Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education

Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522" }, "headline": "Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education", "datePublished": "2026-04-15T10:40:06", "dateModified": "2026-04-15T10:40:06", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Consuelo Nora Casimiro Urcos" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Walther Hernan Casimiro Urcos" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Nancy Elizabeth Alberca Pintado" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Reynaldo Marcial Ostos Miraval" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Miguel Alfredo Carrasco Muñoz" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Livia Cristina Piñas Rivera" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "This systematic review analyzed the scientific evidence published between 2020 and August 2025 on pedagogical innovations, digital environments, and university experiences. Its objective was to characterize how these categories have been investigated in terms of contributions, limitations, and results in higher education. Eligibility criteria were established that included studies (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) developed exclusively in university contexts, with explicit methodological design, defined sample, peer review, and accessible data. Reviews, grey literature, articles without a specific sample or with unmitigated methodological bias were excluded. The sources of information were Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, SciELO, among others. The last search was carried out in August 2025, closing with the identification of 539 studies; of these, 39 met the inclusion criteria. Participants were university students, teachers, and experts (total = 9927) from different regions of the world, with sample sizes ranging from 7 to 3268; the average was 254.54. A validated instrument was applied to assess risk of bias, classifying studies as low risk (n = 22), moderate (n = 17), and high risk (n = 0). The results were synthesized through thematic analysis and tabulation of methodological characteristics. Improvements were reported in motivation, self-regulation, academic performance, and digital skills, although gaps in connectivity, teacher training, and institutional sustainability persisted. The results suggest that the impact of educational technology depends mainly on pedagogical design, teaching accompaniment and university policies." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1", "name": "Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review..." } } ] } Home Browse Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Casimiro Urcos CN, Casimiro Urcos WH, Alberca Pintado NE et al. Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176682.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Consuelo Nora Casimiro Urcos 1 , Walther Hernan Casimiro Urcos 1 , Nancy Elizabeth Alberca Pintado 2 , Reynaldo Marcial Ostos Miraval 3 , Miguel Alfredo Carrasco Muñoz 3 , Livia Cristina Piñas Rivera 1 Consuelo Nora Casimiro Urcos 1 , Walther Hernan Casimiro Urcos 1 , [...] Nancy Elizabeth Alberca Pintado 2 , Reynaldo Marcial Ostos Miraval 3 , Miguel Alfredo Carrasco Muñoz 3 , Livia Cristina Piñas Rivera 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 Author details Author details 1 National University of Education Enrique Guzman y Valle, Lima District, Lima Region, 15472, Peru 2 National University of San Marcos, Lima District, Lima Region, 150101, Peru 3 Uneval, National University Hermilio Valdizan, Huanuco, Huanuco, 10001, Peru Consuelo Nora Casimiro Urcos Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Walther Hernan Casimiro Urcos Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Nancy Elizabeth Alberca Pintado Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Reynaldo Marcial Ostos Miraval Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Miguel Alfredo Carrasco Muñoz Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Livia Cristina Piñas Rivera Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract This systematic review analyzed the scientific evidence published between 2020 and August 2025 on pedagogical innovations, digital environments, and university experiences. Its objective was to characterize how these categories have been investigated in terms of contributions, limitations, and results in higher education. Eligibility criteria were established that included studies (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) developed exclusively in university contexts, with explicit methodological design, defined sample, peer review, and accessible data. Reviews, grey literature, articles without a specific sample or with unmitigated methodological bias were excluded. The sources of information were Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, SciELO, among others. The last search was carried out in August 2025, closing with the identification of 539 studies; of these, 39 met the inclusion criteria. Participants were university students, teachers, and experts (total = 9927) from different regions of the world, with sample sizes ranging from 7 to 3268; the average was 254.54. A validated instrument was applied to assess risk of bias, classifying studies as low risk (n = 22), moderate (n = 17), and high risk (n = 0). The results were synthesized through thematic analysis and tabulation of methodological characteristics. Improvements were reported in motivation, self-regulation, academic performance, and digital skills, although gaps in connectivity, teacher training, and institutional sustainability persisted. The results suggest that the impact of educational technology depends mainly on pedagogical design, teaching accompaniment and university policies. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Pedagogical innovation, digital environments, higher education, systematic review, digital competences. Corresponding Author(s) Consuelo Nora Casimiro Urcos ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Consuelo Nora Casimiro Urcos Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Casimiro Urcos CN et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Casimiro Urcos CN, Casimiro Urcos WH, Alberca Pintado NE et al. Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176682.1 ) First published: 15 Apr 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176682.1 ) Latest published: 15 Apr 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176682.1 ) 1. Introduction Higher education is going through a structural transformation where pedagogical innovation and digital environments operate inseparably. Thus, institutions have had to respond to the expansion of virtuality, the ubiquity of access to information and the demand for transversal skills; readjusting its curricular architecture and its teaching-learning frameworks. 1 In this transition, recent literature shows two complementary movements: on the one hand, the adoption of active methodologies supported by technologies that enhance student agency, collaboration, and meaningful learning 2 , 3 ; on the other, the design of digital ecosystems –from LMS to laboratories and simulations– that enable experiences previously restricted to the classroom or physical laboratory. 4 , 5 However, these advances confront tensions related to motivation, equity, data ethics and pedagogical sustainability. 6 – 8 Literature review Pedagogical innovations Active methodologies gain power when they are designed “with” and not only “in” technology, that is, when the digital resource is subordinated to clear pedagogical principles – authentic problematization, scaffolding, formative evaluation and timely feedback. Along these lines, Problem-Based Learning (PBL) supported by constructivist environments in the cloud raises creativity and digital skills if it articulates phases of activation, exploration, co-construction and transfer. 3 In postgraduate studies, for example, the PBL self-directed platform hybridization impacts procedural performance and mastery, as long as there are authentic tasks and times for guided reflection. 9 At the level of teacher training, the digital portfolio as the backbone of the Personal Learning Environment (PLE) favors self-regulation, traceability of progress and professional reflective thinking, 10 while flexible itineraries personalize routes according to rhythms, goals and evidence of learning. 11 Likewise, Flipped Learning shows consistent effects when it shifts transmission to the asynchronous, reserving the encounter for problem work, feedback, and metacognition, with gains in motivation and autonomy that are amplified with meaningful gamification. 2 , 12 At the same time, online cooperative learning not only optimizes performance, but also critical socio-affective dimensions –sense of belonging, confidence in discipline, and reduction of academic loneliness–. 13 These improvements are not trivial: they are associated with design conditions such as positive interdependence, individual responsibility, and explicit rules of interaction. In specific disciplinary areas, innovations combine authentic work and technology to maximize transfer. In engineering and construction, projects with Building Information Modeling (BIM) in university-business collaboration integrate sustainability, problem solving and employability. 14 In STEAM, the iterative incorporation of augmented reality (AR), 3D printing and GeoGebra forces continuous pedagogical redesigns and strengthening the adaptive capacity of teachers. 15 In language teaching, digitally mediated Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) improves lexical-grammatical competence when accompanied by distributed practice and formative assessment. Two complementary lines expand the scope of innovation. First, task-focused educational AI: the collaborative simplification of texts with a Personal Learning Network (NLP) improves comprehension and reduces barriers to access dense content if it is integrated with didactic criteria and human feedback. 16 Second, student-centered design: applying Design Thinking to create self-directed environments elevates digital literacy and performance, by aligning real problems, iteration, and evaluation with evidence. 17 This relocates the teacher as a designer of experiences and not only a user of platforms; a line that strengthens professional identity and pedagogical agency. 18 However, future teachers report gaps in empathy, curation, and digital self-presentation, dimensions that the curriculum must explicitly guide. 19 In a more critical key, emphasis is placed on humanizing digital pedagogy so that technology does not aggravate disconnections, but rather facilitates cognitive, social and teaching presence. 20 Digital environments Environments have evolved from LMS ( Learning Management System ) platforms to instructional ecosystems with simulation, virtual instrumentation, analytics, and collaboration layers. In health sciences, a web environment with theory, laboratory and virtual microscopy in parasitology increases self-efficacy and diagnostic transfer when progressively articulating cases and guided practice. 5 In geosciences, virtual microscopy based on open interactive resources expands inclusivity and accessibility without devaluing the disciplinary perceptual experience. 4 Virtual reality (VR) in the humanities makes it possible to “embody” immersion and situate interpretation in contexts that are otherwise unattainable, with effects on motivation and conceptual elaboration. 21 In engineering, asynchronous laboratory models demonstrate that complex practice can migrate to the digital environment if rigorous protocols, measurements, and feedback are ensured. 22 The adaptive potential of these ecosystems is evident when flexible itineraries and resource curation with pedagogical criteria are incorporated. 11 The AI-mediated layer of cognitive supports –for example, text simplification or homework tutors– is useful if it is integrated with transparency, clear boundaries, and teacher evaluation. 16 But not everything is technical: ethical design matters. Students perceive risks in their digital footprint –traceability, profiles and non-consensual uses –which requires data minimization policies, explicit purposes and informed consent. 7 Proposals such as Online Learning as a Commons seek to reverse the asymmetry of power, returning agency over data and rules of use. 8 The non-neutral nature of platforms deserves attention. From a socio-material perspective, the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) configures teaching subjectivities (who speaks, how much, how it is monitored) and conditions of possibility of the class, generating openings, but also tensions –ritualizations of the clickstream , metrics that displace pedagogical judgment–. 23 Therefore, the focus of quality should not be “what platform”, but “what pedagogical-technical assembly” is produced: alignment of objectives, tasks, interactions and evidence; evaluation rules; and guarantees of inclusion, accessibility, and well-being. Higher education: experiences and results University experiences allow us to observe moderating variables and conditions of success. In science courses, flipping with guided activities and serious games increases motivation and autonomy if formative assessment is consistent. 2 In languages and culture, the combination of flipped and collaboration intensifies interaction and co-construction. In periods of abrupt transition (COVID-19), decreases in motivation and uneven success linked to connectivity and support gaps were observed, which reveals that the same digital device can produce opposite results depending on context, design and supports. 6 , 24 In contrast, studies with diversified use of tools find increases in self-efficacy and achievement, especially when students have basic digital skills. 25 The management of the study also changes: digital note-taking in hybrid scenarios shows that agency, affordances and social norms mediate the adoption and perceived value of the tools. 26 At the level of curricula, integrating records and digital curation in archival opens up frontier professional competencies blockchain , forensics, preservation) if the redesign is intentional and evaluated. 27 Finally, experiences emerge that refine the innovation-evaluation relationship. In teacher training and health, virtuality-mediated PBL improves authentic problem design, pedagogical use of platforms and student performance, when accompanied by systematic training and pre-post measurement. 28 In English as a Foreign Language (EFL), LMSs (e.g., Blackboard ) consolidate organization and follow-up, but their effect depends on the quality of interactions and feedback. 29 The cross-cutting lesson is clear: technology enables, but pedagogical design explains the results. Problematic situation Despite the systematized advances in this study, heterogeneities and gaps persist that justify the review. (i) Disparate results: positive effects on motivation, self-regulation, and achievement coexist with declines in motivation and performance in forced virtualization, moderated by age, level, and access. 6 , 11 , 24 , 25 (ii) Asymmetries of access and competition: the effects depend on connectivity, resources and digital capital of students and teachers. 23 (iii) Ethics and governance: the massive adoption of analytics and traceability, without clear protocols, erodes the learner’s confidence and capacity, both to make conscious decisions and to plan, choose and take responsibility for their own learning. 7 , 8 (iv) Pedagogical sustainability: short-term studies abound, longitudinal and comparative designs that estimate persistence of effects and transfer are lacking. 3 , 12 (v) Disciplinary bias: health, education and languages concentrate evidence, while arts, humanities and social sciences are underrepresented, although VR and cultural projects point to promising paths. 21 , 30 (vi) Professional identity: the shift of the teaching role towards the design of experiences is desirable, but it requires the development of curatorial competencies, social presence and ethics, which are not always addressed by training. 18 , 19 (vii) Critical dimension: platforms configure practices and subjectivities, ignoring this mediation makes invisible tensions that affect quality and well-being. 23 In short, the field demands integrative frameworks that articulate instructional quality, inclusion, ethics, and evaluation with evidence. This research sought to answer: What scientific evidence exists on pedagogical innovations, digital environments, and experiences and results in higher education, considering the analysis of their main contributions and limitations reported in the literature? The general objective was to analyze the scientific evidence on pedagogical innovations, digital environments, and experiences and results in higher education, in order to characterize how these categories have been investigated based on the analysis of their main contributions and limitations reported in the literature. 2. Methodology The review adhered to the methodological guidelines set out in the PRISMA 2020 Declaration, which provided the framework for transparently and rigorously planning, executing and reporting the processes linked to the analysis of scientific evidence on pedagogical innovations, digital environments, and experiences and outcomes in higher education. 31 Eligibility criteria Original studies published between 2020 and August 2025, exclusively in the field of higher education, which explicitly addressed some of the categories of analysis, were considered as inclusion criteria: pedagogical innovations, digital environments, or experiences and results in university contexts. Research with quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches was considered, provided that in the latter case they complemented both methods and offered a complete and transparent methodological description. Only articles available in full text (in any language), published in indexed scientific journals with explicit peer review processes (double-blind or open) and full accessibility of data –including tables, figures and annexes– that would enable an exhaustive analysis and a thorough extraction of relevant information for the subsequent synthesis process were considered. Only texts with demonstrated quality were selected, assessed using risk of bias analysis tools used in this review, so as to endorse methodological rigor. Duplicate studies (identified in the different search phases), systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded as they did not correspond to primary evidence. Purely exploratory original research was discarded, without developing analytical categories linked to pedagogical innovations, digital environments or experiences and results in higher education, as well as studies published outside the established period. Manuscripts from journals without a robust and verifiable peer review process were excluded, as well as research funded exclusively by companies with potential direct commercial conflict of interest, except in cases where the mechanisms in place to mitigate potential bias were explicitly stated. Sources classified as gray literature (web pages, general search engines, technical reports, institutional reports, theses or academic dissertations) were not considered, as they did not meet the criteria of rigor, accessibility and scientific validation required in this study. Sources of information To identify the preliminary studies, an intensive and comprehensive search was carried out in various sources of information that potentially met the eligibility criteria, mainly databases and repositories of international scope such as Scopus, Web of Science, Springer, ScienceDirect, Scielo, and others. According to Table 1 , each source was consulted more than once to minimize the likelihood of bias and reinforce completeness. The search strategy was adapted to the characteristics of each database and its registration was carried out in the Mendeley bibliographic manager, selected for its effectiveness in the collection, organization and filtering of references, detection of duplicates and facilitation of collaborative work in the management of large volumes of information. 32 Table 1. Primary and complementary search strategies. Main search (TITLE (pedagogical innovation) AND TITLE (educational innovation)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA,"all”)) (TITLE (digital learning) AND TITLE (digital environments)) AND PUBYEAR >2019 AND PUBYEAR <2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA,"all”)) (TITLE (digital pedagogy) AND TITLE (digital environments)) (TITLE (educational technology) AND TITLE (digital environments)) (TITLE (technology-enhanced learning) AND TITLE (digital environments)) (TITLE (online learning) AND TITLE (digital environments)) (TITLE (e-learning) AND TITLE (digital environments)) Additional searches (TITLE(“pedagogical innovation”) OR TITLE(“teaching innovation”)) AND (TITLE(“higher education”) OR TITLE(“educational innovation”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA,"all”)) (TITLE(“innovative teaching”) AND TITLE(“digital transformation”)) AND PUBYEAR >2019 AND PUBYEAR <2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“curriculum innovation”) AND TITLE(“digital environments”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“blended learning”) AND TITLE(“digital environments”)) AND PUBYEAR >2020 AND PUBYEAR <2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“virtual learning environments”) AND TITLE(“higher education”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA,"all”)) (TITLE(“adaptive learning”) AND TITLE(“digital environments”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“artificial intelligence in education”) AND TITLE(“digital learning”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA,"all”)) (TITLE(“educational technology”) AND TITLE(“distance education”)) AND PUBYEAR >2020 AND PUBYEAR 2020 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“gamification”) AND TITLE(“digital learning”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (OA,"all”)) (TITLE(“virtual reality”) AND TITLE(“education”)) AND PUBYEAR >2020 AND PUBYEAR <2026 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“sustainable education”) AND TITLE(“digital environments”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“inclusive education”) AND TITLE(“digital transformation”)) AND PUBYEAR >2020 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) (TITLE(“transformative learning”) AND TITLE(“digital innovation”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,"ar”)) Study selection process All potentially relevant records on pedagogical innovations, digital environments and experiences in higher education were processed. In the first phase, duplicates were identified and eliminated, and studies that did not meet eligibility criteria based on the title and abstract were discarded. Articles that passed this stage were reviewed in full text to confirm compliance with inclusion criteria. Finally, an additional critical review was carried out to minimize theoretical and methodological biases; the reasons for exclusion in this phase were documented in a specific table ( Table 3 ). Process for data extraction and risk of bias assessment In this procedure, two researchers extracted data from quantitative studies following the methodological guidelines proposed by 33 in Evaluating survey research in articles published in Library Science journals”. The remaining authors extracted results from qualitative studies, applying the guidelines proposed by 34 in “Validity criteria for qualitative research: three epistemological strands for the same purpose”. The studies with a mixed design were evaluated by the whole team, combining both methodological proposals to ensure a coherent integration of evidence. Although it was planned to use a third evaluator to reach consensus in the event of discrepancies between reviewers regarding the data extracted, this was not necessary. Synthesis methods (tabulation and visual presentation of results) The studies that met the eligibility criteria were organized in the table “General characteristics of the included studies” ( Table 2 ), indicating the total number of studies, Reference citation, country, potential source of bias, and general methodological information. Table 2. General characteristics of the included studies. No. Reference citation Country Bias General methodological information (Approach*** /Design**** /Participants*****) P * D ** 1 5 United Kingdom and Spain 18 Low (L) E: Quantitative. / D: descriptive and cross-sectional. / P: 95 Pharmacy students (4th year), Miguel Hernández University, Elche (Alicante, Spain). 2 35 Costa Rica and Spain 18 B E: Quantitative. / D: Non-experimental, cross-sectional (ex post facto), analysis of personal learning environments (PLE). Q: 1187 university students, National University of Costa Rica. 3 36 Russia 17 Moderate (M) E: Quantitative. / D: Quasi-experimental with cluster analysis. / P: 344 students (183 bachelor’s, 161 master’s, State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow. 4 3 Thailand 17 M E: Mixed (qualitative and quantitative). / D: Design of development and validation of PBL model with constructivist environment in the cloud. / P: Panel of 7 experts in pedagogy and educational technologies. 5 37 Germany 16 M E: Qualitative. /D: design of semi-structured interviews with qualitative content analysis (Mayring). / P: 12 STEM students (bachelor’s and master’s degrees), University of Lübeck, Germany. 6 38 Indonesia 18 L E: Quantitative. / D: Non-experimental, correlational, with structural equation modeling (SEM). / P: 317 university students from the Faculty of Economic and Business Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (Bandung). 7 2 Morocco 18 L E: Mixed. / D : Validation of instrument by means of a questionnaire (Likert, α Cronbach) applied to students; descriptive, ANOVA and correlational analysis. / P: 292 first-year students of Biological Sciences, Hassan II University of Casablanca (Morocco). 8 4 United Kingdom 18 L E: Qualitative-descriptive with empirical validation. / D: Development of digital resource (Thinglink) with interactive microscopic images. / P: 26 people (6 students and 20 teachers), Geosciences programs at Keele University, United Kingdom. 9 6 Russia 17 M E: Quantitative with qualitative complement. / D: Quasi-experimental and descriptive; application of surveys (Likert) and performance tests before and after three months of online teaching. / P: 600 adult students from five private language schools in Moscow, Russia (between 20 and 42 years old). 10 16 United Kingdom and Australia 18 L E: Mixed. / D: Quasi-experimental with control/experimental groups and group focus analysis. Q: 46 university students (23 from Education Studies and 23 from Digital Technology Solutions ), plus 2 professors at Manchester Metropolitan University (United Kingdom) and conceptual collaboration with RMIT (Australia). 11 9 Thailand 16 L E: Quantitative-descriptive. / D: Course development with case-based learning (CBL) assessment in a digital self-learning environment (SDL) with quizzes and rubrics. / P: 14 students of Master’s Degree in Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok. 12 14 Spain and Portugal 17 L E: Mixed. / D: Development of a sustainable industrial project with BIM methodology in a university-business collaborative environment. / P: 35 students of Industrial Engineering, University of Valladolid (Spain), with the collaboration of the University of Lisbon (Portugal) and the participation of companies from the automotive sector. 13 11 Spain 18 L E: Qualitative. / D: Design-based research, developed in iterative cycles of analysis, development, implementation and evaluation of flexible digital itineraries. / P: 206 students of the Primary Education Teacher Category, University of the Balearic Islands. 14 21 USA 18 L E: Mixed. / D: Case study with surveys of students and faculty. / P: 23 students (17 undergraduate, 6 graduate) and 12 professors from Lindenwood University (USA), in courses in Art History and Visual Culture. 15 39 Italy 17 M E: Qualitative. / D: Case study in a university course of English Language and Culture; implementation of flipped classroom and cooperative learning in a digital environment. / P: 58 university students from the Università degli Studi di Milano (Italy). 16 19 Russia 18 L E: Quantitative. / D: Descriptive-correlational with cluster analysis. / P: 200 students of Pedagogy (pre-service teachers), Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia. 17 24 Mexico 17 M E: Qualitative. / D: Exploratory-descriptive, with the application of questionnaires and analysis of teaching and student experiences during confinement. / P: 130 students and 10 teachers from the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. 18 40 Portugal and France 17 M E: Qualitative. / D: Pedagogical case study with three phases (documentary search, heuristic map and audiovisual pitch) integrated in a virtual collaborative environment (Padlet). / P: 18 students (10 from the Master’s Degree in Portuguese as a Foreign Language, Univ. do Minho; 8 from the Bachelor’s Degree in FLE, Univ. Bretagne Sud). 19 25 Saudi Arabia 18 L E: Quantitative. / D: Descriptive, correlational, and comparative, with multiple regression and Rasch analysis for instrument validation. / P: 563 undergraduate students (talented and non-talented) from King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia. 20 17 Thailand 18 L E: Mixed. / D: Design-based research, structured in iterative cycles, integrating design thinking methodology. / P: 10 experts in digital education and entrepreneurship, and 72 university students from King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok. 21 7 United Kingdom 17 M E: Qualitative. / D: Inductive study with focus groups and reflective thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke). Q: 44 undergraduate students from three British universities, organised into 12 focus groups. 22 41 Spain 16 L E: Mixed. / D: Single case study with online training intervention; analysis of asynchronous forums using Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) and cluster analysis. / P: 13 students of a master’s degree in Distance Education, University of Seville (Spain). 23 30 Thailand 17 L E: Qualitative. / D: Based on co-design and Kolb’s experiential learning model; iterative development of a digital platform. / P: 100 individuals, ages 25–44, including consumers and local textile artisans from Nakhon Si, Thailand. 24 42 Brazil 17 M E: Quantitative. / D: Non-experimental, cross-sectional and exploratory. / P: 88 Pedagogy students from a public institution in the state of Pernambuco. 25 43 Russia 17 L E: Quantitative. / D: Quasi-experimental with control and experimental group. / P: 42 university engineering students, Faculty of Energy, Samara State University. 26 13 Norway 16 M E: Quantitative. / D: E interventionstudy, which compared the effect of digital cooperative learning (CA) and digital masterclasses on various psychosocial outcomes. / Q: Participants included 39 women (55%) and 32 men (45%), for a total of 71 participants. 27 12 Colombia 17 L E: Quantitative. / D: Quasi-experimental, with pre-test and post-test in two groups. / P: 60 university students of Systems Engineering at the University of Magdalena, Santa Marta, Colombia. 28 44 Spain 18 L E : Quantitative. / D : Descriptive study with a projectual approach in the classroom (PBL + flipped classroom). / P : 84 university students (3rd year), course in applied linguistics, University of Alicante (Spain) 29 45 Italy 19 L E: Quantitative. / D: Quasi-experimental, with pre-test and post-test. / P: 99 first-year nursing students enrolled in the course “Pathophysiology Applied to Nursing” at a university in northern Italy. 30 46 China 16 M E: Quantitative. / D: Experimental with pretest and posttest in two groups (RA vs. non-RA). / P: 28 university students from the Faculty of Education at the MARA Technical University. 31 26 United Kingdom 17 M E : Mixed. / D : Explanatory sequential. / P : 123 students (various faculties, mostly undergraduate, 65% STEM), Focus groups: 17 students (various levels and disciplines, no representation of health sciences). 32 22 Vietnam 18 M E: Quantitative. /D: experimental. / P: two groups of 200 students, including 100 in the control group (face-to-face practice) and 100 students in the experimental group (online feedback practice). 33 47 Kazakhstan 16 M E: Quantitative. /D: Quasi-experimental. /P: 503 students enrolled in foreign language teaching programmes, distributed as follows: 250 full-time students; 255 distance education students. 34 48 Norway, Spain and Truquía 16 L E: Qualitative. /D: Case study. /P: 86 university students (The course took place over 8 weeks). 35 49 Indonesia 18 L E: Mixed. / D: pre-experimental with pre-test-post-test evaluations. / P: 120 students using the intentional sampling technique. 36 50 Indonesia 19 L E: Quantitative. / D: Cross-sectional-Exploratory. / P: 385 Indonesian university students, analyzed using the structural equation modeling method. 37 29 Saudi Arabia 18 L E: Mixed. / D: Sequential explanatory to explore students’ perceptions of educational technology. / P: 310 students, with varying levels of English proficiency. 38 28 Ecuador 19 L E: Quantitative. /D: longitudinal quasi-experimental . /P: 120 mathematics teachers, enrolled in the Master’s Degree in Education in Digital Environments of the Bolivarian University of Ecuador and their respective students (3148 in total). 39 23 United Arab Emirates 16 M E: Qualitative. / D: Phenomenological. /P: 7 teachers interviewed in human/digital contexts in a Virtual Learning Environment. * Score/ ** Decision/Approach (E***) /Design (D****) /Participants (P****) Assessing bias in publication To estimate the risk of bias derived from the absence of relevant results in the synthesis, differentiated procedures were applied, according to the type and volume of studies included. All the selected articles were evaluated using an instrument validated by experts, which considered the dimensions: title, abstract and keywords; introduction; literature review (explicit or implicit); methodology (materials, methods and ethical procedures); results; discussion; conclusions (contributions to knowledge and limitations); and bibliographic references. Each dimension was rated on an ordinal scale: Very Good (2 points), Good (1 point), Fair (0.5 points) and Deficient (0 points). The result of this evaluation yielded a vigesimal scale score (0 to 20), from which the level of risk of bias was estimated in three categories: low (18–20 points), moderate (15–17 points), and high (12–14 points). Studies with a score of less than 12 points were automatically excluded. Ethical considerations At all times, the principles of academic integrity were respected and a rigorous citation was applied at each stage of the analysis, ensuring traceability and recognition of the original contributions. 3. Results Figure 1 identified 539 initial records from various databases and registries. Following the removal of duplicates and ineligible documents, 449 records were examined, of which 335 were excluded. Subsequently, 114 studies were considered for recovery, but 25 of them could not be obtained. Finally, 89 complete texts were evaluated, being excluded for the following reasons: potential bias (n = 21), methodological limitations (n = 12), non-compliance with eligibility criteria (n = 17). As a result, 39 studies were included in the final analysis. Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flowchart. Table 2 shows the inclusion of a total of 39 studies, with a cumulative sample of 9,927 participants and an average of 255 per research. In methodological terms, 10 qualitative (25.6%), 17 quantitative (43.6%) and 12 mixed (30.8%) studies were identified, reflecting a significant diversity of analytical approaches. In terms of origin, the countries of the United Kingdom (12.8%), Spain (12.8%), Thailand (10.3%) and Russia (7.7%) stand out; followed by Indonesia (7.7%), Saudi Arabia (5.1%), Portugal (5.1%), Italy (5.1%) and Norway (5.1%); other countries contributed 2.6% each, confirming the international nature of the research. Regarding the temporal distribution, production was concentrated in the last five years: 2020 with 3 studies (7.7%), 2021 with 6 (15.4%), 2022 with 9 (23.1%), 2023 with 7 (17.9%), 2024 with 8 (20.5%) and 2025 with 5 (12.8%). The most productive year was 2022, followed by 2024, which is evidence of a recent increase in research in pedagogical innovation and digital environments within higher education. Table 3 shows valuable studies that, however, were excluded because they did not objectively specify population and sample, in addition to presenting methodological inconsistencies that limited their incorporation. Table 3. Studies excluded after the last review process. No. Reference citation Reasons for exclusion 1 1 Despite the quality of the findings, it was not possible to explicitly locate the methodological approach, and, within it, the population under study. 2 8 Despite its valuable conceptual approach to online learning as a common good and its theoretical contribution to the contemporary educational debate, it was excluded because it did not identify a specific population of study. 3 15 Although it presented valuable proposals for innovation in STEAM education and stands out for its integrative approach, when reviewing it in full text, it was not possible to confirm a detailed systematic methodology or specify the study population. 4 27 It provides relevant reflections on curricular updating in document management in the South African context and the 4IR. However, it was excluded for not defining a specific population 5 51 Although it presented clear, concise and well-explained results, it does not emphasize (or at least it was not possible to locate it in the full text) in a numerically defined population under study. Only stratified random sampling is mentioned, without indicating a final sample. 6 52 It mentions a clear methodology and the implementation of an experimental phase with diagnostic instruments such as the Mikhelson and Gilbukh test, interviews and Student’s t-test for adjacent groups; however, it does not specify the population or sample involved in the experimental phase. The exclusion is justified not by a lack of methodology, but by the absence of minimum population data required for rigorous systematic inclusion. 4. Discussion This review analyzed scientific evidence on pedagogical innovations, digital environments, and experiences and results in higher education, in order to characterize how these categories have been investigated from the analysis of their contributions and limitations reported in the literature. To this end, 539 studies were identified, of which 39 met the inclusion criteria; in all cases closely linked to pedagogical innovation in digital environments in higher education, distributed in multiple regions of the world and with various methodological approaches (quantitative, qualitative and mixed). The most recurrent designs were quasi-experimental, case studies and correlational descriptive designs. Participants were university students, teachers and experts (total = 9927), with sample sizes ranging from 7 to 3268; the average was 254.54. In the innovations, those with fundamental achievements in active participation, the development of autonomous learning and improvement of digital skills stood out; in these cases, they are specified through the incorporation of flipped classrooms, the use of interactive platforms and the use of methodologies based on design and experiential learning. Even when persistence of challenges in teacher training, the rejection of change and infrastructure were identified; In general, technological integration showed positive impacts on pedagogical innovation in higher education, by providing essential foundations for the analysis of limitations, implications, and perspectives of digital environments in this sector. In this field of pedagogical innovation, its systematic implementation was essential for the profound rethinking –with a critical and creative orientation that transcends the superficial– of the conventional paradigms that support instruction and knowledge acquisition in the university environment; that is, both educational dynamics and training goals as well as functions of the actors involved. In this, there is a remarkable cohesion and redesign of didactic strategies –such as flipped classroom, gamification, PBL and experiential and collaborative learning– which, integrated into digital environments, optimize their applicability and performance. In addition to reconfiguring the traditional role of the teacher as transmitter, mediator and guide, the implementation of these strategies provides greater autonomy to students, empowering them as an active nucleus of the training process and promoting a meaningful, participatory and personalized assimilation of academic content. 5 , 11 , 14 , 35 Furthermore, the implementation of hybrid pedagogical models, based on the articulation of active methodologies and virtual platforms, has favored the diversification of training scenarios in higher education. This diversification responds not only to technological demands, but also to emerging pedagogical and social needs, such as the flexibility of learning times and spaces, the inclusion of students with different profiles, and the incorporation of current competencies in academic programs. In addition to favoring access to knowledge, the face-to-face and virtual synergy of hybrid models has fostered transversal skills; for example, critical and collaborative thinking, self-management of learning and adaptability. For this reason, pedagogical innovation is conceived as a strategy aimed at enhancing the relevance, quality, and sustainability of the educational process in the contemporary university context. 9 , 25 , 44 In this framework, research underlines the potential of digital environments as mediators for the flexibility, contextualization and interactivity of training processes. Technological mediation that, in addition to redesigning traditional teaching-learning spaces, expands the methodologies used in terms of accessibility, active participation and multiplicity. In this, the systematic and core implementation in the articulation of specific subjects –not isolated or complementary– of LMS, AR resources, online collaborative tools, digital simulators, virtual learning objects, VR laboratories and multimedia materials was confirmed. Its implementation in several cases as a basic infrastructure for the comprehensive design of curricular programs has favored the expansion and geographical, social and cultural diversification of the scope of higher education. 11 , 16 , 19 , 23 , 30 Likewise, these studies underline the importance of adaptability and personalization in the design of virtual environments, through the use of developing technologies –AI, educational big data and learning analytics– as a dynamic and individual response to student requirements. 43 Furthermore, to positive effects on accessibility and equity, these proposals enhance essential elements for autonomy in learning (intrinsic motivation, self-regulation and sustained academic commitment). 47 More than repositories of content, digital environments act as catalysts for student self-management and the enhancement of metacognitive competencies vital for contemporary higher education, so that they function in the current pedagogical context as authentic complex ecosystems. 22 , 41 , 46 Furthermore, technological mediation in university processes is verified as a phenomenon of global scope, given the transversality of the category of higher education found in each of the materials included, as well as the multiplicity of university contexts represented. In addition to its globalization, this notes a concurrence of concerns that occupy the attention of higher education. These convergences point towards the necessary adaptation of pedagogical methodologies to the current training needs of a university student body with a critical spirit and a greater orientation towards virtuality and experiential learning. Consequently, environments that enhance interactivity, relevant curricular programs and strategies that situate academic content in order to solve specific problems are needed; that is, approaches with flexible models, which place the student in a central role of the training process. 21 , 24 , 37 In this sense, pedagogical innovation is more strongly needed in technical, scientific and professional profiles, where the management of emerging technologies has had a significant impact on the expansion of academic options. Today’s students have the opportunity to strengthen the theory-practice link through technologies that allow them to simulate, experiment and represent phenomena in complex environments; while promoting the deep apprehension of training content, they also develop skills demanded by the labor market. 28 , 38 , 45 Moreover, to the assimilation of virtual tools, in the university context these innovations promote a complex process of comprehensive reformulation that enhances a training ecosystem of greater coherence and reflexibility, focused on the student. Essential dimensions such as instructional design, formative assessment, and the teacher’s mediating accompaniment are involved in this empowerment. From a constructive orientation, it is seen how these innovations are interested in a rigorous and conscious alignment of training with pedagogical strategies and evaluation components, which favors the development of specific competencies and the acquisition of deep, transmittable and lasting learning. 7 , 26 The results confirm that pedagogical innovations in digital environments demand conditions that go beyond the mere will of teachers, while highlighting the importance of their continuous professional development, oriented towards technical skills and the formative apprehension of technology. They also agree on the need to implement sustained university policies that stimulate continuous training and counseling programs, as well as the creation of environments for pedagogical experimentation and feedback. This institutional vision of innovation allows for the consolidation of a culture of continuous improvement, where technologies are not an end, but a means to promote more relevant, inclusive and contextualized pedagogical practices. 4 , 23 , 40 From the methodological point of view, these studies present a remarkable diversity of approaches and designs, which enriches the understanding of phenomena linked to pedagogical innovation in digital environments within higher education. This methodological variety not only reflects the progressive maturity of the field, but responds to the multifaceted and contextualized nature of technology-driven educational transformation processes. Research developed under quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches is identified, encompassing experimental, quasi-experimental, exploratory, descriptive designs, case studies and design-based research. This variety, more than a limitation, corroborates the complexity of educational innovation practices and makes it possible to analyze their impacts, meanings and contradictions from different positions and epistemological points of view. 13 , 36 , 39 , 42 The strength of the results is also supported by highly complex and robust analysis techniques –from the statistical or qualitative point of view– of some of these studies. In addition to contributing to analytical soundness, these techniques promote the establishment of explanatory and relevant relationships between the variables studied, the detection of emerging patterns and the understanding of dynamic interactions present in the teaching-learning processes with technological mediation. Overall, the analysis of epistemic networks, the modeling of structural equations, focus groups and clusters stand out. The plurality and rigor of this methodological approach strengthen the internal/external validity of these investigations, providing a holistic vision on the construction, implementation and evaluation of pedagogical innovation in the contemporary field of higher education. 20 , 25 , 53 In this systematic review, the findings confirm a positive and consistent succession of effects on various variables linked to technology-mediated university education. These include motivation, commitment, satisfaction with the training process, academic performance and assimilation of key competencies; on the digital, communicative, collaborative and metacognitive level. These results corroborate that the strategic integration of pedagogical innovations in digital environments has the potential to significantly and sustainably transform the experience of university education; overcoming the traditional one-way transmission of knowledge. However, studies underline the need to design and implement these innovations from rigorous standards of quality, relevance, contextualization and institutional sustainability as the only way to avoid superficiality in the technification of pedagogical processes. 14 , 17 , 50 Over and above that, to the individual benefits of learning, several studies highlight the structural potential of these experiences to promote fundamental principles such as equity, inclusion, and universal access to higher education, especially in historically vulnerable, lagging, or isolated populations. Technological mediation is revealed as a powerful tool to democratize educational opportunities, expand spaces for participation and overcome physical, economic or cultural barriers that limited the educational trajectory of certain groups. This inclusive and transformative approach reinforces the role of universities not only as centres of knowledge, but as active agents in the construction of a fairer society with higher levels of social cohesion. 2 , 12 , 48 Some studies also report no minor limitations, tensions and structural challenges associated with the implementation of pedagogical innovations in digital environments within higher education. Difficulties that show that the processes of educational transformation do not always develop in ideal conditions. Among the most frequent obstacles are resistance to change on the part of some teachers –who may perceive innovations as a threat to their consolidated practices– deficient technological infrastructure, little training in digital skills, cognitive overload generated by the simultaneous or excessive use of platforms, as well as the urgency of guaranteeing accessibility, usability and pedagogical quality in the digital resources used. 3 , 6 , 29 These limitations call for rethinking innovation not as a mere technological addition, but as a systemic and integral process that requires the coherent articulation of pedagogical, technological, organizational, ethical, and formative dimensions of university practice. 5. Conclusions In the pedagogical innovations, it was found that strategies such as the flipped classroom, problem-based learning, gamification, experiential learning and collaborative learning had been adapted to digital environments, generating positive effects on motivation, participation and development of transversal competences. These practices showed commitment to the promotion of active and transferable learning, in pursuit of overcoming the traditional unidirectional models of transmission. However, the contributions were conditioned by the coherence of objectives-strategies-evaluation, as well as by teaching responsibility and institutional support. Among the main limitations were perceived insufficiencies in the training of digital skills, rejection of change and lack of policies aimed at the sustainability of these practices. As for digital environments, their evolution from mere information receptacles to complex ecosystems of positive impacts on accessibility, flexibility and personalization of learning was confirmed; effects that favor, in turn, student autonomy and self-regulation. However, considerable challenges were identified: disparity in access to connectivity, cognitive overload derived from the prolonged use of platforms, usability problems in some resources and ethical dilemmas on data management. Beyond the technological component per se , the gain of these environments lay in their integration with a pedagogical design oriented towards the humanization, inclusiveness and contextualization of education. In the higher education category, the analysis of experiences and results showed a favorable influence on student motivation and satisfaction, academic performance and the acquisition of competencies in the digital, communicative, collaborative and metacognitive planes. A relevant transformation was found in the university educational experience associated with the integration of pedagogical innovations and digital tools, as long as they were implemented under criteria of quality and relevance. However, its effectiveness showed disparate effects –even counterproductive– in scenarios of abrupt transition or communities with insufficient technological resources. This disparity highlighted the essentiality of the pedagogical strategy, the mediating role of the teacher and the institutional support for obtaining favorable results, beyond technological accessibility. Overall, this review found that pedagogical innovation mediated by digital environments should be considered a strategic instrument for the reconfiguration of higher education towards transformative paradigms of greater humanism and inclusiveness; not as an objective per se. These advances indicated a strengthening of the quality of training and a gain in equitable access to knowledge, in those institutions that achieved synergistic integration between pedagogical and technological foundations. The urgency of subordinating technology to educational purposes was also highlighted, overcoming instrumental paradigms and maintaining the human relationship as a nuclear element. Contribution to knowledge and future lines of work These findings could favor the understanding of the transformative role of pedagogical innovations and digital environments in the university training context, provided that their articulation is guaranteed from coherent pedagogical designs, with robust institutional policies and equitable access to education. The knowledge provided could be a guide in terms of inclusivity and sustainability, as well as in the identification of limitations for its impact on higher education. It is advisable to promote interdisciplinary comparative research aimed at exposing nuances in technological assimilation, as well as longitudinal studies aimed at assessing the permanence of the observed impacts. Likewise, critical studies on data analytics and AI are recommended as new routes of exploration based on humanism and equity. Finally, exploration in areas of social sciences and humanities could be valuable, given that the possibilities offered by the incorporation of digital environments in these areas are still insufficiently explored. Data availability statement Zenodo: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10799108 . 54 This project contains the following data: • 01 PRISMA_2020_checklist.pdf • PRISMA Flow chart • Complete list of the included studies Data are available under the terms of the Legal Code - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International - Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0) . References 1. Makhynia N, Kichuk Y, Ptashchеnko O, et al. : Innovations in the educational process and pedagogical technologies under the influence of crisis phenomena and global digitalization. Studies of Applied Economics. 2021; 39 (5): 1–10. Publisher Full Text 2. Ouchaouka L, Laouina Z, Moussetad M, et al. : The Effectiveness of a Learner-Centered Pedagogical Approach with Flipped Pedagogy and Digital Learning Environment in Higher Education Feedback on a Cell Biology Course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 2021; 16 (12): 4–15. Publisher Full Text 3. Srikan P, Pimdee P, Leekitchwatana P, et al. : A Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Teaching Model using a Cloud-Based Constructivist Learning Environment to Enhance Thai Undergraduate Creative Thinking and Digital Media Skills. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM). 2021; 15 (22): 68–83. Publisher Full Text 4. Jeffery AJ, Rogers SL, Jeffery KLA, et al. : A flexible, open, and interactive digital platform to support online and blended experiential learning environments: Thinglink and thin sections. Geosci Commun. 2021; 4 (1): 95–110. Publisher Full Text 5. Peña-Fernández A, Acosta L, Fenoy S, et al. : Evaluation of a novel digital environment for learning medical parasitology. Higher Education Pedagogies. 2020; 5 (1): 1–18. Publisher Full Text 6. Kamal Ibrahim M, Spitsyna N, Isaeva A: Learning Foreign Languages in a Digital Environment: Learners’ Perception of the Sudden Transition to e-Learning During COVID-19 Lockdown. Electron J E-Learn. 2021; 19 (6): 548–558. Publisher Full Text 7. Rakow KE, Upsher RJ, Foster JLH, et al. : Student perspectives on their digital footprint in virtual learning environments. Front Educ. 2023; 8 : 1–7. Publisher Full Text 8. Wong J, Racine L, Henderson T, et al. : Online Learning as a Commons: Supporting students’ data protection preferences through a collaborative digital environment. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law. 2023 [cited 2025 Aug 20]; 14 (2): 251–277. Reference Source 9. Tadadaj C, Wannapiroon P, Sillabutra J: Case-Based Learning in Self-directed Learning Environment using a Digital Platform to Enhance Public Health Students’ Learning Outcome in Graduate Study. TEM J. 2022 [cited 2025 Aug 20]; 11 (4): 1653–1659. Reference Source 10. Font Ribas A, Andrés Aucejo E, Caballol Angelats L, et al. : Hacia un entorno de aprendizaje personal (PLE) a través del portafolios digital y sus aplicaciones en un entorno profesionalizador en Derecho. Revista Pedagogía Universitaria y Didáctica del Derecho. 2021; 8 (2): 39–60. Publisher Full Text 11. Pérez-Garcias A, Ferrer GT, Moral SV, et al. : Itinerarios de aprendizaje flexibles en entornos digitales para un aprendizaje personalizado en la formación docente. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educacion a Distancia. 2022; 25 (2): 173–193. Publisher Full Text 12. Mujallid AT: Digital Active Learning Strategies in Blended Environments to Develop Students’ Social and Emotional Learning Skills and Engagement in Higher Education. Eur. J. Educ. 2024; 59 (4): 1–20. Publisher Full Text 13. Møgelvang A, Vandvik V, Ellingsen S, et al. : Cooperative learning goes online: teaching and learning intervention in a digital environment impacts psychosocial outcomes in biology students. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2023; 117 : 102114. Publisher Full Text 14. Sanchez-Lite A, Zulueta P, Sampaio AZ, et al. : BIM for the Realization of Sustainable Digital Models in a University-Business Collaborative Learning Environment: Assessment of Use and Students’ Perception. Buildings. 2022; 12 (7): 1–20. Publisher Full Text 15. Lavicza Z, Weinhandl R, Prodromou T, et al. : Developing and Evaluating Educational Innovations for STEAM Education in Rapidly Changing Digital Technology Environments. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2022 [cited 2025 Aug 20]; 14 (12): 1–15. Publisher Full Text 16. Shardlow M, Sellar S, Rousell D: Collaborative augmentation and simplification of text (CoAST): pedagogical applications of natural language processing in digital learning environments. Learn. Environ. Res. 2022; 25 (2): 399–421. Publisher Full Text 17. Sriwisathiyakun K: Utilizing Design Thinking to Create Digital Self-Directed Learning Environment for Enhancing Digital Literacy in Thai Higher Education. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice. 2023; 22 : 201–214. Publisher Full Text 18. Engeness I: Developing teachers’ digital identity: towards the pedagogic design principles of digital environments to enhance students’ learning in the 21st century. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2021; 44 (1): 96–114. Publisher Full Text 19. Yakovleva O: Digital Learning Environment Values of Pre-Service Teachers as a Basis for Successful Professional Self-Realisation: A Case Study. Educ Sci (Basel). 2022; 12 (2): 1–13. Publisher Full Text 20. Razak NA, Zulkifli CZ, Abdullah Y, et al. : Bridging technology and humanity: humanizing online pedagogy in digital environments. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE). 2025; 14 (3): 2207–2223. Publisher Full Text 21. Hutson J, Olsen T: Virtual Reality and Art History: A Case Study of Digital Humanities and Immersive Learning Environments. J High Educ Theory Pract. 2022; 22 (2): 50–65. Publisher Full Text 22. Van-Phuong D, Thi-Luong N, Van-Hong B, et al. : Development of a laboratory-based learning model via digital platform environment. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2024; 9 : 1–12. Publisher Full Text 23. Calderwood SJ: An exploration of human and platform intra-actions in a digital teaching and learning environment. Learn. Media Technol. 2025; 50 (2): 263–275. Publisher Full Text 24. Oliva-Cruz E, Mata-Puente A: Use of digital skills in the teaching-learning process in a virtual environment during the Covid 19 pandemic. Investig Bibliotecol. 2022; 36 (93): 177–193. Publisher Full Text 25. Saleh S, Alali R: Digital Learning Tools (Institutional - Open) and Their Relationship to Educational Self-Effectiveness and Achievement in Online Learning Environments. Przestrzen Spoleczna. 2022 [cited 2025 Aug 20]; 22 (3): 226–256. Reference Source 26. Arden B, Norris J, Cole S, et al. : Digital notetaking in lectures: how students adapt to a multi-faceted university learning environment. Cogent Educ. 2024; 11 (1): 1–15. Publisher Full Text 27. Ngoepe M, Jacobs L, Mojapelo M: Inclusion of digital records in the archives and records management curricula in a comprehensive open distance e-learning environment. Inf. Dev. 2024; 40 (2): 190–201. Publisher Full Text 28. Ortiz W, Martínez R, Tolozano MR, et al. : Problem-based learning through digital environments: an experience in graduate mathematics teacher education. Form Univ. 2025; 18 (1): 143–152. Publisher Full Text 29. El Deen AAMMA, Mahmoud MMA: Instructional Technology and Learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL): Insights Into Digital Literacy From Saudi Environment. Theory Pract Lang Stud. 2025; 15 (2): 433–442. Publisher Full Text 30. Chai-Arayalert S, Suttapong K, Chumkaew S: Design of digital environments to enhance handicraft co-learning experiences. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2023; 10 (3): 1–14. Publisher Full Text 31. Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Urrútia G, Romero-García M, et al. : Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. 2021 Sep 1; 74 (9): 790–799. 32. Grijalva PK, Cornejo, Galo E, et al. : Herramientas colaborativas para revisiones sistemáticas. Rev Espacios. 2019 [cited 2025 Aug 11]; 40 (25). Reference Source 33. Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R: Evaluating survey research in articles published in Library Science journals. Rev Esp Doc Cient. 2021; 44 (2): 1–18. Publisher Full Text 34. Aráoz Cutipa RA, Pinto Tapia B: Validity criteria for qualitative research: three epistemological strands for the same purpose. Summa Psicol UST. 2021; 18 (1): 47–56. Publisher Full Text 35. García-Martínez JA, Rosa-Napal FC, Romero-Tabeayo I, et al. : Digital Tools and Personal Learning Environments: An Analysis in Higher Education. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2020; 12 (19): 1–11. Publisher Full Text 36. Sorokova MG: Skepticism and learning difficulties in a digital environment at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels: are preconceptions valid?. Heliyon. 2020; 6 (11): e05335. Publisher Full Text 37. Herrmann-Werner A, Loda T, Junne F, et al. : “Hello, My Name Is Melinda” – Students’ Views on a Digital Assistant for Navigation in Digital Learning Environments; A Qualitative Interview Study. Front Educ. 2021; 5 : 1–7. Publisher Full Text 38. Sutarni N, Arief Ramdhany M, Hufad A, et al. : Self-regulated learning and digital learning environment: Its’ effect on academic achievement during the pandemic. Cakrawala Pendidik. 2021; 40 (2): 374–388. Publisher Full Text 39. Luppi F: Tools and models for distance teaching in an English Language and Culture university course: the flipped classroom and cooperative learning in a digital environment. Altre Modernita. 2022; 27 : 181–195. Publisher Full Text 40. Araújo S, Hannachi R: Démarche d’initiation aux pédagogies actives en langues: développement de la littératie numérique dans un environnement virtuel collaboratif. Recherche et Pratiques Pedagogiques en Langues de Specialite - Cahiers de l’APLIUT. 2022 [cited 2025 Aug 20]; 41 (2). Publisher Full Text 41. Jiménez-Cortés R: Aprendizaje expansivo en entornos digitales: un análisis de redes epistémicas con perspectiva de género. RIED Rev Iberoam Educ Distancia. 2023; 26 (2): 111–133. Publisher Full Text 42. Souza Lobo WL, Alvarez GR: Competências digitais no uso dos ambientes virtuais de aprendizagem: um estudo de caso a partir da opinião dos alunos do curso de graduação em Biblioteconomia e Documentação da Universidade Federal Fluminense. AtoZ: Novas práticas Em informação E Conhecimento. 2023; 12 : 1–14. Publisher Full Text 43. Mukhamadiarova AF, Nizamutdinova EA: The application of the CLIL technology in the development of foreign language lexical and grammatical skills of students in digital educational environment. Perspect Sci Educ. 2023; 65 (5): 346–358. Publisher Full Text 44. Belda-Medina J: Inclusive Education through Digital Comic Creation in Higher Learning Environments. Soc. Sci. 2024; 13 (5): 1–15. Publisher Full Text 45. Mancin S, Soekeland F, Morenghi E, et al. : Enhancing the teaching of nutrition for nursing students: Engagement in class through a digital learning environment. Teach. Learn. Nurs. 2024; 19 (1): e229–e234. Publisher Full Text 46. Jian Y, Abu Bakar JA: Comparing cognitive load in learning spatial ability: immersive learning environment vs. digital learning media. Discov. Sustain. 2024 [cited 2025 Aug 19]; 5 (111): 1–21. Publisher Full Text 47. Sarzhanova GB, Abdrakhmanova ST, Akbayeva GN, et al. : Digital Learning Environment in Training Future Kazakhstani English Teachers. Forum Linguist Stud. 2024; 6 (5): 280–286. Publisher Full Text 48. Khalil M, Topali P, Ortega-Arranz A, et al. : Video Analytics in Digital Learning Environments: Exploring Student Behaviour Across Different Learning Contexts. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2024; 29 (4): 1877–1905. Publisher Full Text 49. Kurniawan W, Anwar K, Jufrida J, et al. : Personalized Digital Learning Environment with Differentiated Instruction to Foster Computational Thinking in Robotics Education. J Inf Technol Educ Innov Pract. 2025; 24 : 1–21. Publisher Full Text 50. Setyadi A, Pawirosumarto S, Damaris A, et al. : Risk management, digital technology literacy, and modern learning environments in enhancing learning innovation performance: A framework for higher education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025; 30 (11): 15095–15123. Publisher Full Text 51. Islam Q, Faisal Ali Khan SM: Sustainability-Infused Learning Environments: Investigating the Role of Digital Technology and Motivation for Sustainability in Achieving Quality Education. Int J Learn Teach Educ Res. 2024; 23 (1): 519–548. Publisher Full Text 52. Osiyanova OM, Burikova SA, Radyuk AV: Technology for improving students’ communicative skills in the university digital educational environment. Train Lang Cult. 2024 [cited 2025 Aug 19]; 8 (4): 24–35. 53. Shang G, Pheng LS, Jing KW: Level of Acceptance of E-Learning Courses for Upgrading Digital Skill Sets Among Built Environment Professionals. Buildings. 2024; 14 (12): 1–14. Publisher Full Text 54. Casimiro Urcos CN, Casimiro Urcos WH, Alberca Pintado NE, et al. : Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education.[cited 2026 Jan 18]. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 National University of Education Enrique Guzman y Valle, Lima District, Lima Region, 15472, Peru 2 National University of San Marcos, Lima District, Lima Region, 150101, Peru 3 Uneval, National University Hermilio Valdizan, Huanuco, Huanuco, 10001, Peru Consuelo Nora Casimiro Urcos Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Walther Hernan Casimiro Urcos Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Nancy Elizabeth Alberca Pintado Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Reynaldo Marcial Ostos Miraval Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Miguel Alfredo Carrasco Muñoz Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Livia Cristina Piñas Rivera Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 15 Apr 2026, 15:522 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176682.1 Copyright © 2026 Casimiro Urcos CN et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Casimiro Urcos CN, Casimiro Urcos WH, Alberca Pintado NE et al. Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.176682.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Renteria Castro E. Reviewer Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480747 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-480747 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 15 May 2026 Enrique Renteria Castro , National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions, Mexico City, Mexico Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480747 The review carried out by this article is very important; it manages to make a systematic description of the use of digital tools in higher education and how they have been incorporated into teaching practice as innovative strategies of pedagogical ... Continue reading READ ALL The review carried out by this article is very important; it manages to make a systematic description of the use of digital tools in higher education and how they have been incorporated into teaching practice as innovative strategies of pedagogical practice. With respect to the problematic situation, the review of each of the articles that contribute to defining educational innovation with the use of digital tools allows us to reflect on sustainable development in higher education when using technological advances, including artificial intelligence. The same studies analyzed show that the lack of infrastructure for the use of digital technologies and the absence of didactic-pedagogical training for teachers are immediate references to the limitations to implement innovative educational actions. With respect to the results of the conclusions, I consider that the studies reviewed give evidence that different authors have discarded the conceptual approach to didactics and pedagogical models. They should consider that in humanities and social sciences careers, the design of curricular projects includes a classification of subjects in correspondence with a certain pedagogical model; for example, there are monographic courses, workshops, seminars, professional practices, among others. In the case of monographic courses, the use of the frontal transmission of knowledge has been defined as the art of mastering communicative processes and that even this pedagogical model has been impacted with pedagogical innovations with the use of digital tools. As an example, we can refer to videos, detonating questions for forum work, Socratic maieutics as an innovative strategy and without detracting from the traditional pedagogical model (I use the concept of pedagogical model as opposed to the concept of you: pedagogical agency). In the case of seminars defined in the social sciences as the learning laboratory proposed in the same way as laboratories in the natural sciences (J. Gaos 1956), activities such as analysis of texts, summaries, videos, exhibitions, interpretations, debates and research are carried out and, of course, today using the internet, digital tools and AI, which allows an extensive approach to research and documentary materials that allow defining, framing and solving problems in the social and humanistic disciplines. Pedagogical innovation should not only be seen as a need to update the technical, scientific and professional profile of a teacher; we must consider that the teacher has moved from a fluctuating dynamic between empirical and isolated practice, which is perfected with experience, to being considered as a practice intimately articulated to intellectual processes. Today, in higher education systems aligned with virtuality and with the use of digital tools, the teacher must propose to move towards the conceptualization of group, interdisciplinary and collegial work, to transform his individual practice towards socio-interactive teaching, which goes beyond one-person activities and the simple transmission of knowledge. Socio-interactive teaching must not only impact an educational institution but also the governance of the local educational systemal, national and international. In 1997, the first LMS appeared for generic use in educational institutions, but it was not until 2020 with COVID-19 that higher education teachers, pressured by confinement, explored the use of digital tools, generating an improvisation and decontextualization of didactic and pedagogical principles, which you point out in your research: To design a systemic humanistic approach that seeks inclusion, equity and well-being. Not only the flipped classroom, problem-based learning, gamification, experiential learning and collaborative learning are the only didactic strategies that allow students to mobilize towards participatory and transformative learning, we must consider and rescue the contributions of group theory (technical and dynamic), verbal and non-verbal communication and the different pedagogical models that allow us to define a conceptual framework to use technology as a means and achieve an education based on teaching and learning for transformative participation. I have a doubt: will it be convenient to use the phrase: development of key competences, instead of assimilation of key competences. Molina, E., & Medina, E. (2025). La revolución de la IA en la Educación Superior. Lo que hay que saber. En Innovaciones Digitales en Educación. Banco Mundial. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes References 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL DEL INSTITUTO DE EVALUACIÓN Y DESARROLLO EDUCATIVO, PRESIDENTE CLUB UNESCO COMPSE, México, Rentería Castro E: Deslinde conceptual entre educación en línea o educación a distancia. Delectus . 2021; 4 (1): 16-31 Publisher Full Text 2. Reisoğlu İ, Eryılmaz Toksoy S, Erenler S: An analysis of the online information searching strategies and metacognitive skills exhibited by university students during argumentation activities. Library & Information Science Research . 2020; 42 (3). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Curricular design and evaluation, consulting for accreditation of higher education study plans to obtain RVOE. Founding member of the National Network for Peace of the National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions. International Evaluator of Higher Education Quality, accredited by UDUAL and CIIES. Director General of Evaluation and Educational Development. Academic of doctoral programs at the Global Latin American University and at UNAM. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Renteria Castro E. Reviewer Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480747 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-480747 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Bayaga A. Reviewer Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r476284 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-476284 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 May 2026 Anass Bayaga , Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r476284 Recommended status: Not Approved The manuscript addresses a relevant topic in higher education, namely pedagogical innovation in digital environments. The review reports that 539 records were identified and 39 studies were included, covering issues such as motivation, self-regulation, ... Continue reading READ ALL Recommended status: Not Approved The manuscript addresses a relevant topic in higher education, namely pedagogical innovation in digital environments. The review reports that 539 records were identified and 39 studies were included, covering issues such as motivation, self-regulation, academic performance, digital skills, connectivity, teacher training and institutional sustainability. However, the paper requires substantial revision before it can be considered methodologically sound. The main concern is that the manuscript is poorly written in several places, and this affects meaning and readability. For example, phrases such as “pedagogical innovation and digital environments operate inseparably”, “readjusting its curricular architecture”, “formative apprehension of technology”, and “human relationship as a nuclear element” are unclear or awkward. The paper needs professional academic language editing, not only minor proofreading. The methodology also needs strengthening. Although the authors state that they followed PRISMA 2020, the search strategy is not sufficiently reproducible. Many searches appear to rely on title-only terms such as “pedagogical innovation” and “digital environments”. This may have excluded relevant studies that discuss these concepts in the abstract or keywords but not in the title. The authors should provide the full search string for each database, including dates searched, filters applied, and justification for the title-only approach. The risk-of-bias assessment is also unclear. The authors report that 22 studies were low risk, 17 moderate risk and none high risk. However, the tool appears to assess general article quality, including title, abstract, introduction, literature review and references, rather than methodological bias. This distinction is important. The authors should either rename this as a quality appraisal or use recognised design-appropriate appraisal tools for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies. The synthesis is too descriptive. The paper states that thematic analysis was used, but it does not explain how themes were generated, how studies were coded, or how evidence from different designs was integrated. The three categories — pedagogical innovation, digital environments and higher education experiences/results — need clearer analytical justification. Some conclusions are too broad. For example, the claim that digital pedagogical innovation can reconfigure higher education towards “greater humanism and inclusiveness” is conceptually interesting but not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented. The conclusions should be more cautious and directly linked to the findings. Overall, the manuscript has potential, but it requires major revision. The authors should improve the language, clarify the search and screening process, justify the appraisal tool, strengthen the synthesis, revise Table 2 for readability, and ensure that the conclusions are proportionate to the evidence. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? No Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? No If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Mathematics Cognition: Neuro-Mathematics, STEM Cognitive Enhancement and Human-Computer Interaction I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Bayaga A. Reviewer Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r476284 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-476284 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Basantes-Andrade A. Reviewer Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480741 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-480741 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 08 May 2026 Andrea Basantes-Andrade , Universidad Técnica del Norte, Ibarra, Ecuador Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480741 The manuscript addresses a relevant and contemporary topic in higher education, focusing on pedagogical innovation in digital environments and its implications for university teaching and learning processes. The systematic review gathers recent evidence published between 2020 and 2025, incorporating studies ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript addresses a relevant and contemporary topic in higher education, focusing on pedagogical innovation in digital environments and its implications for university teaching and learning processes. The systematic review gathers recent evidence published between 2020 and 2025, incorporating studies from different international contexts and diverse methodological approaches. The article presents a solid introduction, with an appropriate contextualization of the problem, a clear identification of research gaps, and an explicit formulation of the research question and objective. Likewise, the authors’ effort to integrate pedagogical, technological, and educational perspectives within a broad and current analytical framework is acknowledged. However, although the topic is relevant and the manuscript has scientific potential, there are important methodological and reporting limitations that must be addressed to ensure the rigor, transparency, and reproducibility expected in a systematic review aligned with PRISMA 2020 and the standards of F1000Research. First, the documentary search strategy requires greater precision and methodological transparency. The manuscript presents only partial fragments of the search equations and does not report the complete search strategies for each database consulted. Furthermore, the exact search dates for each database, language filters, operators used on each platform, and the use of controlled vocabulary or specialized thesauri are not clearly specified. This lack of detail limits the reproducibility of the study. It is recommended that the authors include, in an appendix, all complete and detailed search strategies, indicating the specific search dates and justifying the methodological decision to restrict the search exclusively to titles (“TITLE”). Regarding the study selection process, the manuscript does not sufficiently explain how the article screening process was conducted. Although duplicate removal and phased review procedures are mentioned, the manuscript does not specify how many reviewers participated in the process, whether the evaluations were conducted independently, or how disagreements between reviewers were resolved. Likewise, no inter-rater agreement indices, such as Cohen’s Kappa coefficient or equivalent measures, are reported. These elements are fundamental to ensuring methodological consistency and reducing selection bias. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors describe in detail the review and consensus procedures followed among reviewers. Another aspect that requires strengthening is the data extraction process. The manuscript states that different researchers analyzed quantitative and qualitative studies using different methodological guidelines; however, no extraction matrix is presented, nor are the extracted variables, analytical categories, or coding procedures clearly specified. It is suggested that the authors incorporate a table or methodological appendix explicitly describing the variables collected from each study, the categorization criteria, and the procedures used to handle ambiguous or incomplete information. One of the main methodological weaknesses of the article concerns the assessment of risk of bias. The authors used a self-developed instrument based mainly on criteria related to article structure and writing quality, rather than on a robust methodological evaluation of the risk of bias of the included studies. Although the instrument appears organized, it has not been internationally validated, and no evidence of reliability or justification for the cutoff points used is reported. Regarding the analysis and synthesis of results, although the review develops a coherent and thematically well-structured narrative synthesis, the absence of a meta-analysis is not adequately justified, nor is it clearly explained how the thematic categories used in the discussion were constructed. The manuscript reports multiple positive effects on motivation, performance, and digital competencies; however, these findings are not accompanied by effect measures, heterogeneity analyses, or systematic comparisons between studies. The authors are encouraged to explicitly justify the choice of a narrative synthesis, explain the thematic analysis procedures, and discuss more deeply the methodological and contextual heterogeneity of the included studies. In addition, several inconsistencies were identified in the presentation of numbers, percentages, and methodological categories in tables and figures, which should be carefully reviewed to improve the technical accuracy of the manuscript. In Table 2, for example, there are contradictions between the assigned scores and the classification of risk of bias. According to the methodology section, scores between 18–20 correspond to low risk, whereas scores between 15–17 correspond to moderate risk; however, some studies with a score of 16 are classified as “Low (L),” which contradicts the criteria defined by the authors themselves. Likewise, inconsistencies exist in the abbreviations used for participants (“P:” and “Q:”) without a clear methodological explanation. Minor typographical errors and formatting issues were also observed in the table, such as incomplete expressions or incorrect word separations, possibly resulting from document conversion problems. Although the overall percentages reported in the methodological distribution are mathematically correct, it is recommended to standardize the use of decimal places and review the statistical consistency among the text, tables, and figures. In the PRISMA figure, the reported values are generally coherent; however, the visual presentation of the exclusion reasons makes it difficult to quickly interpret the methodological flow. Improving the readability of the diagram and organizing the exclusion categories more clearly is recommended. Similarly, Table 3 presents only individual examples of excluded studies but does not incorporate a systematic classification or overall counts by exclusion reason, which limits the methodological traceability of the review. On the other hand, the conclusions tend in some sections to overgeneralize the findings. The repeated use of expressions such as “confirmed,” “demonstrated,” or “generated positive effects” may be excessively deterministic considering that a large proportion of the included studies are descriptive, qualitative, or quasi-experimental in design. It is recommended that the authors adopt more cautious language consistent with the level of available evidence, using expressions such as “suggests,” “indicates,” or “is associated with.” It would also be important to strengthen the critical discussion regarding the structural and ethical limitations of digital environments. Although the manuscript mentions issues related to connectivity and teacher training, topics such as digital inequality, algorithmic surveillance, platform bias, institutional sustainability, and risks associated with the growing use of artificial intelligence in higher education could be explored in greater depth. A more critical perspective would enrich the scientific contribution of the article. I encourage the authors to address the issues identified above. Before the manuscript can be considered scientifically robust and suitable for indexing, substantial methodological revisions related to transparency and reproducibility are required. With these improvements, the work could represent a valuable contribution to the field of pedagogical innovation and digital environments in higher education. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ . 2021. Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Educational Technology, Digital Education, Higher Education, ICT in Education, E-learning, Digital Competencies, Artificial Intelligence in Education, Inclusive Education, Systematic Reviews, Educational Innovation. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Basantes-Andrade A. Reviewer Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480741 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-480741 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 15 Apr 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 1 15 Apr 26 read read read Andrea Basantes-Andrade , Universidad Técnica del Norte, Ibarra, Ecuador Anass Bayaga , Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Enrique Renteria Castro , National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions, Mexico City, Mexico Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Renteria Castro E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 15 May 2026 | for Version 1 Enrique Renteria Castro , National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions, Mexico City, Mexico 0 Views copyright © 2026 Renteria Castro E. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The review carried out by this article is very important; it manages to make a systematic description of the use of digital tools in higher education and how they have been incorporated into teaching practice as innovative strategies of pedagogical practice. With respect to the problematic situation, the review of each of the articles that contribute to defining educational innovation with the use of digital tools allows us to reflect on sustainable development in higher education when using technological advances, including artificial intelligence. The same studies analyzed show that the lack of infrastructure for the use of digital technologies and the absence of didactic-pedagogical training for teachers are immediate references to the limitations to implement innovative educational actions. With respect to the results of the conclusions, I consider that the studies reviewed give evidence that different authors have discarded the conceptual approach to didactics and pedagogical models. They should consider that in humanities and social sciences careers, the design of curricular projects includes a classification of subjects in correspondence with a certain pedagogical model; for example, there are monographic courses, workshops, seminars, professional practices, among others. In the case of monographic courses, the use of the frontal transmission of knowledge has been defined as the art of mastering communicative processes and that even this pedagogical model has been impacted with pedagogical innovations with the use of digital tools. As an example, we can refer to videos, detonating questions for forum work, Socratic maieutics as an innovative strategy and without detracting from the traditional pedagogical model (I use the concept of pedagogical model as opposed to the concept of you: pedagogical agency). In the case of seminars defined in the social sciences as the learning laboratory proposed in the same way as laboratories in the natural sciences (J. Gaos 1956), activities such as analysis of texts, summaries, videos, exhibitions, interpretations, debates and research are carried out and, of course, today using the internet, digital tools and AI, which allows an extensive approach to research and documentary materials that allow defining, framing and solving problems in the social and humanistic disciplines. Pedagogical innovation should not only be seen as a need to update the technical, scientific and professional profile of a teacher; we must consider that the teacher has moved from a fluctuating dynamic between empirical and isolated practice, which is perfected with experience, to being considered as a practice intimately articulated to intellectual processes. Today, in higher education systems aligned with virtuality and with the use of digital tools, the teacher must propose to move towards the conceptualization of group, interdisciplinary and collegial work, to transform his individual practice towards socio-interactive teaching, which goes beyond one-person activities and the simple transmission of knowledge. Socio-interactive teaching must not only impact an educational institution but also the governance of the local educational systemal, national and international. In 1997, the first LMS appeared for generic use in educational institutions, but it was not until 2020 with COVID-19 that higher education teachers, pressured by confinement, explored the use of digital tools, generating an improvisation and decontextualization of didactic and pedagogical principles, which you point out in your research: To design a systemic humanistic approach that seeks inclusion, equity and well-being. Not only the flipped classroom, problem-based learning, gamification, experiential learning and collaborative learning are the only didactic strategies that allow students to mobilize towards participatory and transformative learning, we must consider and rescue the contributions of group theory (technical and dynamic), verbal and non-verbal communication and the different pedagogical models that allow us to define a conceptual framework to use technology as a means and achieve an education based on teaching and learning for transformative participation. I have a doubt: will it be convenient to use the phrase: development of key competences, instead of assimilation of key competences. Molina, E., & Medina, E. (2025). La revolución de la IA en la Educación Superior. Lo que hay que saber. En Innovaciones Digitales en Educación. Banco Mundial. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes References 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL DEL INSTITUTO DE EVALUACIÓN Y DESARROLLO EDUCATIVO, PRESIDENTE CLUB UNESCO COMPSE, México, Rentería Castro E: Deslinde conceptual entre educación en línea o educación a distancia. Delectus . 2021; 4 (1): 16-31 Publisher Full Text 2. Reisoğlu İ, Eryılmaz Toksoy S, Erenler S: An analysis of the online information searching strategies and metacognitive skills exhibited by university students during argumentation activities. Library & Information Science Research . 2020; 42 (3). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Curricular design and evaluation, consulting for accreditation of higher education study plans to obtain RVOE. Founding member of the National Network for Peace of the National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions. International Evaluator of Higher Education Quality, accredited by UDUAL and CIIES. Director General of Evaluation and Educational Development. Academic of doctoral programs at the Global Latin American University and at UNAM. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Renteria Castro E. Peer Review Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480747) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-480747 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Bayaga A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 May 2026 | for Version 1 Anass Bayaga , Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa 0 Views copyright © 2026 Bayaga A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Recommended status: Not Approved The manuscript addresses a relevant topic in higher education, namely pedagogical innovation in digital environments. The review reports that 539 records were identified and 39 studies were included, covering issues such as motivation, self-regulation, academic performance, digital skills, connectivity, teacher training and institutional sustainability. However, the paper requires substantial revision before it can be considered methodologically sound. The main concern is that the manuscript is poorly written in several places, and this affects meaning and readability. For example, phrases such as “pedagogical innovation and digital environments operate inseparably”, “readjusting its curricular architecture”, “formative apprehension of technology”, and “human relationship as a nuclear element” are unclear or awkward. The paper needs professional academic language editing, not only minor proofreading. The methodology also needs strengthening. Although the authors state that they followed PRISMA 2020, the search strategy is not sufficiently reproducible. Many searches appear to rely on title-only terms such as “pedagogical innovation” and “digital environments”. This may have excluded relevant studies that discuss these concepts in the abstract or keywords but not in the title. The authors should provide the full search string for each database, including dates searched, filters applied, and justification for the title-only approach. The risk-of-bias assessment is also unclear. The authors report that 22 studies were low risk, 17 moderate risk and none high risk. However, the tool appears to assess general article quality, including title, abstract, introduction, literature review and references, rather than methodological bias. This distinction is important. The authors should either rename this as a quality appraisal or use recognised design-appropriate appraisal tools for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies. The synthesis is too descriptive. The paper states that thematic analysis was used, but it does not explain how themes were generated, how studies were coded, or how evidence from different designs was integrated. The three categories — pedagogical innovation, digital environments and higher education experiences/results — need clearer analytical justification. Some conclusions are too broad. For example, the claim that digital pedagogical innovation can reconfigure higher education towards “greater humanism and inclusiveness” is conceptually interesting but not sufficiently supported by the evidence presented. The conclusions should be more cautious and directly linked to the findings. Overall, the manuscript has potential, but it requires major revision. The authors should improve the language, clarify the search and screening process, justify the appraisal tool, strengthen the synthesis, revise Table 2 for readability, and ensure that the conclusions are proportionate to the evidence. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? No Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? No If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Mathematics Cognition: Neuro-Mathematics, STEM Cognitive Enhancement and Human-Computer Interaction I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Bayaga A. Peer Review Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r476284) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-476284 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Basantes-Andrade A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 08 May 2026 | for Version 1 Andrea Basantes-Andrade , Universidad Técnica del Norte, Ibarra, Ecuador 0 Views copyright © 2026 Basantes-Andrade A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript addresses a relevant and contemporary topic in higher education, focusing on pedagogical innovation in digital environments and its implications for university teaching and learning processes. The systematic review gathers recent evidence published between 2020 and 2025, incorporating studies from different international contexts and diverse methodological approaches. The article presents a solid introduction, with an appropriate contextualization of the problem, a clear identification of research gaps, and an explicit formulation of the research question and objective. Likewise, the authors’ effort to integrate pedagogical, technological, and educational perspectives within a broad and current analytical framework is acknowledged. However, although the topic is relevant and the manuscript has scientific potential, there are important methodological and reporting limitations that must be addressed to ensure the rigor, transparency, and reproducibility expected in a systematic review aligned with PRISMA 2020 and the standards of F1000Research. First, the documentary search strategy requires greater precision and methodological transparency. The manuscript presents only partial fragments of the search equations and does not report the complete search strategies for each database consulted. Furthermore, the exact search dates for each database, language filters, operators used on each platform, and the use of controlled vocabulary or specialized thesauri are not clearly specified. This lack of detail limits the reproducibility of the study. It is recommended that the authors include, in an appendix, all complete and detailed search strategies, indicating the specific search dates and justifying the methodological decision to restrict the search exclusively to titles (“TITLE”). Regarding the study selection process, the manuscript does not sufficiently explain how the article screening process was conducted. Although duplicate removal and phased review procedures are mentioned, the manuscript does not specify how many reviewers participated in the process, whether the evaluations were conducted independently, or how disagreements between reviewers were resolved. Likewise, no inter-rater agreement indices, such as Cohen’s Kappa coefficient or equivalent measures, are reported. These elements are fundamental to ensuring methodological consistency and reducing selection bias. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors describe in detail the review and consensus procedures followed among reviewers. Another aspect that requires strengthening is the data extraction process. The manuscript states that different researchers analyzed quantitative and qualitative studies using different methodological guidelines; however, no extraction matrix is presented, nor are the extracted variables, analytical categories, or coding procedures clearly specified. It is suggested that the authors incorporate a table or methodological appendix explicitly describing the variables collected from each study, the categorization criteria, and the procedures used to handle ambiguous or incomplete information. One of the main methodological weaknesses of the article concerns the assessment of risk of bias. The authors used a self-developed instrument based mainly on criteria related to article structure and writing quality, rather than on a robust methodological evaluation of the risk of bias of the included studies. Although the instrument appears organized, it has not been internationally validated, and no evidence of reliability or justification for the cutoff points used is reported. Regarding the analysis and synthesis of results, although the review develops a coherent and thematically well-structured narrative synthesis, the absence of a meta-analysis is not adequately justified, nor is it clearly explained how the thematic categories used in the discussion were constructed. The manuscript reports multiple positive effects on motivation, performance, and digital competencies; however, these findings are not accompanied by effect measures, heterogeneity analyses, or systematic comparisons between studies. The authors are encouraged to explicitly justify the choice of a narrative synthesis, explain the thematic analysis procedures, and discuss more deeply the methodological and contextual heterogeneity of the included studies. In addition, several inconsistencies were identified in the presentation of numbers, percentages, and methodological categories in tables and figures, which should be carefully reviewed to improve the technical accuracy of the manuscript. In Table 2, for example, there are contradictions between the assigned scores and the classification of risk of bias. According to the methodology section, scores between 18–20 correspond to low risk, whereas scores between 15–17 correspond to moderate risk; however, some studies with a score of 16 are classified as “Low (L),” which contradicts the criteria defined by the authors themselves. Likewise, inconsistencies exist in the abbreviations used for participants (“P:” and “Q:”) without a clear methodological explanation. Minor typographical errors and formatting issues were also observed in the table, such as incomplete expressions or incorrect word separations, possibly resulting from document conversion problems. Although the overall percentages reported in the methodological distribution are mathematically correct, it is recommended to standardize the use of decimal places and review the statistical consistency among the text, tables, and figures. In the PRISMA figure, the reported values are generally coherent; however, the visual presentation of the exclusion reasons makes it difficult to quickly interpret the methodological flow. Improving the readability of the diagram and organizing the exclusion categories more clearly is recommended. Similarly, Table 3 presents only individual examples of excluded studies but does not incorporate a systematic classification or overall counts by exclusion reason, which limits the methodological traceability of the review. On the other hand, the conclusions tend in some sections to overgeneralize the findings. The repeated use of expressions such as “confirmed,” “demonstrated,” or “generated positive effects” may be excessively deterministic considering that a large proportion of the included studies are descriptive, qualitative, or quasi-experimental in design. It is recommended that the authors adopt more cautious language consistent with the level of available evidence, using expressions such as “suggests,” “indicates,” or “is associated with.” It would also be important to strengthen the critical discussion regarding the structural and ethical limitations of digital environments. Although the manuscript mentions issues related to connectivity and teacher training, topics such as digital inequality, algorithmic surveillance, platform bias, institutional sustainability, and risks associated with the growing use of artificial intelligence in higher education could be explored in greater depth. A more critical perspective would enrich the scientific contribution of the article. I encourage the authors to address the issues identified above. Before the manuscript can be considered scientifically robust and suitable for indexing, substantial methodological revisions related to transparency and reproducibility are required. With these improvements, the work could represent a valuable contribution to the field of pedagogical innovation and digital environments in higher education. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ . 2021. Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Educational Technology, Digital Education, Higher Education, ICT in Education, E-learning, Digital Competencies, Artificial Intelligence in Education, Inclusive Education, Systematic Reviews, Educational Innovation. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Basantes-Andrade A. Peer Review Report For: Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic Review Focused on Higher Education [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :522 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194769.r480741) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1#referee-response-480741 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments:...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Casimiro Urcos CN et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522", templates : { twitter : "Pedagogical Innovation in Digital Environments: A Systematic.... Casimiro Urcos CN et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-522/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/176682/194769") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "194769"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "480743": 0, "480742": 0, "480741": 2, "476293": 0, "480740": 0, "476292": 0, "480739": 0, "476291": 0, "480738": 0, "476290": 0, "476289": 0, "476288": 0, "480747": 4, "480746": 0, "480745": 0, "480744": 0, "476287": 0, "476286": 0, "476285": 0, "476284": 2, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "9900720b-941d-48e9-8028-65deac48a89b"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });