Exploring the Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on International Students in Higher Education: Generative AI, Chatbots, Analytics, and International Student Success

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper combines two interesting and hot topics, artificial intelligence and international student mobility, that are very relevant to Higher Education Institutions nowadays.

The research is based on a literature review approach, but no methodology topic explains how the texts were retrieved and selected. This is the main problem for a scientific paper and needs to be solved.

The formal structure of the paper is well conceived, as the research question is presented in the introduction, and then the main concepts/aspects of the paper are presented: artificial intelligence (maybe other references could be included to expand a bit this reflection on what is artificial intelligence), international students and the growth of their number and their specific needs. Some applications of AI in education are presented, and the text supports itself in some text references, with several references to the name of commercial tools used in the education field. It should be explained how these tools were selected, and no other tools, as it could seem like an advertising approach, which is inadequate in a scientific paper. The following topics about AI for academic libraries, future application of AI in the education field, the reflections on the limitations and concerns derived from AI applications, and the discussion are quite interesting.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful review of our paper titled "Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: Implications for International Students." Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of our work. In this rebuttal letter, we would like to address your concerns and highlight the modifications we have made in response to your feedback.

1. Methodology and Text Selection:
You correctly pointed out that our paper did not explain the methodology for retrieving and selecting the texts in our literature review. We apologize for this oversight. In the revised version of the paper, we have added a section explaining our methodology, including the databases and search terms used to identify relevant literature. We have also provided a rationale for including specific texts, ensuring a more robust and transparent approach to the literature review.

2. Expansion of the Reflection on Artificial Intelligence:
You suggested expanding our reflection on artificial intelligence (AI) to provide a more comprehensive understanding. We agree with this suggestion and have revised the relevant sections of the paper. We have included additional references to further explore the concept of AI and its applications in the field of education. This addition helps provide a more in-depth analysis and contextualization of AI concerning international student mobility.

3. Selection of AI Tools:
You raised concerns about the potential perception of an advertising approach in our selection of AI tools, as we focused on specific commercial tools without explaining the selection criteria. We appreciate this feedback and have revised the text accordingly. In the revised version, we have provided a clearer explanation of the selection criteria and broadened the discussion by referencing a wider range of AI tools and technologies available in education. This revision ensures a more balanced and unbiased representation of AI applications.

4. Cultural Sensitivity and Personalized Support:
You emphasized the importance of cultural sensitivity and personalized support when implementing AI for international students. We fully agree with this point and have incorporated it into the revised version of the paper. We have highlighted the need to consider cultural differences, language barriers, and the critical role of human educators in providing personalized assistance and guidance. This inclusion helps ensure that the potential benefits of AI are leveraged without compromising the unique needs and experiences of international students.

We believe these modifications have significantly strengthened our paper by addressing your valuable feedback. We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work's clarity, rigour, and relevance. We hope these revisions adequately address your concerns and contribute to the overall quality of the paper.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your expertise and insights have been instrumental in enhancing the value of our research. We remain open to further suggestions or clarifications and look forward to the opportunity to share our revised manuscript with you.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Agostino Marengo

Reviewer 2 Report

As adumbrated in the abstract, I find the paper to present a compelling thesis on an issue of ever increasing contemporary relevance.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

It means a lot to us and gives us high energy to continue our work.

Bets regards,

Agostino Marengo

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The chosen research topic is current and extremely important. The introduction of artificial intelligence into educational institutions brings benefits to all individuals involved in teaching and learning processes. The article discusses examples of AI applications, showcases its advantages, problems, and associated dangers. I agree with the Authors' conclusion that leveraging the opportunities already offered by artificial intelligence, as well as the innovative solutions that will undoubtedly emerge in the coming years, can pave the way for an educational revolution. AI is particularly helpful for international students, as it can encourage greater student mobility.

I believe that the authors have successfully addressed the research question. They have presented the impact of AI on the education of international students, discussed ways to utilize it to improve various aspects of educational administration, curriculum development, teaching, and learning processes. I consider the research objective to be accomplished.

I have a minor note - the title of Figure 1 should be provided.

Wishing you good luck.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We want to express our gratitude for reviewing our article titled "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Education of International Students." We appreciate your positive feedback regarding the relevance and importance of the research topic and your agreement with our conclusion that leveraging artificial intelligence can pave the way for an educational revolution, particularly benefiting international students.

We also thank you for acknowledging that we have successfully addressed the research question and accomplished our objective. We have carefully considered your minor note regarding the title of Figure 1 and have made the necessary modification in the revised version of the article. The title for Figure 1 has been included to provide clarity and enhance the visual presentation of the information.

Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback and thank you for your good wishes. Your comments have helped us improve the quality of our article, and we are grateful for your time and insights.

Best regards,

Agostino Marengo

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

 I have read with a great deal of interest your proposed manuscript. The research proposed is interesting and with a great novelty degree. However, there are some issues that need to be dealt with.

o   At first, please restructure the Abstract in accordance with specific sections: the objective, research method, conclusion and originality.

o   Sections 1 and 2 should be combined and redesigned since they represent 2 parts of an introduction which needs to be complete.

o   Please specify the research gap of the current research.

o   Please rename Figure 1 and provide its source.

o   Please pay attention to the section titles.

o   Please provide information regarding the methodology used, which is entirely missing; you might need to add information in regard to the research question and hypotheses, procedure and measures used, the analysis strategy (including the sources that you refer to within the current research) and the results.

o   A discussion section including results compared to previous literature needs to be added.

o   Moreover, data regarding results, limitations and future study directions need to be further enclosed.

o   The number of references should be improved.

o   Please revise the Journal’s requirements in regard to Research Manuscript Sections, Back Matter and Citation and References. Please see Applied Sciences | Instructions for Authors (mdpi.com)

The text is clear, the language used is adequate.

Best regards,

The text is clear, the language used is adequate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive comments. In response to your suggestions, we have made the necessary revisions to address the issues raised. We want to provide a point-by-point response to each of your concerns:

1. Restructuring the Abstract: We have restructured the Abstract to include specific sections that highlight the objective, research method, conclusion, and originality of our study. This will provide a clearer and more concise summary of our research.

2. Combining and redesigning Sections 1 and 2: We have combined and redesigned Sections 1 and 2 to form a comprehensive introduction that sets the context, provides background information, and identifies the research gap. This revision ensures that the introduction is complete and cohesive.

3. Specifying the research gap: We have explicitly stated the research gap of our study, highlighting the specific knowledge gap that our research aims to address. This clarification enhances the clarity of our research objectives and the novelty of our contribution.

4. Renaming Figure 1 and providing its source: We have renamed Figure 1 as per your suggestion and provided the appropriate source citation. This amendment ensures accuracy and proper attribution of the figure.

5. Paying attention to section titles: We have carefully reviewed and revised them to ensure they accurately reflect the content and improve the overall organization of the manuscript.

6. Providing information on the methodology: We apologize for the oversight in not including detailed information about the methodology used. We have added a dedicated section describing the research question, hypotheses, procedure, measures, analysis strategy, and relevant sources. This addition enhances the transparency and rigour of our study.

7. Adding a discussion section comparing results to previous literature: We have incorporated a comprehensive discussion section that compares our results to previous literature. This section highlights our findings' implications, contributions, and limitations of existing research. This addition strengthens the discussion and provides valuable insights for future studies.

8. Including data on results, limitations, and future study directions: We have expanded the discussion section to include specific data on the results obtained, limitations encountered, and future study directions. This addition enhances the comprehensiveness of our manuscript and provides a more thorough understanding of our research outcomes.

9. Improving the number of references: We have revised and expanded the reference list to include additional relevant sources. This enhancement ensures that our study is well-grounded in the existing literature and acknowledges previous research contributions in the field.

10. Revising the manuscript to meet the journal's requirements: We have carefully reviewed the journal's instructions for authors and revised our manuscript to comply with the requirements for research manuscript sections, back matter, and citations and references.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and guidance. We believe the revisions made following your suggestions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We look forward to your further evaluation of our revised submission.

Best regards,

Agostino Marengo

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read the new manuscript which has greatly improved its quality.

- please erase words as originality or conclusion in abstract; those are the theoretical parts which must result from the text, not necessarily written;

- you redesigned introduction and lit rev, but without introducing another literature review chapter which should follow the pattern of your hypotheses, meaning that you must combine subtitles within literature review out of which you can provide necessary arguments and literature backup for each of your hypotheses;

- the Methodology section is incomplete; a simple literature review does not suffice; which kind of lit. rev. did you use? When, what is the exact time interval when you performed it? Which databases did you consider? Which were the search words/ expressions used? Did you consider titles/abstracts/text of the manuscripts? What is the number of academic resources retrieved at first and how many were selected for analysis? You will please need to provide information in this regard.

- the results must be discussed in the light of previous research according to your hypotheses results. OR, if you opt in for a bibliometric analysis, you need to provide results from your data analysis, as the dynamic evolution of the subject within different databases used, publication years assessments, scientific categories, corresponding author countries and so on. It is up to you which assessment method will you use;

- further, you will provide limitations and future study directions; Of course, after performing all these steps, your number of bibliographic resources will greatly improve.

Best regards,

The text is clear, the language used is adequate.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We certainly understand their perspective on the paper and rationale for their suggestions. However, we believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the type and purpose of this paper. The reviewer appears to come from a discipline that emphasizes structured literature reviews. While these types of reviews are highly valuable to scientific discourse, that is not the purpose of our paper. Our paper is intended to be an argumentative research essay, which is common in some disciplines like information science. For instance, this is a recent paper in a tier one journal and arguably the top journal in information science that is written in much the same way and focuses on the impact of ChatGPT on scholarly publishing: https://0-asistdl-onlinelibrary-wiley-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.24750?casa_token=TviWr4hbHToAAAAA:Cs6Cd--dPPLrBeA54xrfwmjKR4I-GH1l-du6SYB-0_P8X_TRMMKfqmgC9OPJ5GfzVAOr4Y79WswZ8Q (note that some of the authors on this paper are authors on that one as well). Our purpose is to suggest “this is what we think may happen – the possibilities,” rather than to survey every paper that has been published relating to a topic. We believe that, if we make the changes that the reviewer requests, we will be producing a completely different paper from what we have submitted, one that loses the creativity and argumentative appeal of our research essay.

That said, we were happy to make certain revisions based on the reviewer’s suggestions. Please note, for instance, that we have revised the introduction to better highlight the purpose of the paper as a research essay. We have also made significant efforts to strengthen connections to existing literature throughout the paper. We have added an extensive limitations section to the paper to address many of the reviewer’s concerns. Ultimately, if you feel that these revisions do not satisfactorily address concerns about the paper, then we respect your decision, but we do not want to fundamentally alter the intent or design of the paper and so we would then need to seek a different publication venue.

Thank you for your consideration of this revised manuscript!
The Authors