Smartphones and Learning: Evaluating the Focus of Recent Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The phrase in line 70 must be modified to improve its understanding.

From line 177 to line 181 the authors describe the reasons why they chose the two main categories in which they group the works to make the comparisons. I consider that the authors need to make clear why they choose these two categories.The explanation is confusing.

The authors must justify why they proposed the words defined in the lines 208-210. It is recommended that the authors should show percentage,  or the frequency of negative and positive words, to improve the understanding of the results and discussion. 

Table 2 reports the comparison between some articles cited for each of the categories chosen. There is a significant difference between the citations of articles related to education and those related to psychology. I recommend that the authors include in the discussion how these differences impact the conclusions and questions they defined in lines 80-82. A normalization in the data could help to better understand the position of the authors in the discussion and the conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This work aims to identify the positive and negative (aspects/categories of) topics addressed in smartphone and learning-related research. It is an interesting topic, but there are some points that need improvement (in particular, with regard to the context of the study and the discussion/interpretation of findings).

In introduction, before presenting the specific research objectives of the study (lines 79-82) the context should be clearly presented (since smartphone and learning is such a broad topic). For example, smartphone use in formal and informal settings? students’ age range? There are differences between compulsory (K-12 education) and university education where students are adults. Reference to be made in educational policies (there are again differences among countries with regard to smartphone use in classrooms, BYOD policies etc). The first sentence of the abstract implies that adults are also included.

Line 30 “non-education settings”: please, explain in parenthesis or provide examples of such settings. Research indicated that smartphone use in informal settings (e.g., home) could be both a benefit (depending on various factors such as activities/apps, etc.) and disadvantage (excessive use of un-suitable apps/games, etc).

Line 41, I think the phrase “positive and negative topics” needs some modification; since a topic could have both positive and negative aspects, it is preferable to refer to aspects/themes/xxx?

Lines 184-185 “psychology has seen clear evidence of positive and negative consequences of smartphone availability”: (i) it is suggested to place indicative references besides this statement, (b) I think ‘ownership and/or use’ would be more appropriate than ‘availability’.

What were the criteria behind the selection of the specific author keywords? (Table 1)

The discussion should be enhanced with further interpretation of the findings and possible (dis)agreement with earlier research (currently there is not a single reference in this section). For example, the “positivity bias in education research compared to psychology research”: since the context is essential, could an explanation be that educators/academics mostly carry out research in formal educational settings where smartphone usage is related to short periods of time and often combined with various learning activities (via educational apps), vs. psychology research which focuses on smartphone usage in informal settings (e.g., lengthy periods of playing games at home)?

What is the significance of this study to the field?

As authors mention in limitations, the studies reviewed represent a small sample of the literature produced since the broad adoption of the smartphone; there are relevant studies (with citations) left out. Indicatively, I suggest the authors to consult the work of Dr. Olatz Lopez-Fernandez [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olatz-Lopez-Fernandez/research]

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study focus on identifying the positive and negative topics related to smartphones and learning in recent research. The research approach used is a bibliometric analysis of author keywords, which aims to explore the framing and potential research biases in the literature.

Bibliometric analysis is a method of analyzing scholarly literature that involves quantitative analysis of publication patterns and citation networks. In this case, the analysis would involve examining the author keywords used in recent smartphone and learning research articles to identify the most common positive and negative topics addressed.

By using author keywords, the study may also reveal potential biases in the research, as authors may have chosen certain keywords to emphasize or downplay certain aspects of their research. This could provide insights into the ways in which research on smartphones and learning is framed and presented, and could inform future research in the field.

One disadvantage of this approach is that author keywords may not always accurately represent the content of the paper, as they are subjective and can be influenced by personal preferences and biases. Additionally, the use of author keywords may not capture all relevant themes and topics addressed in the research.
For example, if I search for manuscripts for the keyword "smartphone", there are 3583 results. For the keyword "mobile phone", there are 1341 results, which is not a negligible result.
https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=smartphone

https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=mobile+phone
To improve this work, the authors could consider using a combination of methods, such as conducting a systematic literature review in addition to the bibliometric analysis. This would allow for a more comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the research in this area. The authors could also consider using a larger and more diverse sample of papers to ensure the findings are representative of the broader field of smartphone and learning research.
References are not written according to the instructions for authors and this must be corrected.

"In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. ..."

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been improved, I believe it is suitable for publication.