Artificial Intelligence as a Disruptive Technology—A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
When I saw the title of the paper, I accepted the review without thinking. Now I am sorry because I have to make the decision: Rejection. I see that you have put a lot of effort, but unfortunately I cannot see any significant contribution in your work. The approach you used is quite common in literature searches, but as someone who frequently searches databases, I am sorry to say that the algorithm shown in Figure 1 is incomplete, one-sided, linear, and does not cover the field well. Figure 1 represents raw power, which is exhausting, and the title suggests AI, which unfortunately is a problem for me. Do not get me wrong, Figure 1 is the first step everyone takes, but without thinking about it, it's like a multiplication table, it does not constitute a scientific paper, at least not for the journal you submitted the paper to. To improve the writing, after describing, i.e., reviewing the "disruptive technology concept", the authors should first define their vision of applying it to the specified areas with at least three different approaches (the best visualization can be seen in ISO 15392), they will introduce a smarter approach than brute force. To visualize 4 and 3, he would use his hands and draw the areas of overlap, not connection, since most of the work is not connected, just overlapping. I would also use the mutual connection to complete the algorithm. As I said before, the paper has the same approach as numerous previously published papers, it is a reflection of the author and as such it will certainly find its place, I just do not think it is good enough for the journal electronics. I am very sorry that I cannot give a more positive opinion and a more acceptable decision to the authors.
Author Response
Reply: Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for the time devoted to read our manuscript. We highly appreciate your honest and constructive opinions. With high respect for your expertise in the domain, please allow us to provide an answer to your objections. Based on yours and the other reviewer’s suggestions the manuscript was updated and, we consider, is much improved. We will be very grateful to you if you could check this new version. All the changes were highlighted with green font. We also attach the respond to your review.
Again, we are thankful to you for the time devoted to read the manuscript and provide the feedback.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled "Artificial intelligence as a disruptive technology: A systematic literature review" provides a sentiment analysis on AI, IoT, Blockchain, 5G, and 3D printing. These authors carried out a comprehensive overview of these disruptive technologies, focusing on their evolution, connotation, and prominence in the current scenario. The bibliometric-based study is well-designed and could be published with some modifications as follows.
1. There are other robust tools, such as the Bibliometrix R package, to gain additional insights. I suggest the authors do further analysis that would greatly help support the results and discussion. Include the summary of results and relevant figures derived from the Bibliometrix R application wherever necessary.
2. The current figure resolutions are not good, please the improve
3. Please also provide a more robust argument for the selection of the web of science in this study. What about the Scopus? Here 84 articles are scrutinized for their analysis. If possible expand the datasets. Include more novel insights and future directions in the discussion and conclusions section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for the time devoted to review our manuscript. We highly appreciate your constructive suggestions. We are attaching the respond to your suggestions.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Păvăloaia presented a review on artificial intelligence as a disruptive technology. Although the manuscript is well written, proper contexts are missing in the manuscript. Below are points of attention from this reviewer:
Point 1: It is important to distinguish the necessity and uniqueness of this review when there are several reviews being published on this popular topic, such as doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203847. Authors are advised to clarify the motivation and innovation of this article compared with other reviews, and add them accordingly to Section 1.
Point 2: Authors are advised to explain the exceptions of year 2018 (positive 13% vs. negative 25%) in the Titles analysis, which for most years the positive percentage is equal or higher than the negative percentages (Line 154 - 156).
Point 3: Are there any restrictions and hypothesis of using MonkeyLearn for RQ1? Authors are also advised to add accuracy analysis of results of RQ1?
Point 4: Authors are advised to improve the quality of Figure 3. Some of the words, such as iot, are blurry. In addition, on Line 190 – 191, it says “AI - Figure 3(b), IoT - Figure 3(c), BlockChain- Figure 190 3(d)”. However, from Figure 3 it seems (c) is BlockChain, and (d) is “thing"?
Point 5: RQ2 is “Besides AI, what are the most prominent disruptive technologies in use today”, but AI is still included in the discussion of this topic from Line 165 to Line 192. Authors are advised to rename this question or improve the content according to this objective.
Point 6: Paragraph on Line 777 – 778 is unnecessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for the time devoted to review our manuscript. We highly appreciate your constructive suggestions. We are attaching the respond to your suggestions.
Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
For any decision it is necessary to reconcile three influential elements: Knowledge, emotion, and interest. The authors have written an extremely polite reply in which they state their views. The nature of the correspondence is exceptional, and I thank them for it. The work has been so much changed that it is unrecognizable in comparison with the first version, if one does not pay attention to the details. It seems to me that the version previously received was a different one, as there were changes in the Sanky diagram that I did not see in the last version that was created. While the authors have been skillful in responding to the reviewer's requests, the overall analysis is not logical to me. I'll use the Sanky diagram as an example. We use Sanky mainly for balance flows. It is not logical that the stock of disruptive innovation ends up with robots, and smart things (and many others) do not have their background in the previous year, as if they do not come from the references that classify them. Smart things emerged from prior knowledge. Sanky could be traced back to the origin of knowledge without interruption, which means that the visualization is not good. Unfortunately, the high-level idea is not properly represented because the flow of knowledge is not analyzed continuously and deeply enough. I take this opportunity to praise the authors once again for their effort, idea and approach to correspondence. I am sorry that I cannot give any other assessment than the one I have already given. If the editor gives the green light to publish the paper, I can live with it and would be happy, but I personally cannot do it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we are very grateful for your time, suggestions and sharing your expertise. We are attaching a clarification message which we hope that you will consider.
Best regards, the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all of the concerns I have raised and I commend this version for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we are very grateful for your time, suggestions and sharing your expertise. Your constructive review and suggestion for publication recommendation are highly appreciated.
With the best regards,
the authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have addressed all comments properly, so this reviewer suggests acceptance in the present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, we are very grateful for your time, suggestions and sharing your expertise. Your constructive review and suggestion for publication recommendation are highly appreciated.
With the best regards,
the authors
