers.

We hope the present format of the article now meets with your requirements and standards of quality.

In order to understand how the current format of the paper responds to your suggestions, the undertaken changes were summarized in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of the article is comprehensive and appropriate, while the Abstract can be enhanced by stating future directions and strategies.

I urge the authors either to relocate the 5.3 Literature review, after the introduction part, to insert a new and distinctive part, or to change the title of 5.3 to “The analysis of AI literature”.   

Some tables and figures have no source mentioned.

The content describing the theoretical background can be improved by using newer articles and studies.

In what measure do the authors think the topic is original or relevant to the field of AI adoption for the elderly? Does it address a particular gap in the field? It would have been interesting to analyze as well as the AI adoption for adults, teenagers, and children as well, in this article or future studies

What does this study add extra to the field, compared to other published material?

What specific methodological improvements should the authors consider?

The conclusions can be more developed to be more consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

First of all, we would like to kindly thank you for your recommendations regarding our research. Your comments and suggestions were very helpful for us in refining the overall paper, in order to provide a better flow of ideas and understanding of our research results.

The suggested revisions were taken into consideration in updating the manuscript, addressing both the points raised by you and other reviewers.

We hope the present format of the article now meets with your requirements and standards of quality.

In order to understand how the current format of the paper responds to your suggestions, the undertaken changes were summarized in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I want to mention that it is a good and up-to-date work. The concept of AI is in a continuous expansion.

 

Therefore, I come with the following remarks:

 

1. The originality of the work is good, up-to-date, adequate and justified information is presented.

2. I suggest the authors write the keywords in alphabetical order.

3. The work demonstrates a fairly clear and adequate understanding of the specialized literature and a large number of works are cited.

4. The results are presented and analyzed correctly. At the same time, the research questions are well addressed.

5. The conclusions are explained correctly, and are related to the content of the work.

6. The work makes the connection between theory and practice. The work is beneficial even in practice, it can have an impact on the economy in general.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

First of all, we would like to kindly thank you for for your time and feedback regarding our research.  We appreciate your efforts to carefully analyze the paper and provide pertinent suggestions.

We also want to thank you for the suggestion to list the keywords in alphabetical order. We took your recommendation into account and implemented it in the updated version of the manuscript. Certainly, this aspect will improve the accessibility and organization of information for readers.

We sincerely appreciate your collaboration and kindness in reviewing our research.

Thank you very much!

Kind regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Avoid point form.

Separate the discussion section from conclusion.

You have discovered the differences in cultures, but how these affect AI adoption?

Figure 9, please remove overall in the y axis.

There should be a separate section of research method. Like what have been stated in previous research should be like bibliometrics that have been done in previous research: Economic development and construction safety research: A bibliometrics approach F Luo, Safety science, 2022

Information like "Furthermore, the Eurostat publication Ageing Europe — looking at the lives of older peo- 482 ple in the EU [64], defining the population of older people as those aged 65 years or more..." should be placed in introduction as background of the study.

Lines 520-543 should be in paragraph form but not point form.

Regarding elderly adoption of AI, there should be a separate section on it: Exploring the market requirements for smart and traditional ageing housing units: A mixed methods approach, KTW Ng, Smart Cities, 2022.

For the culture questions, could the answers be obtained from the previous literatures on the list for your VOS? If yes, that will look much more consistent and clearer flow.

Line 880 to 910 may better state with a subheading.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, 

We sincerely appreciate your patience and valuable feedback on our research. Your insights have greatly contributed to enhancing the clarity and coherence of our paper. We have carefully integrated your suggestions, along with those from other reviewers, into the revised manuscript. We hope that the current format of the article aligns with your expectations and maintains the desired level of quality.

To provide insight into how the paper has evolved in response to your second round of suggestions, we summarize the changes made within the attached document.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors should insert in the abstract some of the main strategies discovered after conducting their research, to increase the AI adoption for EU elderly people.  I can see that the article was significantly improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, 

We sincerely appreciate your patience and valuable feedback on our research. Your insights have greatly contributed to enhancing the clarity and coherence of our paper. We have carefully integrated your suggestions, along with those from other reviewers, into the revised manuscript. We hope that the current format of the article aligns with your expectations and maintains the desired level of quality.

To provide insight into how the paper has evolved in response to your second round of suggestions, we summarize the changes made within the attached document.

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some point forms can be turned to paragraph form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Na

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We want to express our sincerest gratitude for your invaluable contributions and insightful suggestions throughout the revision process of our manuscript. Your expertise and dedication have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the paper.

Your meticulous review and constructive feedback have played a pivotal role in refining the content, structure, and overall presentation of the manuscript. Moreover, your thoughtful comments have not only enhanced the coherence of the arguments presented but have also contributed immensely to the academic rigor of the article.

We truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to carefully evaluating the manuscript and providing detailed recommendations for improvement. Please rest assured that all your suggestions have been considered and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

Thank you!

Kind regards,

Authors