Chatbot Design and Implementation: Towards an Operational Model for Chatbots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Having analysed the manuscript presented, I congratulate the authors for the idea chosen as it designs the implementation of a chatbot system in today's society is of vital importance and to which all types of users as well as entrepreneurs should adapt in order to meet the demand of society in these aspects.

I also congratulate the authors because both the structure and the monitoring of the work has been relatively easy since all the parts exposed have been done with clarity and objectivity, perhaps as points to improve we should highlight the following:

Firstly, any research article that intends to be published in a high impact journal must be based on a review of the literature that justifies the state of the art so far as well as the objectives of the research and the importance of the topic addressed. In this case, the manuscript lacks this section, as the introduction simply provides a general justification of the importance of the topic addressed, on the basis of which I advise the authors to introduce a literature review section with dates and bibliographical reviews, and to introduce a literature review section with dates and updated work on the topic.

Similarly, the development of this section will give rise to the formulation of a hypothesis, which the authors have introduced in the introductory section, and I recommend that they be included in a complementary section derived from the review of the literature carried out so far, in which the research gap covered by this research is specified. This section would be part of the authors' section three. I recommend that table four and table six be modified so that the author sees the information more summarised and identifiable, and if the authors wish to expand on the information or advice, it should be included in the annexes. Similarly, the content of table 7 appears which can also be considered quite extensive.

Similarly, by removing the research hypotheses from the introduction, I suggest that the introductory section should only contain a justification of the importance of the topic covered as well as a brief reference to the literature that exists so far, leading to the specification of the research gap covered as well as the main parts of the research.

Section two would then become section 3 describing the methodology used within which I advise that it should be based on the research gap covered and mentioned above.

I recommend including a discussion section where a comparison is made between the review of the literature developed so far and the contributions of the research work, which will be linked to section 44 applications of the model.

Once all these proposals for improvement have been considered by the authors, it was necessary to carry out a new review before making a decision on publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses 3 research questions exploring the range of issues that confront those involved in chatbot implementation projects. Authors present a new model for successful implementation of chatbots, that can be of interest to researchers involved in the implementation of these assistants.

One significative drawback of the research is the reduced number os interviews presented in section 2.2., only 15. Also, only 5 experts for validation (section 2.2), with 2 of then involved in several role, is also in my opinion a very reduced number to be sufficient to guarantee scientific relevance of it. 

In section 3 is lack of information about how the literature review was made. The method followed to carry out this literature review remains to be presented here. This is importante in scientific terms. This makes the manuscript’s results not clearly reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.

Between 5 and 5.1 some introductory text is needed.

 Figures/tables/images/schemes are, in my opinion, appropriate.

Should make sure that the way the references are placed follows the rules of the magazine. Some use date with bold other not, etc. Also some references are very old, 1079. Must be confirmed by authors if more recente sources can be more adjusted for the paper contribution. Recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant would be preferred.

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After analyzing the new version provided by the authors, I consider that it can be published in its current format since it has made and justified the modifications that it had proposed.