Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: An Analysis of Existing Bibliometrics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented is interesting, presents an adequate methodology, and allows for reproducibility of the analysis. 

However, in relation to the overall coherence of the article, it is necessary to work on the articulation between the different sections, ensuring consistency between the literature review, the focus of the study, the analysis carried out, and the conclusions that can be inferred from the results obtained. In the introduction and the state of the art, the literature review is scarce and does not cover the main variables under study, lacks empirical findings does not provide sufficient background, and fails to include all relevant references. 

It is also necessary to revise the conclusions and expand on them, according to the results obtained. 

It is a valuable study, but it needs to refocus the literature review on the subject of the study, complete relevant data, state limitations, and argue its conclusions by providing a rich and well-founded final bibliography.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language and spelling correction required (minor revisions).

Author Response

Dear Editor,
First of all, we would like to thank you for the revisions you have made, which have helped us a lot to improve our work. Below in bold we detail the improvements and attentions made.

1) The article presented is interesting, presents an adequate methodology, and allows for reproducibility of the analysis. 

Thank you so much

2) However, in relation to the overall coherence of the article, it is necessary to work on the articulation between the different sections, ensuring consistency between the literature review, the focus of the study, the analysis carried out, and the conclusions that can be inferred from the results obtained. In the introduction and the state of the art, the literature review is scarce and does not cover the main variables under study, lacks empirical findings does not provide sufficient background, and fails to include all relevant references. It is also necessary to revise the conclusions and expand on them, according to the results obtained. 

Regarding this correction, I can comment that we have strengthened the literature review by increasing about 10 relevant citations (theoretical and empirical works) on the research topic, which have also improved the coverage of the study variables, as well as the articulation between the different parts of the manuscript. Although it is true that the authors have maintained the conclusions of the study, given that we consider them to be pertinent, what we have done is a substantial restructuring and improvement of the discussion based on the results obtained and the literature review carried out.

3) It is a valuable study, but it needs to refocus the literature review on the subject of the study, complete relevant data, state limitations, and argue its conclusions by providing a rich and well-founded final bibliography.

This correction has already been made in the previous point.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

thank you for contributing your paper. In general, it is well written and clearly understandable. However, I discovered some points, that would require a rework. Here's my list: 

Thanks in advance!

 

- author(s) are missing

- affiliation and addresses are missing

 

Abstract

- Line 1: artificial intelligence (AI) > Artificial Intelligence (AI), use capitals

- Line 6: remove comma after query

- Line 7: 2023, this  2023 and

- Line 7: A total of 870 articles were > was found

- Line 9: add comma after "similarities"

- Line 12: what has "covid-19" to do with AI?

 

Introduction

- Line 15: artificial intelligence (AI) > Artificial Intelligence (AI)

- Line 15: 1950s. > 1950s

- Line 15: delete ", as a result"

- Line 22: add citation

- Line 23: add citation

- Line 25: add citation

- Line 34: it would be good to have a structural overview of the paper. Briefly describe, what will be covered by section 2, 3, 4, and 5

 

State of the Art

- Line 37: "In [4], sees...." > sounds not good. Please name the author here or rephrase. Same with the following citations in this section. Particularly, when referring to the author with "He...", his name should be mentioned before.

- Line 56: > "For example, in healthcare, AI has driven clinical research through machine learning algorithms." (rephrase)

- Figure 1: text in the image is quite small. Can that be re-arranged to support better readability?

- I am missing an information about other, similar, or past bibliometric studies in this area. Are there any? What results have been achieved? If not, why aren't there any? 

 

Materials and Methods

- Line 122: provide a reference for VOSviewer

- Line 122+124: rephrase "a study was carried out" (double usage)

- Line 124+125: why did you chose the values 10, 25, and 15? By random? Or is there any standard you could refer to? 

 

Results

- Line 129: you mentioned 870 articles in Line 118. Why are there now 1043 articles? This has to be clarified

- Line 130: why is it necessary to provide an outlook for 2023-2025? I would move the "outlook" to the discussion and not present it as part of the results. Furthermore, i don't agree, that the applied projection method is valid. Some more evidence, why the "exponential regression - best fit - " is appropriate, has to be given. 

- Line 141: largest > highest

- Table 2: would it make sense to add the publisher here - and not just the journal name?

- Table 2: please explain the SJR, Quartile, and h-index abbreviations and their meanings

- Line 158: replace xxxxx

- Figure 3: is not readable, please enlarge

- Line 172, 175, etc.: citations do not read well. Should be rephrased (see State of the Art comment)

- Figure 4: is not readable, please enlarge

 

Discussion

- your discussion is very general. It would be better, to use real evidence from your research and build your arguments apon them. I don't see the connection of your discussion with the presented results

- also the section in Lines 197-207 is not supported by any of our results. If you refer to other work, this should be moved to the state of the art. If you derive it from your results, this should be clearly outlined (why and how)

- Lines 209-215 also is more state of the art than discussion

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine. The usage of citations can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Editor,
First of all, we would like to thank you for the revisions you have made, which have helped us a lot to improve our work. Below in bold we detail the improvements and attentions made.

- author(s) are missing

we have added the authors in the manuscript

- affiliation and addresses are missing

we have also added the affiliations and addresses of each of the authors.

Abstract

- Line 1: artificial intelligence (AI) > Artificial Intelligence (AI), use capitals

the correction has been made

- Line 6: remove comma after query  the correction has been made

- Line 7: 2023, this  2023 and  the correction has been made

- Line 7: A total of 870 articles were > was found   the correction has been made

- Line 9: add comma after "similarities"  the correction has been made

- Line 12: what has "covid-19" to do with AI? 

we have changed the redaction of this part, pointing out key words more related to the subject of research

Introduction

- Line 15: artificial intelligence (AI) > Artificial Intelligence (AI) the correction has been made

- Line 15: 1950s. > 1950s the correction has been made

- Line 15: delete ", as a result" the correction has been made

- Line 22: add citation the quotation was added

- Line 23: add citation the quotation was added

- Line 25: add citation the quotation was added

- Line 34: it would be good to have a structural overview of the paper. Briefly describe, what will be covered by section 2, 3, 4, and 5

a brief description of the following sections to be covered in the manuscript was added.

State of the Art

- Line 37: "In [4], sees...." > sounds not good. Please name the author here or rephrase. Same with the following citations in this section. Particularly, when referring to the author with "He...", his name should be mentioned before.

the requested correction has been made, mentioning the corresponding author in each citation.

- Line 56: > "For example, in healthcare, AI has driven clinical research through machine learning algorithms." (rephrase)

this part was rewritten

- Figure 1: text in the image is quite small. Can that be re-arranged to support better readability?

the image has been improved by increasing the text size

- I am missing an information about other, similar, or past bibliometric studies in this area. Are there any? What results have been achieved? If not, why aren't there any? 

Regarding this correction, I can comment that we have strengthened the literature review by increasing about 10 relevant citations (theoretical and empirical works) on the research topic, which have also improved the coverage of the study variables

Materials and Methods

- Line 122: provide a reference for VOSviewer 

added a quote and reference to the VosViewer software

- Line 122+124: rephrase "a study was carried out" (double usage)

the wording was improved in this part, to avoid redundancy of words

- Line 124+125: why did you chose the values 10, 25, and 15? By random? Or is there any standard you could refer to? 

These values were chosen to select/present in the tables and figures the most relevant results (articles, key words) related to the research topic. 

Results

- Line 129: you mentioned 870 articles in Line 118. Why are there now 1043 articles? This has to be clarified

there was an error in the wording, the correct number of articles found and analyzed is 870.

- Line 130: why is it necessary to provide an outlook for 2023-2025? I would move the "outlook" to the discussion and not present it as part of the results. Furthermore, i don't agree, that the applied projection method is valid. Some more evidence, why the "exponential regression - best fit - " is appropriate, has to be given. 

okay, this part of the manuscript has been eliminated.

- Line 141: largest > highest the correction has been made

- Table 2: would it make sense to add the publisher here - and not just the journal name?

The authors do not consider it necessary to add the publisher, as this would make the table larger, which would complicate its reading.

- Table 2: please explain the SJR, Quartile, and h-index abbreviations and their meanings

in one paragraph a brief explanation has been made of SJR, Quartile, and h-index

- Line 158: replace xxxxx  the correction has been made, cite was added

- Figure 3: is not readable, please enlarge the image has been improved by increasing the text size

- Line 172, 175, etc.: citations do not read well. Should be rephrased (see State of the Art comment) the correction has been made

- Figure 4: is not readable, please enlarge the image has been improved by increasing the text size

 

Discussion

- your discussion is very general. It would be better, to use real evidence from your research and build your arguments apon them. I don't see the connection of your discussion with the presented results

At this point, the authors completely restructured the debate based on the results obtained. Likewise, at this point, the results were contrasted with the literature review carried out. 

- also the section in Lines 197-207 is not supported by any of our results. If you refer to other work, this should be moved to the state of the art. If you derive it from your results, this should be clearly outlined (why and how)- Lines 209-215 also is more state of the art than discussion

these sections of the discussion were removed, and the discussion was improved based on the results obtained as explained in the previous point.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate all the modifications made by the authors that have considerably improved the paper. Congratulations on the study.