Use of Virtual Tools in Teaching-Learning Processes: Advancements and Future Direction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this review article, the authors examine the trends and evolution of the application of virtual tools in teaching-learning processes. 104 articles were analyzed using a search equation defined in the PRISMA methodology. 

The authors made a valuable effort following the design required in a review article. The number of references is satisfactory. Some points need improvement before the submission is considered good enough to be accepted for publication.

At the end of the introduction, the authors should indicate the structure of the submission's sections. Also, I recommend the authors discuss how they designed their review. Αlso, what research questions are answered and commented on in this submission?

I recommend the authors make the figures in colour.

It doesn't make sense with figure 7.

For discussion, I would like to know the limitations and potential issues of this review.  Also, the authors should discuss the merits of the submission.

What suggestions for future research do the authors have?

Author Response

Kind regards

According to the suggestions of our article by the reviewer, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:

Reviewer	Comment	Response
REWIEWER1	At the end of the introduction, the authors should indicate the structure of the submission's sections. Also, I recommend the authors discuss how they designed their review. Αlso, what research questions are answered and commented on in this submission?	At the end of the introduction, a suggestion on the structure of the sections of the manuscript is made, and research questions are added.
REWIEWER1	I recommend the authors make the figures in colour.	A blue color is added to all bibliometric graphs according to the reviewer's instructions
REWIEWER1	It doesn't make sense with figure 7.	The explanation of the figure is expanded, mentioning the two main scientific cooperation networks, and relating it, in turn, with the most important authors on the subject according to Figure 4 and Figure 6.
REWIEWER1	For discussion, I would like to know the limitations and potential issues of this review.  Also, the authors should discuss the merits of the submission.	The limitation is added to the discussion and the merits of the manuscript are given.
REWIEWER1	What suggestions for future research do the authors have?	Some suggestions for future work are included at the end of the conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1.       This paper examines the trends and evolution of the application of virtual tools in teaching-learning processes through the use of bibliometric analysis which is a method of evaluating research impact by analyzing citation patterns in scholarly literature. This kind of analysis is likewise used to identify trends and patterns in applying these technologies in academic systems and measure the impact of individual scholars or journals. The quantitative analysis applied to this research fits the purpose of the study.

2.       PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. It is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a 4-phase flow diagram.

3.       The abstract may be improved by including more detailed findings; it may also include the conclusion of the study.

4.       In your search strategy, I suggest that you identify, under a sub-heading, the inclusion criteria, the same as what you did with the exclusion criteria. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used by studies to estimate exclusion rates.

5.       The meaning of CI in CI1, CI2 and CI3 in the exclusion criteria is Confidence Interval. An abbreviation list may be needed to identify some abbreviations introduced not known to a general readership.

6.       I also suggest the risk-of-bias assessment in your methodology. I am interested in knowing the systematic approach to trial selection (e.g., systematic search of the literature) or a clearly stated justification for the choice of literature and whether that justification was judged to be adequate. Studies are considered to be at low risk of bias if the selection rationale is clearly stated and judged to be justifiable; otherwise, they will be considered to be at high risk of bias.

7.       Figure 1 may be renamed as PRISMA flow diagram of identification, screening and eligibility assessment.

8.       The Discussion of the findings is robust.  For improvement of the discussion, I suggest that Implications for policy, practice and research may be included.

 

9.       Overall, the article is a well-researched manuscript.

Author Response

Kind regards

According to the suggestions of our article by the reviewer, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:

Reviewer	Comment	Response
REWIEWER2	The abstract may be improved by including more detailed findings; it may also include the conclusion of the study.	The abstract is expanded, mentioning the main results and the most important conclusion, according to the reviewer's suggestions and without exceeding the maximum number of words, according to the indications of the journal
REWIEWER2	In your search strategy, I suggest that you identify, under a sub-heading, the inclusion criteria, the same as what you did with the exclusion criteria. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used by studies to estimate exclusion rates.	The inclusion criteria section is added according to the reviewer's instructions
REWIEWER2	The meaning of CI in CI1, CI2 and CI3 in the exclusion criteria is Confidence Interval. An abbreviation list may be needed to identify some abbreviations introduced not known to a general readership.	For this research, CI does not refer to confidence intervals, since it does not apply to this type of study. However, with the purpose of clarifying the meaning of the acronyms, they are modified by EC, alluding to "Exclusion Criteria", which is what is actually referred to in the text.
REWIEWER2	I also suggest the risk-of-bias assessment in your methodology. I am interested in knowing the systematic approach to trial selection (e.g., systematic search of the literature) or a clearly stated justification for the choice of literature and whether that justification was judged to be adequate. Studies are considered to be at low risk of bias if the selection rationale is clearly stated and judged to be justifiable; otherwise, they will be considered to be at high risk of bias.	The first paragraph of the "Selection process" subsection is readjusted, mentioning the article selection process in the literature review, referring to an individual stage, and a group stage, so that this process can reduce the bias in the application of criteria of exclusion
REWIEWER2	Figure 1 may be renamed as PRISMA flow diagram of identification, screening and eligibility assessment.	PRISMA flow diagram is renamed as directed by the reviewer
REWIEWER2	The Discussion of the findings is robust.  For improvement of the discussion, I suggest that Implications for policy, practice and research may be included.	Implications for policy, practice and research are added to the discussion.

 

We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you very much

 

_

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf