Dear reviewer, terima kasih sudah meluangkan waktu membaca paper kita dengan sangat detail, bahkan umumnya bapak ibu tanpa dibayar saat melakukan review. Jadi, sebelum defensif, be grateful, be open-minded, and stay humble.

Dulu, setiap menerima reviewer comments, saya selalu melihat dulu: bagian mana yang paling banyak dikomentari? Biasanya dari sana mulai terlihat apa yang sebenarnya masih kurang dari paper kita.

Ada komentar yang substantif—argumen kurang kuat, novelty belum terlihat, atau metode perlu diperjelas. Ada juga yang teknis, misalnya diminta menambahkan grafik, tabel, atau diagram supaya paper lebih mudah dibaca.

Satu hal yang saya pelajari: jangan buru-buru revisi. Saya biasanya membaca komentar reviewer berulang kali. Kadang setelah dibaca kedua atau ketiga kali, baru paham, “Oh, ternyata maksud reviewer bukan itu.” 😄

Saat masih mahasiswa, apapu perubahan saya diskusikan juga dengan pembimbing. Kadang satu komentar reviewer bisa terlihat sangat berbeda setelah dibaca oleh pembimbing kita.
Buat saya, revisi is part of learning how to become a better researcher.

#AcademicWriting#PeerReview#PhDJourney#ResearchTips#AcademicPublishing

Sample of Response to Reviewer

Response to Reviewer 1

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for the careful, thorough, and highly constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise invested in providing detailed comments and recommendations. The reviewer’s insightful observations prompted us to strengthen several important aspects of the manuscript, including the articulation of the research gap, the theoretical foundation, methodological transparency, statistical reporting, interpretation of findings, and discussion of limitations. We believe that these revisions have substantially improved the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of the study. We have carefully considered each comment and provide a detailed response below.

Section 1. Objectives and Rationale of the Study

No.	Reviewer Comment	Response	Revision Made
1.1	The rationale would benefit from a more explicit articulation of the research gap.	Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the research gap required clearer articulation.	Added explicit discussion contrasting the increasing integration of AI in education with the limited research focusing on scientific practices, particularly observation practices.
1.2	The authors should provide a stronger theoretical justification for focusing specifically on observation practices.	We appreciate this insightful recommendation.	Expanded the discussion of observation as a foundational scientific practice and explained its role in scientific inquiry, evidence generation, reasoning, and knowledge construction.
1.3	The link between plant adaptation as the chosen learning context and the study objectives should be explained more explicitly.	Thank you for this important observation.	Added justification for using plant adaptation as the learning context, highlighting its requirement for prolonged, repeated, and comparative observation of subtle biological changes.
1.4	The rationale should better explain why AI-based plant identifiers were selected as the technological intervention.	We appreciate this suggestion and have strengthened the rationale accordingly.	Expanded the discussion of AI-based plant identifiers, including their unique affordances compared with traditional field guides and digital reference materials, such as real-time identification, immediate feedback, and iterative validation opportunities.
1.5	The transition from the literature review to the research questions could be improved.	Thank you for this helpful recommendation.	Added a synthesis paragraph summarizing the key gaps identified in the literature and explicitly connecting these gaps to the objectives and research questions of the study.
1.6	The authors should clarify the conceptual relationship between AI assistance, observation practices, and epistemic development.	We appreciate this valuable suggestion.	Added a conceptual framework section and accompanying figure illustrating the relationships among AI-mediated observation, empirical observation, peer validation, and the development of observation practices.
1.7	The study objectives should be stated more explicitly.	Thank you for this recommendation. We agree that the aims of the study should be more clearly stated.	Added a dedicated paragraph immediately before the research questions explicitly stating the overall aims and intended focus of the study.
1.8	The manuscript would benefit from a clearer statement of its anticipated theoretical and practical contributions.	We appreciate this important observation.	Expanded the Introduction to clarify the anticipated contributions of the study to science education research, AI-assisted learning, and educational practice.
1.9	Explicitly contrast the limited research focusing on scientific practices with the increasing integration of AI in education.	Thank you for this constructive suggestion.	Revised the problem statement to explicitly highlight the tension between the rapid growth of AI integration in education and the limited attention given to scientific practices such as observation.
1.10	Explicitly mention that the study aims to understand how AI serves as an epistemic scaffold.	We appreciate this recommendation.	Added discussion positioning AI as a potential epistemic scaffold and clarified its possible role in supporting observation and inquiry processes while using cautious, non-causal language.
1.11	Ensure the research questions are echoed in the concluding paragraph of the Introduction.	Thank you for this helpful suggestion.	Revised the concluding section of the Introduction to reinforce the research focus and establish a clearer transition to the research questions.

Section 2. Replicability and Reproducibility

No.	Reviewer Comment	Response	Revision Made
2.1	The authors should provide a more detailed description of the AI-based plant identification application used in the study.	Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that additional information regarding the AI application would improve replicability.	Added the application name (PictureThis), version number, core functions, and a detailed description of the outputs available to students during observations.
2.2	The learning procedures require further detail.	We appreciate this important recommendation.	Expanded the description of learning procedures by specifying the duration of each phase, number of observation sessions, session length, learning instructions, and student activities.
2.3	The description of participants should be expanded.	Thank you for this suggestion.	Added a participant demographics table including age range, grade level, gender distribution, and educational context.
2.4	The manuscript should clarify the discrepancy between the reported sample size of 84 students and the quantitative analyses based on 15 groups.	We appreciate this observation and have clarified the analytical procedures.	Explained group formation procedures, justified the use of groups as the analytical unit, and clarified how group scores were generated.

do you need full file of this response? just text me at pipih@stai-siliwangi.ac.id