PONE-D-24-05416Artificial intelligence in Human Resource Development:  An umbrella review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yoo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio L. García-Izquierdo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Doctor Yoo,

I finally received the feedback from our reviewers. Their comments pinpoint critical weaknesses that should be addressed. If you can manage the following comments, you can significantly improve the quality of your manuscript. Be aware that my decision should not be assumed as a preliminary acceptance of your research. Given the topic of your work amid the emergence of artificial intelligence, the manuscript has some merits, but the document demands major revisions following suggestions provided as follows:

Reviewer #1

Here are my comments on this manuscript to improve its clarity:

• I recommend citing and reviewing the updated PRISMA document, "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews" published in BMJ 2021; 372 doi: <https: 10.1136="" bmj.n71="" doi.org="">.

• Consider supplementing the database search with AI tools such as Perplexity and Consensus.

• I was unable to access the supplementary files, so I cannot provide comments on them.

• The authors mention that they will use a different program than Covidence for information extraction since it only allows two coders. Please specify which program will be used.

• It is unclear which descriptive statistics will be used and which programming language will be utilized for this purpose. Is R being used?

• Additionally, will inferential statistics be employed in the study?

• Data and all analyses should be placed in a repository and the URL provided in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2

In their work, the authors explored different ways to define research terms based on a initial search with key terms such as artificial intelligence, large language model, machine learning and human resource, from which they extracted more specific terms and also included some trendy terms related with analytics, and after that, the relevance of the resulting terms were validated using the VOSViewer software, to finally propose a search string to developing the review in databases such as Scopus or WoS.

Unfortunately, the proposed protocol describes a search process in which the authors made some decisions that made the protocol very specific, when they included, for instance, terms related with analytics, only because they are trendy.

Another aspect affecting the replicability of the protocol is that the authors do not list, in the references, the 16 studies from which extract AI-related and HDR search terms.

For these reasons, from my point of view, the protocol presented here is not replicable.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions</https:>

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Here are my comments on this manuscript to improve its clarity:

• I recommend citing and reviewing the updated PRISMA document, "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews" published in BMJ 2021; 372 doi: <https: 10.1136="" bmj.n71="" doi.org="">.

• Consider supplementing the database search with AI tools such as Perplexity and Consensus.

• I was unable to access the supplementary files, so I cannot provide comments on them.

• The authors mention that they will use a different program than Covidence for information extraction since it only allows two coders. Please specify which program will be used.

• It is unclear which descriptive statistics will be used and which programming language will be utilized for this purpose. Is R being used?

• Additionally, will inferential statistics be employed in the study?

• Data and all analyses should be placed in a repository and the URL provided in the manuscript.

Best regards,

FMR</https:>

Reviewer #2: After reading the manuscript title “Artificial intelligence in Human Resource Development: An umbrella review protocol” in which the authors present a protocol to development a umbrella review about the use of AI in HRD focused only in review articles. In their work, the authors exploring different ways to define research terms based on a initial search with key terms such as artificial intelligence, large language model, machine learning and human resource, from which they extract more specific terms and also include some trendy terms related with analytics, and after that, the relevance of the resulting terms were validated using the VOSViewer software, to finally proposed a search string to developing the review in databases such as Scopus or WoS.

Unfortunately, the proposed protocol describes a search process in which the authors made some decisions that made the protocol very specific, when they included, for instance, terms related with analytics, only because they are trendy.

Another aspect affecting the replicability of the protocol is that the authors do not list, in the references, the 16 studies from which extract AI-related and HDR search terms.

For these reasons, from my point of view, the protocol presented here is not replicable.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-05416R1Artificial intelligence in Human Resource Development:  An umbrella review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yoo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan C Correa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Yoo,

I have read the most recent version of the manuscript and I think it addresses the reviewers' comments. Based on reviewers' comments and my own reading of your manuscript, I think your paper have shown a reasonable review protocol. There is, however, a final minor detail regarding your manuscript that will be of great value for our readers. In the last version of the manuscript, you mentioned: "R will be utilized for statistical analysis and visualization." This statement is quite generic and provides no clear guidance. Please be specific regarding the libraries or packages you are going to use. For example, if you plan to do some data visualizations, be aware you can use standard libraries such as R base, or more specialized libraries such as "ggplot2" or "ggstatsplot." Likewise, some analyses can take advantage of using network data such as "igraph" or "statnet" (for authors co-citations analysis) and/or textual data by using packages such as "quanteda" or "tidytext." Be aware that some of these data analysis and data visualizations can be easily achieved with "bibliometrix" and its shiny app "biblioshiny." A short statement illustrating these intended resources can be achieved by including one or two sentences with some of these details. Once these inclusions are addressed, the manuscript can be accepted.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Artificial intelligence in Human Resource Development:  An umbrella review protocol

PONE-D-24-05416R2

Dear Dr. Yoo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan Correa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: