ICT Skills in the Deployment of 21st Century Skills: A (Cognitive) Developmental Perspective through Early Childhood
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is necessary to give more detail about the findings and main conclusion in the summary (cut out the initial important part).
It is important to state more explicitly the problem, the need addressed and the objective in the introduction.
There is no review of the literature detached from the development of the content. The orientation defined from the theoretical and from the investigative is not clear
It is absolutely necessary to have a methodological section that explains in a replicable and detailed way how to get to the ways of implementing ICT skills
It is necessary to propose a better structure in the face of the ways of implementing ICT skills, it does not seem like a results section but rather a literature review in need of greater added and critical value.
A discussion section should be added where the practical implications of the study are clearly expressed, its added value and contrasted with the proposal of other authors.
Author Response
Thank you for your helpful comments. Please find our detailed answers attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic of the paper is interesting and deserves attention: the tentative to propose ICT-based activities in order to spur on 21st century skills constitutes an important issue nowadays.
However, article's development does not seem to cope with some major problems - although they are mentioned in the paper.
The major concern refers to child's development. Alongside with technical and cognitive skills allowing or not some ICT manipulation, physiological, psychological and linguistic skills are at heart of i) various competences, & ii) determine the necessary or suitable character of a specific activity or skill.
Another concern is about the definition of skills or competences and the lack of discussion of their perimeter (for instance, critical thinking is not only about "good" and "fake" information - critical scientific thinking covers a wider area and implies analysis and not merely recognition of some specific polarity). Inasmuch as the viewpoint on the skill determines the activity domain and objectives, this interrelation should not be neglected.
Finally, what governs the choice of the proposed activities: a philosophical position or "technical" choices?
A point of detail: the introduction does not hint the problematic of the paper in a sufficiently explicit manner.
Please find enclosed the commented paper that points more specifically my major concerns exposed above.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and suggestions. They helped us greatly in revising our manuscript. Please find our detailed answers to your queries attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well-structured and fulfills the objectives that have been defined. The topic has been addressed in different articles, but the strength of this one is that it synthesizes many studies, orienting them towards the identified key competencies.
In the methodology, it is suggested that the method of literature review be better explained because it is not indicated whether it was systematic, critical, integrative, etc. It should be explained in a clearer way so that the reader can understand this aspect.
Regarding the bibliography, there are few references to current studies that illustrate how the latest technologies and systems such as artificial intelligence, robotics, etc. have been integrated into the classroom. Most of the references contained in the study refer to sources that are more than 5 years old.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We thank you for your encouraging and helpful comments. We feel that our manuscript benefited from your valuable insights.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have responded to the improvements and requirements raised
Author Response
We thank you again for your helpful comments and queries.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the revision and the detailed cover letter.
While I understand your arguments, I still find that neither the title, nor the abstract or introduction do reflect the focus on cognitive development. Besides, how do you define (by yourself or based on the review) the perimeter of “cognitive development”?
If you submit this paper as a review article, it is expected to add a column “outcomes” for the studies reviewed in Table 2.
Best regards,
Author Response
We thank you again for your helpful comments. Please, find our detailed answers in the document attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your thorough revision.
