Exploring the Interplay between Teacher Leadership and Self-Efficacy: A Systematic Literature Review (2013–2024)

Reviewer 1

#

Reviewer’s comments

Response

Line No.

1

The abstract does not completely discuss the methodology, data collection, analysis, and main results. 

I have updated the abstract to clearly detail the methodology, data collection, analysis, and main results, ensuring all critical aspects are comprehensively covered.

Line4-18

2

  The aim of the research appears to be inconsistent throughout the article. This might be the reason why it is not fully clear what the key focus of the research?

I have revised the introduction to clearly define the research aims, highlighting the interaction between teacher leadership and self-efficacy across different contexts. The revisions in Section 3.2 now articulate specific research questions, ensuring a focused exploration of these concepts' impact on educational policies and practices. These changes address your concerns about consistency and clarity, enhancing the paper's coherence and academic rigor.

Line

58-70,

Line 237-249

3

The theory you present contains many small theoretical pieces, some of which even describe evolution. I would suggest to structure the theoretical part and present the parts that are relevant to the parameters of the study.

I have streamlined the theoretical section to focus more directly on the key parameters of the study. By removing theoretical pieces that were not directly relevant, we have enhanced the structure and focus of the literature review. We believe this adjustment improves the coherence of the theoretical discussion and strengthens the alignment with the core research objectives.

Line

71-229

4

In the methodology section, the PRISMA flow chart could be presented in more detail, providing information why the articles were excluded at each review.

I have revised the PRISMA flow chart in the methodology section to provide more detailed information on why articles were excluded at each stage of the review process. Specifically, I have included the reasons for exclusion based on title screening, abstract screening, and full-text accessibility issues. These changes aim to enhance the transparency and rigor of the review process, making the selection criteria and methodology clearer and more robust.

Line291-292

5

 The inclusion and exclusion criteria need more explanation, for example, why only articles published in 2013 and later were included. It might also be worth adding another inclusion criterion: articles published in WoS or Scopus databases.

3.3 Data Source: I have provided detailed explanations for selecting articles published from 2013 onwards and clarified why I included multiple databases such as WoS, Scopus, ERIC, and Google Scholar. I did not restrict the inclusion criteria to only WoS and Scopus databases to ensure the comprehensiveness and depth of the research.

Line250-279

6

The conclusions need to elaborate more on the study’s significance in relation to teachers’ AI digital competencies.

In response to the recommendation, I have expanded the conclusion section to detail the significance of AI digital competencies in relation to teacher leadership and self-efficacy. This elaboration specifically addresses how AI tools and analytics can empower teachers to enhance instructional practices and adapt to the evolving educational landscape, aligning the study's findings with current technological advancements in education. This discussion underscores the potential of AI to transform teacher professional development and support systems, which is crucial for future educational strategies and policy formulations.

Line517-524

7

Finally, it is recommended to have an implication section focusing on both the implication for theory and the implication for practice/policy.

I have added a comprehensive implications section that delineates both theoretical and practical implications of the findings. This section discusses how the integration of AI digital competencies in teacher development can transform instructional strategies and influence policy-making, aligning the review with the latest demands in educational technology. The enhanced conclusions clearly articulate how these insights advance understanding in the field and offer concrete strategies for practice and policy development.

Line495-505

8

Comments on the Quality of English Language:

Moderate editing of English language required.

I have conducted a thorough review and revision of the manuscript to improve the clarity and quality of the English language. This includes refining the syntax, grammar, and technical terminology to ensure the text meets academic standards and is clear to an international audience.

Reviewer 2

#

Reviewer’s comments

Response

Line No.

1

Comprehensive Coverage: The review encompasses a wide range of studies, effectively

synthesizing existing literature on teacher leadership and self-efficacy. The inclusion of

diverse cultural contexts is commendable, as it adds depth to the analysis.

NA

2

Clear Methodology: The systematic approach, guided by the PRISMA framework,

provides transparency and replicability to the review process. The detailed search strategy

and inclusion criteria strengthen the credibility of the findings.

NA

3

Rich Theoretical Insights: The discussion on theoretical frameworks, particularly the

Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy Theory, is well-articulated. The manuscript

effectively connects theoretical insights to practical implications for teacher development.

NA

4

Cultural Contextualization: The authors skillfully highlight the influence of cultural

contexts on teacher leadership and self-efficacy, making a strong case for the need for

culturally sensitive educational policies.

NA

5

Quality of English Language: English language fine. No issues detected.

NA

6

Methodological Limitations: The discussion on limitations in the research (e.g., small

sample sizes, reliance on self-reported data, cultural homogeneity) could be expanded. A

more detailed exploration of how these limitations might impact the findings and their

applicability across diverse educational settings would strengthen the manuscript

I have expanded this section to more deeply analyze how the small sample sizes, reliance on self-reported data, and cultural homogeneity may impact the generalizability and applicability of our findings. We now more clearly articulate potential biases and suggest how future research can address these limitations to enhance the robustness of the research field.

Line495-505

7

Future Research Directions: While the manuscript proposes important future research

directions, it could benefit from more specific suggestions. For example, outlining potential

longitudinal studies or mixed-methods approaches in particular contexts would provide

clearer guidance for future researchers.

I have expanded the future research directions in the revised manuscript by detailing specific longitudinal and mixed-methods studies tailored to different educational contexts. This includes practical examples of how these methods can be applied across varied cultural settings, offering clearer guidance for researchers on implementing these approaches effectively.

Line496-516

8

Interdisciplinary Perspectives: The authors mention the potential for interdisciplinary

research but do not elaborate on specific disciplines that could enrich the analysis.

Integrating insights from fields such as psychology, sociology, or organizational behavior

could enhance the depth of future studies.

I have elaborated on potential longitudinal and mixed-methods studies in the revised manuscript, specifying the contexts and methodologies. Additionally, I've discussed how AI technologies could be integrated into these studies to enrich our understanding of teacher leadership and self-efficacy in diverse educational settings. These revisions aim to provide clearer guidance for future research and address your valuable suggestions.

Line517-524

9

Practical Implications: The implications for educational practice and policy are

insightful; however, it would be beneficial to provide more concrete examples of how

educational leaders can implement the proposed strategies in their institutions.

I have thoroughly revised this section 5.3 to incorporate more specific examples of how educational leaders can implement the proposed strategies within their institutions. We have also added detailed descriptions on tailoring professional development programs to suit both collectivist and individualistic cultural settings, thereby enhancing the applicability and clarity of our strategic recommendations. We believe these enhancements directly address your feedback and enrich the manuscript's utility for both academic and practical applications.

Line438-466