Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh

Teachers’ and students’ use of... | 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/14-269" }, "headline": "Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private...", "datePublished": "2025-03-06T16:02:51", "dateModified": "2025-09-05T13:41:11", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Arifur Rahman" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Md Khairul Islam" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abdullah Al-Mamun" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Md Shahidul Islam" } ], "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": " Background Bangladesh is an emerging country where teachers and students of public and private universities have started using technology in the classrooms. Many teachers and students of social science faculty have an inclination to use ChatGPT for educational and research purposes. This study, centering on this specific context, aims to provide insights into the perception and integration of ChatGPT into the educational practices of an emerging country. Methods This study employed a mixed method approach. Quantitative data were collected through questionnaire survey from 402 teachers and 440 students of eight different public and private universities following a stratified sampling approach. A convenience sampling technique was followed with a view to collecting qualitative data through in-depth interviews of 32 participants, comprising 16 teachers and 16 students from both public and private universities. Results The study presents that students and teachers both have proficiency, yet a gap in expertise persists. Students perceive ChatGPT as beneficial for better learning outcomes, and teachers find it helpful in preparing for classes and instructional materials. Both teachers and students regard ChatGPT requiring minimal effort. While peer influence drives students to use it, this factor does not influence teachers. However, teachers express stronger behavioral intentions to use it in the future compared to students. Nevertheless, ethical use, reliance, and information accuracy continue to raise concerns. Besides, high cost and language barriers are also listed as reasons for limiting accessibility. Conclusion The findings of this study have significant implications for the development of policies, research endeavors, and teaching-learning practices in the higher education sector covering both public and private universities in Bangladesh and other similar contexts. " } { "@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/14-269/v2", "name": "Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in..." } } ] } Home Browse Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Rahman A, Islam MK, Al-Mamun A and Islam MS. Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161351.2 ) 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 ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Arifur Rahman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8828-4372 1-3 , Md Khairul Islam https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0209-2896 1-3 , Abdullah Al-Mamun 1-3 , Md Shahidul Islam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9918-9768 4 Arifur Rahman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8828-4372 1-3 , Md Khairul Islam https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0209-2896 1-3 , Abdullah Al-Mamun 1-3 , Md Shahidul Islam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9918-9768 4 PUBLISHED 05 Sep 2025 Author details Author details 1 Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 2 Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 3 Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 4 Jaggo Foundation, Rajshahi, Rajshahi, 6205, Bangladesh Arifur Rahman Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Md Khairul Islam Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Abdullah Al-Mamun Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Md Shahidul Islam Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning gateway. Abstract Background Bangladesh is an emerging country where teachers and students of public and private universities have started using technology in the classrooms. Many teachers and students of social science faculty have an inclination to use ChatGPT for educational and research purposes. This study, centering on this specific context, aims to provide insights into the perception and integration of ChatGPT into the educational practices of an emerging country. Methods This study employed a mixed method approach. Quantitative data were collected through questionnaire survey from 402 teachers and 440 students of eight different public and private universities following a stratified sampling approach. A convenience sampling technique was followed with a view to collecting qualitative data through in-depth interviews of 32 participants, comprising 16 teachers and 16 students from both public and private universities. Results The study presents that students and teachers both have proficiency, yet a gap in expertise persists. Students perceive ChatGPT as beneficial for better learning outcomes, and teachers find it helpful in preparing for classes and instructional materials. Both teachers and students regard ChatGPT requiring minimal effort. While peer influence drives students to use it, this factor does not influence teachers. However, teachers express stronger behavioral intentions to use it in the future compared to students. Nevertheless, ethical use, reliance, and information accuracy continue to raise concerns. Besides, high cost and language barriers are also listed as reasons for limiting accessibility. Conclusion The findings of this study have significant implications for the development of policies, research endeavors, and teaching-learning practices in the higher education sector covering both public and private universities in Bangladesh and other similar contexts. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords ChatGPT, teaching-learning, perception, academic integrity, reliability, ethical consideration, higher education Corresponding Author(s) Md Khairul Islam ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Md Khairul Islam Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Rahman A 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: Rahman A, Islam MK, Al-Mamun A and Islam MS. Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161351.2 ) First published: 06 Mar 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161351.1 ) Latest published: 05 Sep 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161351.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 In the revised manuscript, the valuable comments of the two reviewers have been carefully addressed. In the introduction section, the last paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestions, along with the addition of research questions. Language editing has been completed, considering grammatical mistakes. A new literature review section has been added, focusing on high-impact literature published after 2023. Justification for the research tools guiding the UTAUT model and existing literature was provided. Moreover, content validity and reflection from the pilot test have been added. Questionnaire distribution for data collection was added, and the number of female participants was provided for clarity. Survey questionnaires and an in-depth interview protocol are included in the Appendix of the manuscript, and a depository link has been provided in the Underlying Data and Extended Data sections for both quantitative and qualitative data. A detailed coding process was discussed, along with an example of the coding supplied. The statistical findings include group differences and practical significance. In qualitative findings, participants' profiles have been added, and S1, S2 for students and T1, T2 for teachers were used in the vignette. More vignette was added for clarity. According to the reviewer's suggestion, the implications and limitations have been merged in the conclusion. Moreover, ethical concerns were effectively integrated into the conclusion, along with broader impact, policy, and GenAI ethics in education. Both reviewers' feedback was insightful, which improved the overall quality of the manuscript. In the revised manuscript, the valuable comments of the two reviewers have been carefully addressed. In the introduction section, the last paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestions, along with the addition of research questions. Language editing has been completed, considering grammatical mistakes. A new literature review section has been added, focusing on high-impact literature published after 2023. Justification for the research tools guiding the UTAUT model and existing literature was provided. Moreover, content validity and reflection from the pilot test have been added. Questionnaire distribution for data collection was added, and the number of female participants was provided for clarity. Survey questionnaires and an in-depth interview protocol are included in the Appendix of the manuscript, and a depository link has been provided in the Underlying Data and Extended Data sections for both quantitative and qualitative data. A detailed coding process was discussed, along with an example of the coding supplied. The statistical findings include group differences and practical significance. In qualitative findings, participants' profiles have been added, and S1, S2 for students and T1, T2 for teachers were used in the vignette. More vignette was added for clarity. According to the reviewer's suggestion, the implications and limitations have been merged in the conclusion. Moreover, ethical concerns were effectively integrated into the conclusion, along with broader impact, policy, and GenAI ethics in education. Both reviewers' feedback was insightful, which improved the overall quality of the manuscript. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Sarin Sok See the authors' detailed response to the review by Soha Rawas READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction ChatGPT, an AI technology bearding the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) architecture, can reasonably improve the teaching and learning process due to its sage conversational capabilities ( Baidoo-Anu & Ansah, 2023 ). It can provide translation, summary, and question answers, and simultaneously, the generation of texts automates pestering ( Cotton et al., 2023 ). Unsupervised pre-training and controlled fine-tuning generate responses similar to what a human expert would say, displaying domain knowledge about various topics and answering questions accordingly. Textual data is gathered from various internet sources, including websites, articles, papers, and forums ( Dwivedi et al., 2023 ). The most remarkable feature of ChatGPT is its ability to generate text. Within just three months of the collective release of ChatGPT, significant numbers of software engineers, authors, academics, teachers, and songwriters used the system to generate written content, academic essays, computer programs, applications, and song lyrics ( Mariani et al., 2023 ). ChatGPT-4 has continued to be developed, and today, it is used across different applications, including education worldwide. It also helps promoting students’ educational experiences through tailored coaching and support. Implementing this technology has advanced student engagement and collaboration by allowing students to question and debate asynchronously, removing the need to be simultaneously present ( Li & Xing, 2021 ). ChatGPT can facilitate teachers and students discussing complex ideas at their preferred pace. It also helps with administrative tasks such as responding to commonly asked questions, providing course materials, and managing scheduling or registration tasks. Universities can utilize ChatGPT to improve student engagement by providing continuous support and accelerating administrative processes ( Biswas, 2023 ). However, despite these advantages, several critical concerns must be taken under consideration before utilizing ChatGPT. In the context of educational assessment, plagiarism comes as a threat. AI essay-writing systems produce essays based on present parameters or guiding principles which can result in academic forgery by submitting plagiarized write-ups. It counters the key central idea of education, which is to educate and inspire learners, and it could undermine the credibility of academic degrees in the coming years ( Dehouche, 2021 ). So, the role of ChatGPT in education has sparked and initiated one of the most talked about debates in academia. Therefore, further research is needed to determine ChatGPT adoption in developed and developing countries. An in-depth analysis shows that comparatively, more affluent countries are moving quickly on the chatbots issue and developing ways to leverage it for education. However, developing countries such as Bangladesh need to focus on this. Because technologies do not have borders, understanding the utilization of ChatGPT by a diverse country like Bangladesh could provide a worldwide perspective of the benefits and challenges of adopting and adapting AI technologies in multiple socio-cultural and economic environments. Bangladesh is a developing country where the educational system is being modernized, and technology is being introduced in the classrooms of public and private universities ( Sarker et al., 2019 ). Recently, a growing number of teachers and students at tertiary education sector in Bangladesh have been shown interested in using ChatGPT. By focusing on this specific context, the study aims to bring insight into the perception and integration of emerging advanced technology such as ChatGPT into the educational practices of an emerging country. Focusing on Bangladesh as a specific research context, the study aspires to produce meaningful and enlightening knowledge for the worldwide community. In the backdrop of social science faculty at the public and private universities of Bangladesh, where teaching and personalized learning pathways are of great importance, it is essential to address how teachers and students are using ChatGPT. Comparatively, the educational system of Bangladesh has its drawbacks, with large classroom setups, shortage of resources, and potentially low student participation ( Prodhan, 2016 ). These issues may be mitigated through ChatGPT, which provides personalized support, immediate feedback, and a highly interactive learning environment. Understanding the perception of the key stakeholders’ regarding the use of ChatGPT is crucial to harness this type of advanced technology effectively. Under this circumstance, getting insight into teachers’ and students’ perspectives on employing ChatGPT cannot be neglected because they are an indispensable part of the teaching-learning process. There is a lack of knowledge about the perceptions and use of ChatGPT among teachers and students in the general settings of social science faculty at public and private universities in Bangladesh. In order to comprehensively evaluate the potential and challenges of implementing ChatGPT in the teaching-learning process in developing countries such as Bangladesh, it is crucial to gain insights into teachers’ and students’ perceptions and usage of ChatGPT. Understanding the perspectives and usage of ChatGPT by teachers and students at social science faculty in developing nations on ChatGPT is essential to ensure its implementation aligns with their specific needs and circumstances. Thus, the aim of this study is to investigate the perceptions and usage of ChatGPT among teachers and students of the social science faculty at public and private universities in Bangladesh, aiming to fill the research gap and contribute to policy-making at universities regarding the use of ChatGPT. Based on this aim, the study addresses the following research question: What are the perceptions and usage of ChatGPT among teachers in the social science faculties of public and private universities in Bangladesh? Literature review Researchers have underscored the significance of understanding the perspectives of stakeholders in order to successfully facilitate the adoption and implementation of AI tools in educational ecology. The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the field of education is an area that elicits controversy and disagreement. According to Rawas (2024) , AI systems like ChatGPT have the potential to endanger the privacy of stakeholders, including teachers and students. To demonstrate that ChatGPT is being used as intended and does not have any unintended negative impacts on students or teachers, its use must be transparent and accountable. Moreover, Samala et al. (2025) have mentioned that using ChatGPT raises problems due to specific unfavorable attributes, including technological constraints, ethical dilemmas, plagiarism, deceit, and abuse. In addition, Chassignol et al. (2018) think that these technologies can also adversely impact human interactions, relationships, and the quality of learning. Furthermore, it neglects social engagement and the communal elements of the learning process. Sok and Heng (2024) have raised concerns regarding security, privacy, trust, inaccurate information and an overreliance on technology. Conversely, numerous studies have focused on the advantages of AI and the positive perceptions of AI held by instructors and pupils. Research conducted by Zawacki-Richter et al. (2019) indicates that teachers generally hold favorable views toward AI and consider it a helpful tool for enhancing educational practices and increasing student engagement. Kaswan et al. (2024) state that AI can offer adaptable feedback, personalized learning opportunities, and intelligent coaching methods. Therefore, students typically hold favorable views toward AI and perceive it as a valuable tool that enriches their educational experiences. They value the ability of AI to offer personalized learning suggestions, immediate feedback, and engaging learning settings. It enhances students’ self-assurance in their aptitude to acquire knowledge and renders the studying process more captivating for them. Vázquez-Parra et al. (2024) have found that university students positively perceived artificial intelligence (AI) as a valuable tool for learning. AI is capable of effectively addressing any inquiries related to topic comprehension. Numerous AI-based technologies have been developed for educational purposes. Chatbots, an artificial intelligence (AI) tool, offer multiple benefits to education, assisting teachers and students in diverse ways. Sok and Heng (2023) indicate that ChatGPt helps with brainstorming, developing learning assessments, improving pedagogical practices, providing virtual personal tuition, and constructing an outline for an essay or research article. In addition, Chatbots provide tailored learning experiences, support students, improve tutoring and homework assistance, facilitate language acquisition, enable assessment and feedback, enhance student involvement, and aid in research and information retrieval ( Pérez et al., 2020 ). ChatGPT is gaining popularity in educational environments due to its advanced artificial intelligence capabilities. The GPT series developed by OpenAI, including ChatGPT, utilizes robust and extensive language modeling approaches. As a result of being trained on a wide range of varied texts, the AI model can respond in a manner that resembles human-like behavior and demonstrates a heightened level of comprehension of language ( Dentella et al., 2024 ). ChatGPT stands out due to its capacity to enable more sophisticated and contextually relevant conversations. ChatGPT’s remarkable versatility enables it to actively participate in diverse educational endeavors such as tailored learning, student assistance, tutoring, and evaluation. Due to its capacity to comprehend intricate inquiries, deliver precise information, and provide comprehensive arguments, it enhances the efficacy of learning. Kasneci et al. (2023) have found that ChatGPT can aid educators and learners in improving their proficiency in language acquisition, data comprehension, analytical thinking, logical reasoning, and academic research. Although ChatGPT holds significant value in education, it has faced substantial criticism due to its potential to undermine academic integrity. Several issues that require attention include copyright infringement, discrimination, inequity, data privacy and security concerns, and excessive dependence of students or teachers on ChatGPT ( Wu et al., 2024 ). Shoufan (2023) conducted a study to determine students’ perceptions of using ChatGPT. The findings demonstrate that students are impressed by the capabilities of ChatGPT and its utility as a tool for studying and working. Users value the humanoid interface of the system for its user-friendly nature and ability to provide well-structured and logically sound responses. Nevertheless, many students contend that the responses provided by ChatGPT lack consistent accuracy. Technology cannot substitute human intelligence, and it is widely accepted that a solid knowledge base is crucial for effectively engaging with it. Firat (2023) suggests that incorporating ChatGPT into education presents numerous opportunities to enhance learning outcomes, tailor instruction, and transform the role of teachers. However, this progress needs to be improved regarding assessment, digital literacy, and ethical considerations. It is essential to maximize the capabilities of ChatGPT entirely by tackling these issues and devising strategies to ensure ethical and fair implementation. According to a study conducted by Mogavi et al. (2023) , the aspects of ChatGPT that are most commonly disputed are creativity and ethics. While ChatGPT is seen as a pioneering advancement by certain initial users, with the potential to boost students’ self-confidence and motivation to learn, there are apprehensions that excessive dependence on the AI system might promote superficial learning habits that could impede students’ critical thinking skills. In another study, Cotton et al. (2023) have presented a series of tactics that institutions can adopt to guarantee the ethical and conscientious utilization of ChatGPT. The strategies encompass implementing standards and processes, offering training and support, and employing various tools to identify and deter cheating. To comprehensively evaluate the potential and challenges of implementing ChatGPT in developing countries such as Bangladesh, it is crucial to gain insights into the perceptions of teachers and students towards this technology. Gaining insight into the perspectives of teachers and students regarding the assistance provided by ChatGPT in developing nations necessitates a substantial investment of time. In financially constrained countries, access to resources and opportunities for obtaining high quality education is limited ( Kshetri et al., 2023 ). Understanding the perspectives of teachers and students in developing nations on ChatGPT is essential to ensure its implementation aligns with their specific needs and circumstances. These findings inform the creation of effective integration strategies for settings with few resources, and ChatGPT has the potential to address educational gaps and offer customized learning opportunities. Nevertheless, the perspective of teachers and students at public and private universities in Bangladesh towards applying ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence tool for educational purposes remains largely unexplored. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, more research is needed on ChatGPT in Bangladesh. Islam and Islam (2023) conducted a study to ascertain the advantages and disadvantages of implementing ChatGPT in educational settings in Bangladesh. To accomplish that goal, data were obtained from online sources and processed utilizing the noticing-collecting-thinking model. The outcomes of this AI strategy are divided into four categories: research, education, the development of individual skills, and social. Rahman and Watanobe (2023) conducted a study examining the potential benefits and risks that ChatGPT could have on education in Bangladesh. Furthermore, researchers investigated how ChatGPT improves students’ programming skills. They employed ChatGPT to conduct various coding-related experiments, such as generating algorithm pseudocode, rectifying code errors, and generating code based on problem descriptions. The generalizability of the study’s findings to teachers and students engaged in technology-related topics across different disciplines is limited. Rahman et al. (2023b) carried out a study demonstrating the use of ChatGPT in academic research. They presented a practical example and offered suggestions. Published articles, websites, blogs, and visual and numerical artifacts were all used to gather the data for this study. The findings indicate that ChatGPT can serve as a valuable instrument for creating initial notions in scholarly studies. The literature synthesis, citations, problem descriptions, research gaps, and data analysis may present challenges for the researchers. These studies do not, however, focus on how teachers and students perceive the use of ChatGPT. Therefore, this study aims to ascertain how teachers and students at both public and private universities in Bangladesh perceive applying ChatGPT. Theoretical framework This study is grounded in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model, which posits four core constructs such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions that are theorized to shape the acceptance and usage of technology ( Venkatesh et al., 2003 ). Performance expectancy is defined as the extent to which ChatGPT is perceived to improve educational outcomes, such as improving teaching efficiency for teachers or helping students during the learning process. Effort expectancy answers how easily teachers and students can leverage ChatGPT effectively during their studies. The social influence reflects the effect of peers, faculty, and institutional norms on the decisions of individuals to adopt ChatGPT. Finally, facilitating conditions are the resources and support at the educational institution that enable the use of ChatGPT, such as training or technical support. Along with these constructs, the UTAUT model added two vital outcomes: behavioral intention and actual use ( Rofiah & Suhermin, 2022 ). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions about ChatGPT and how they use ChatGPT were guided by behavioral intention and actual use outcomes to fulfill the objectives of this study ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Theoretical framework of this study. This figure delineates the theoretical framework that guides this study. This framework is based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model proposed by Venkatesh et al. (2003) . Methods This study followed a mixed method approach combining both quantitative and qualitative data to get a comprehensive understanding of teachers’ and students’ perception and usage of ChatGPT in social science faculty of both public and private unviersities in Bangladesh. This approach allow the researchers to generalize the perception and usage of ChatGPT by teachers and students along with the exploration of underlying views, experiences, and contextual factors of adapting ChatGPT. Heyvaert et al. (2013) argue that mixed-methods research is crucial because it combines quantitative data with qualitative data, which may provide a holistic understanding of complex phenomena. This strategy demands for a more in-depth exploration of findings. As a result, this study followed a mixed-method approach to generalize social science faculty teachers’ and students’ perceptions and use of ChatGPT in Bangladesh and also to comprehensively get an in-depth scenario of their experiences, strategies, and interactions. Two survey questionnaires were generated for both teachers and students. Each survey question contains twenty-six items and is prepared on a five-point Likert scale. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives of teachers and students from public and private universities in Bangladesh, interviews were carried out. As a theoretical framework, the UTAUT model helps to guide the preparation of questionnaires and the interpretation of the findings. However, no copyrighted survey items or scales from the proprietary UTAUT instrument were used in this study; rather, the model was adapted conceptually to develop data collection tools and also cited properly. The survey items were developed based on the UTAUT constructs, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, behavioral intention, and actual use. Items were generated through a review of prior UTAUT-based studies on technology adoption and refined to capture context-specific aspects of ChatGPT use in Bangladeshi higher education. The content validity of the two survey questionnaires was ensured through getting reviewed by three EdTech experts. As the questionnaires were in Bangla (the mother tongue of the participants), two language experts also validated the questionnaires. Based on their feedback, questionnaires were revised before piloting. Moreover, Cronbach’s alpha was utilized to assess the reliability of the instruments. Forty teachers and fifty-three students participated in the piloting of two surveys. While the students’ survey had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.833, the teachers’ survey had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.877. These results show that both questionnaires are highly reliable for gathering data. Based on piloting feedback, a few items were reworded for clarity, redundant items were removed, and the overall structure of the two survey questionnaires was slightly modified to enhance the clarity of the tools. Pilot data were excluded from the final analysis to avoid bias in the main study. E-survey link was shared through institutional email lists, social media groups, and direct communication channels with teachers and students. A stratified sampling technique was used to collect survey data using Google Forms due to its wide accessibility, user-friendliness, and efficiency in organizing responses. The survey link was shared through institutional email lists, social media platforms, and direct communication with teachers and students. In terms of sample size, data were collected from the social science faculties of sixteen universities, comprising eight public and eight private universities. In total, survey data were collected from 402 teachers and 440 students across these social science faculties. However, after data cleaning, the dataset comprised 381 teacher records and 384 student records. Gender and other demographic factors were considered when collecting data, including data from 174 female teachers and 171 female students. Then data was analyzed through IBM SPSSversion 27 ( IBM Corp, 2021 ) ( https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-27 ). For researchers who seek an open-source alternative, can use, JASP for similar data analysis. JASP is an open-access software (available at https://jasp-stats.org/ ). In terms of qualitative data, a convenient sampling technique was used for conducting in-depth interviews due to the accessibility and availability of teachers and students within the study timeframe. This convenience sampling allowed the inclusion of teachers and students from both public and private universities who were available and willing to provide detailed insights about their perception and use of ChatGPT. A total of 32 interviews were conducted, comprising 16 teachers and 16 students, with two teachers and two students from each university, ensuring equal gender representation at each university. The interviews were recorded with permission. Research objectives were explained to the participants and commitment of conserving privacy of the participants in every aspects of the research were declared. Interviews were taken only those who willingly showed interest to participate in the study. Each interview lasted for 35 to 40 minutes. After collecting data, every recorded interview was transcribed verbatim. Next, all Bengali transcriptions were converted into English and was sent these to a Bengali and English language specialist to ensure the accuracy of the translation. Researchers completed transcriptions after getting the translator’s input. The research employed the thematic qualitative data analysis technique to identify patterns and theme to understand the real situation deeply ( Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). By the six stages of data analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) , all researchers first became familiar with the data by reading it separately, and then each researcher created preliminary codes from it. At this point, they adopted the strategy of “reading, reading, and reading again” ( Mertler, 2009 , p. 141) to examine all narrative data. Researchers grouped related codes into new themes in the third step and then reviewed them again in the fourth. At the fifth step, several themes were identified, and mutually agreed-upon final themes were assigned names. A report was then generated. Since researchers transitioned from a factual understanding to a theoretical one, they employed an inductive approach to qualitative data analysis ( Graneheim, Lindgren, & Lundman, 2017 ). Direct quotes from teachers and students were used to highlight significant issues in the Findings section, thereby maintaining transparency and credibility. This approach allows participants’ voices to be authentically represented while facilitating the thematic interpretations. Examples of coding. Codes Sub-themes Main Themes Hear about ChatGPT, learn how to operate ChatGPT, do not know effective use of ChatGPT, Ability to operate ChatGPT all function, ChatGPT is wonderful, ChatGPT provide all answer, ChatGPT provide effective guideline, ChatGPT reduce creativity and critical thinking, do not like to use ChatGPT, ChatGPT provide wrong answer, Ethical dilemma Knowledge of ChatGPT, Awareness about ChatGPT, Positive attitudes regarding ChatGPT, negative attitude regarding ChatGPT, Skills to operate ChatGPT Knowledge, attitude and skill of using ChatGPT Findings The following ( Table 1 ) demonstrates the demographic information of the teachers. Table 1. Teachers demographic information. Count Table N % Types of University Public University 202 53.0% Private University 179 47.0% Gender Male 207 54.3% Female 174 45.7% Others 0 0.0% No interest to share 0 0.0% Position Professor 39 10.2% Associate professor 62 16.3% Assistant professor 148 38.8% Lecturer 132 34.6% Department Economics 99 26.0% Political Science 80 21.0% Sociology 22 5.8% International Relationship 31 8.1% Mass Communication & Journalism 56 14.7% Public Administration 56 14.7% Anthropology 8 2.1% Population Science 16 4.2% Folklore 9 2.4% Social Work 4 1.0% ChatGPT Free version 302 79.3% Paid version 79 20.7% Regarding the demography of teachers, it was found that public universities represented the majority (53%) among 381 participants, while 47% were from private universities. In terms of gender, 54% were male and 46% were female. Academically, assistant professors led by 38.8%, followed by lecturers of 34.6%, while associate professors and full professors made up 16.3% and 10.2%, respectively. In terms of academic discipline, Economics had the highest representation at 26%, followed by Political Science at 21%. Moreover, Mass Communication and Journalism, and Public Administration each accounted for 14.7% of the sample, while Anthropology had the lowest representation at only 1%. The majorities, 79.3% of teachers, have a free version of ChatGPT, and 20.7% have a premium version. The following table ( Table 2 ) demonstrates the demographic information of the students. Table 2. Student demographic information. Count Table N % Types of University Public University 213 55.5% Private University 171 44.5% Gender Male 213 55.5% Female 171 44.5% Others 0 0.0% No interest to share 0 0.0% Education level Graduate 206 53.6% Post Graduate 178 46.4% Education year 1st year 33 8.6% 2nd year 82 21.4% 3rd year 98 25.5% 4th year 69 18.0% Masters 1st Semester 45 11.7% Masters 2nd Semester 36 9.4% Master’s Thesis Student 21 5.5% Subject of Study Economics 21 5.5% Political Science 34 8.9% Sociology 28 7.3% International Relationship 41 10.7% Mass Communication & Journalism 49 12.8% Public Administration 40 10.4% Anthropology 25 6.5% Population Science 25 6.5% Peace and Conflict 26 6.8% Social Work 27 7.0% Criminology 14 3.6% Women and Gender Studies 14 3.6% Development Studies 6 1.6% Television, Film and Photography 11 2.9% Education 22 5.7% Others 1 0.3% Device Laptop 192 50.0% Computer 58 15.1% Smartphone 131 34.1% Tab 3 0.8% Others 0 0.0% ChatGPT Free version 372 97.1% Paid version 11 2.9% Survey data on student demographic showed that 55.5% of the student participants were from public universities and 44.5% were from private universities. The study includes the same gender distribution, with males constituting 55.5% and females 44.5%. Regarding the academic level, 53.6% of the respondents were graduate students, and 46.4% were post-graduate students. Mass Communication and Journalism was the most represented department in this study with 12.8% of students, followed by International Relationships (10.7%) and Public Administration (10.4%). Development Studies was the least represented department with1.6%. As for the usage of ChatGPT, 97.1% students utilized the free version, and merely 2.9% were premium users. Teachers’ responses to the survey are presented in Table 3 . Table 3. Teacher response to the survey items. Items Mean Std. Deviation Performance Expectancy (PE) ChatGPT improves my capacity to teach complex issues efficiently 3.48 .803 Using ChatGPT enhances my efficiency in developing lesson plans and lectures 3.37 .796 ChatGPT assists me in developing more interesting teaching materials 3.51 .807 ChatGPT facilitates my research process, which encompasses concept formulation, literature review, methodology, and report writing 2.91 .858 ChatGPT enhances the quality of my study by providing rapid access to relevant materials 3.30 .937 Effort Expectancy (EE) I find that ChatGPT is user-friendly when developing instructional materials 3.58 .809 Incorporating ChatGPT with my teaching approaches requires minimal effort 3.48 .841 Understanding the use of ChatGPT for research activities is simple 2.83 1.024 I am confident of my ability to use ChatGPT for teaching and research 2.80 .955 Social Influence (SI) My colleagues support the use of ChatGPT in my teaching and research effort 2.69 .929 My institution supports the integration of ChatGPT within the educational environment 2.67 .904 The use of ChatGPT is becoming increasingly popular among teachers at my university 3.46 .944 Facilitating Condition (FC) I have the required technological resources to use ChatGPT in my teaching and research activities 3.32 1.142 My university offers adequate support for using ChatGPT as a teaching and research facility 2.49 .996 Institutional policies and guidelines for the ethical use of ChatGPT in educational contexts are established 2.47 1.017 I have financial support for using the Premium edition of ChatGPT 2.42 1.075 Behavioral Intention (BI) I plan to continue using ChatGPT for my teaching and research activities 3.62 1.023 I plan to increase my use of ChatGPT in the future for both teaching and research aims 3.68 .967 Actual Use (AU) I frequently utilize ChatGPT to develop teaching materials and lesson plans 3.73 1.089 I frequently utilize ChatGPT to assist with my research activities 3.74 .934 I frequently utilize ChatGPT to assign task to the students 2.87 1.080 I frequently consider the risk of plagiarism and ethical issues when using ChatGPT in my teaching and research 3.59 .944 I frequently verify the accuracy of the information supplied by ChatGPT 3.88 .931 I actively seek training opportunities to improve my use of ChatGPT for teaching and research 3.81 1.043 I am cautious about relying too heavily on ChatGPT for creativity in my teaching and research 3.82 1.015 I am cautious about potential challenges of using ChatGPT 3.70 .959 Teachers considered ChatGPT positively regarding its effective integration into enhancing teaching materials (M=3.51, SD=0.807), easy use (M=3.58, SD=0.809), and less effort required for incorporation into the teaching methods (M=3.48, SD=0.841). ChatGPT was frequently used to generate teaching materials (M=3.73, SD=1.089) and to check the accuracy of information (M=3.88, SD=0.931) but rated lower for helping with complex research (e.g., literature reviews and methods) (M=2.91, SD=0.858). The confidence level for using ChatGPT for research was relatively low (M=2.80, SD=0.955). These findings indicate that ChatGPT lacks reliability when applied in research purposes. Teachers also reported low levels of institutional support (M=2.49, SD=0.996) and policy guidance for ethical use (M=2.47, SD=1.017). Similarly, colleagues’ support (M=2.69, SD=0.929) and financial support for premium usage (M=2.42, SD=1.075) were presented as insufficient. These findings suggest that contextual and institutional support are essential for effective utilization of ChatGPT. Teachers intended to continue using ChatGPT (M=3.62, SD=1.023) and use it more (M=3.68, SD=0.967). They often thought about ethical risks (M=3.59, SD=0.944) and accuracy verification (M=3.88, SD=0.931), indicating a cautious optimism. They proactively sought training opportunities (M=3.81, SD=1.043) and were careful of excessive reliance on ChatGPT for creativity (M=3.82, SD=1.015). These findings indicate teachers’ concern about ethical risks and the overuse of ChatGPT. Students’ response to the items is shown in Table 4 . Table 4. Student response to items. Items Mean Std. Deviation Performance Expectancy (PE) ChatGPT enhances my capacity to complete assignments more efficiently 4.31 .591 Applying ChatGPT enhances my understanding of complicated subjects and concepts 4.47 .625 ChatGPT improves the quality of my research papers and essays 4.04 .601 ChatGPT assists me in generating concepts for my research projects and assignments 4.44 .769 Employing ChatGPT enables me to accomplish work with greater rapidity and accuracy 4.47 .729 Effort Expectancy (EE) ChatGPT helps to finish my projects easily 4.05 .813 I can quickly acquire proficiency in utilizing ChatGPT for my research activities 4.21 .755 Using ChatGPT for academic study and research requires minimal effort 4.15 1.051 I am competent in utilizing ChatGPT for diverse learning activities 4.17 .745 Social Influence (SI) My peers suggest me to use ChatGPT for learning and research purposes 4.18 1.066 My teachers encourage the use of ChatGPT for assignments and research activities 3.17 1.412 The use of ChatGPT for learning purposes and assignments is increasingly popular among students in my class 4.07 1.114 Facilitating Condition (FC) I have the requisite technologies (smartphone, laptop, internet) to utilize ChatGPT for my studies 3.19 1.571 My university offers assistance and resources for utilizing ChatGPT in my studies 2.53 1.006 My university has established explicit standards for the ethical usage of ChatGPT in assignments and research 2.14 1.039 I have financial support for using the Premium edition of ChatGPT 2.39 1.261 Behavioral Intention (BI) I plan to keep using ChatGPT for my academic pursuits and research activities 3.49 1.035 I plan to increase my use of ChatGPT for future assignments and projects 3.41 1.116 Actual Use (AU) I regularly use ChatGPT to finish my projects and assignments 3.28 1.171 I frequently utilize ChatGPT to study for my courses and get ready for tests 3.75 .808 I frequently consider the possibility of plagiarism and moral dilemmas when utilizing ChatGPT for research and assignments 4.05 1.170 I frequently verify the information supplied by ChatGPT to make sure it is accurate for the assignments or research 3.68 1.104 I regularly use ChatGPT to prepare Power Point Presentation for academic purposes 4.07 1.078 I actively search for advice or tutorials to help me use ChatGPT more effectively for my academic work 3.89 .890 I try not to rely too much on ChatGPT to help me be creative with the assignments and research tasks 3.16 .959 I use ChatGPT to have language support while writing assignments 3.84 1.090 ChatGPT led to increased efficiency for students and better comprehension of the course material as students reported. It was beneficial with more complex subjects (M=4.47, SD=0.625) and ideas for project generation (M=4.44, SD=0.769). Furthermore, ChatGPT quickly and accurately helped with tasks (M=4.47, SD=0.729). Students often used it to complete assignments (M=4.31, SD=0.591) and prepare presentations (M=4.07, SD=1.078). Moreover, students reported ease of use when integrating ChatGPT into their academic activities, highlighting the low effort to use ChatGPT effectively (M=4.15, SD=1.051). They deemed themselves reasonably competent in using ChatGPT (M=4.17, SD=0.745) and frequently sought advice and tutorials from ChatGPT (M=3.89, SD=0.890). These findings indicate that students see ChatGPT positively because of support it provides for their academic activities. Moreover, Peer support for the use of ChatGPT was widespread (M=4.18, SD=1.066), but institutional support was perceived as insufficient. Clear ethical use standards (M=2.14, SD=1.039) and IT assistance provided by the universities (M=2.53, SD=1.006) received noticeably low ratings. Although indicating a sustained uptake of ChatGPT in academic settings, students expressed moderate to high intentions for continuous use (M = 3.49, SD = 1.035) and more future utilization (M = 3.41, SD = 1.116), they were cautious about overreliance (M=3.16, SD=0.959) and still focused on creativity and academic integrity. These findings suggest that although the students lack awareness about the ethical use of ChatGPT, they remain cautious for being overly dependent on it. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics according to six constructs. Table 5. Descriptive statistics according to six constructs. N Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower bound Upper bound PE Public University Student 213 4.3587 .51155 4.2896 4.4278 Private University Student 171 4.3287 .57461 4.2419 4.4154 Public University Teacher 202 3.3485 .51497 3.2771 3.4200 Private University Teacher 179 3.2715 .56392 3.1883 3.3547 Total 765 3.8308 .74692 3.7778 3.8839 EE Public University Student 213 4.1408 .62815 4.0560 4.2257 Private University Student 171 4.1550 .67799 4.0526 4.2573 Public University Teacher 202 3.1485 .62859 3.0613 3.2357 Private University Teacher 179 3.1983 .63305 3.1050 3.2917 Total 765 3.6614 .80467 3.6043 3.7185 SI Public University Student 213 3.7762 .64873 3.6886 3.8638 Private University Student 171 3.8499 .63674 3.7538 3.9460 Public University Teacher 202 2.9373 .68096 2.8428 3.0318 Private University Teacher 179 2.9441 .66337 2.8463 3.0420 Total 765 3.3765 .78805 3.3205 3.4324 FC Public University Student 213 2.5681 .78462 2.4621 2.6741 Private University Student 171 2.5512 .82956 2.4259 2.6764 Public University Teacher 202 2.6609 .70542 2.5630 2.7588 Private University Teacher 179 2.6969 .71056 2.5921 2.8017 Total 765 2.6190 .75904 2.5651 2.6728 BI Public University Student 213 3.4366 .76137 3.3338 3.5395 Private University Student 171 3.4737 .71180 3.3662 3.5811 Public University Teacher 202 3.6807 .79380 3.5706 3.7908 Private University Teacher 179 3.6089 .83675 3.4855 3.7324 Total 765 3.5497 .78276 3.4941 3.6052 AU Public University Student 213 3.7048 .61412 3.6219 3.7878 Private University Student 171 3.7295 .58735 3.6409 3.8182 Public University Teacher 202 3.6535 .59873 3.5704 3.7365 Private University Teacher 179 3.6285 .63149 3.5353 3.7216 Total 765 3.6789 .60841 3.6357 3.7221 The study uncovered distinct patterns among the six variables (PE, EE, SI, FC, BI, AU) highlighting differences in perceptions between the students and the teachers of different public and private universities. In terms of performance expectancy (PE), students at public universities had the highest mean (M=4.36, SD=0.58) for the usefulness of the system for improving performance. Students enrolled in private universities showed a mean score of 4.20 (SD=0.62). Public and private university teachers scored significantly less than the overall score (public university teachers: M=3.72, SD=0.64; private university teachers: M=3.60, SD=0.68). These findings suggest that ChatGPT contribute more to increasing students’ performance, whereas teachers from both public and private university perceive the contribution of ChatGPT in their own performance as limited. Furthermore, the effort expectancy (EE) trends mirrored those for Performance Expectancy (PE). Public university students obtained the highest (M=4.28, SD=0.57), followed by private university students (M=4.15, SD=0.59). The average score of the public universities teachers EE was 3.68 (SD=0.65), while the lowest average score, 3.55 (SD=0.70), belongs to the private universities teachers. These findings suggest that students can use ChatGPT with less effort compared to the teachers in both public and private universities. On the other hand, students from a private university showed the maximum mean score (M=3.85, SD=0.64) with the most significant perception of societal pressure to use the system, while public university students had a mean score of 3.72 (SD=0.63). Teachers scored lower on this construct— public university teachers scoring an average of 3.25 (SD=0.60) and private university teachers scoring an average of 3.18 (SD=0.65). In terms of social pressure, teachers reported less compelled to use ChatGPT than students in both public and private universities. For the facilitating conditions (FC), scores were relatively low across all groups, reflecting a consensus on a lack of support/resources. The students from public universities scored slightly higher (M=3.12, SD=0.75) than those from private university students (M=3.05, SD=0.72). Teachers showed the lowest ratings: teachers in public universities (M=2.95, SD=0.68) and private universities (M=2.90, SD=0.70). However, unlike other constructs, teachers had a higher behavioral intention (BI) than students. The highest mean score (M=4.10, SD=0.65) was identified for public university teachers, followed by private university teachers (M=4.00, SD=0.68). Still, public university students scored an average of 3.88 (SD=0.66), and private university students scored an average of 3.80 (SD=0.68). Lastly, regarding actual use (AU), having little variability, all groups were impressively consistent in how they scored. Public university teachers averaged 3.75 (SD=0.58), slightly ahead of private university teachers (M=3.70, SD=0.60). Students showed similar relative scores, with average scores of public university students of 3.68 (SD=0.63) and private university students of 3.65 (SD=0.64). In both public and private universities, teachers and students need institutional support to use ChatGPT and they have high behavioral intention to use it in future. Table 6. One way ANOVA statistics. ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. PE Between Groups 204.717 3 68.239 234.430 .000 Within Groups 221.515 761 .291 Total 426.232 764 EE Between Groups 182.140 3 60.713 147.827 .000 Within Groups 312.547 761 .411 Total 494.687 764 SI Between Groups 144.782 3 48.261 111.399 .000 Within Groups 329.683 761 .433 Total 474.465 764 FC Between Groups 2.781 3 .927 1.613 .185 Within Groups 437.395 761 .575 Total 440.175 764 BI Between Groups 7.806 3 2.602 4.302 .005 Within Groups 460.306 761 .605 Total 468.112 764 AU Between Groups 1.167 3 .389 1.051 .369 Within Groups 281.640 761 .370 Total 282.807 764 The one-way ANOVA indicates that the differences between groups are significant for the constructs of Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), and Social Influence (SI) (p < .001 for each. PE between-group data showed substantial variation (Sum of Squares = 204.717, F(3, 761) = 234.430, p < .001), indicating substantial group-level differences. EE also showed significant differences (Sum of Squares = 182.140, F(3, 761) = 147.827, p < .001) and SI (Sum of Squares = 144.782, F (3, 761) = 111.399, p < .001). Behavioral Intention (BI) was significantly changed, but less strong effect (Sum of Squares = 7.806, F(3, 761) = 4.302, p = .005). However, no statistically significant differences were found for Facilitating Conditions (FC) (F(3, 761) = 1.613, p = .185) or Actual Use (AU) (F(3, 761) = 1.051, p = .369), indicating that attitudes for these categories were consistent across groups. The results deliver a comprehensive overview of multifaceted heterogeneity in users’ attitudes and intentions across multiple cohorts highlighting common challenges in favorable conditions and actual usage behavior, particularly in terms of perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social influence. Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis showed significant group-level differences across constructs. Performance Expectancy (PE) and Effort Expectancy (EE): Students in both public and private universities scored higher than teachers (p < .001), where the highest scorers were the students of public universities. These findings suggest that students perceive ChatGPT as valuable tool for increasing their academic performance and they acclaim its easy interface to use while teachers are more concern about ethical use of ChatGPT and inaccurate information provided by ChatGPT which impact on their usage of ChatGPT. This gap highlights the need for students to focus on the ethical use of ChatGPT, while teachers need training to use it effectively. Students outperformed teachers (p < .001) based on Social Influence (SI), whereas private university students performed the best. These findings suggest that students’ use of ChatGPT is influenced by their peer networks; however, without institutional guidance, it may lead to excessive and improper use of ChatGPT. In contrast, teachers may face weaker peer pressure to use ChatGPT. By Behavioral Intention (BI): the teachers outscored students, and public university teachers outscored private university teachers. However, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings underscore teachers’ willingness to utilize ChatGPT for teaching and research purposes in the future, provided their concerns regarding ethical use and potential inaccuracies are addressed. These findings indicate that social factors influence students’ use of ChatGPT, whereas teachers’ use of ChatGPT is driven by their behavioral intention. Peer-driven initiatives are necessary for teachers’ collective engagement, while a clear institutional policy is needed for students to use ChatGPT responsibly. Findings from Qualitative analysis Demographic profile of the participants Table 7. Teachers profile. ID Name (Pseudonym) Gender Teaching experience (Years) University type T1 Rahul Male 5 Public T2 Shilpi Female 12 Public T3 Baizid Male 14 Private T4 Sharmin Female 3 Private T5 Sanjoy Male 23 Public T6 Fahmida Female 10 Public T7 Rahim Male 7 Private T8 Sumaiya Female 9 Private T9 Kamal Male 13 Public T10 Aleya Female 20 Public T11 Kuddus Male 2 Private T12 Sokina Female 11 Private T13 Jabber Male 15 Public T14 Jorina Female 3 Public T15 Sumon Male 5 Private T16 Kulsum Female 9 Private Table 8. Students profile. ID Name (Pseudonym) Gender Level of study University type S1 Morjina Female Masters Private S2 Babu Male Honors (2 nd year) Private S3 Hymonti Female Honors (4 th year) Public S4 Rabbi Male Honors (1 st year) Public S5 Nahar Female Masters Private S6 Milon Male Honors (3 rd year) Public S7 Baby Female Honors (2 nd year) Private S8 Arafat Male Masters Private S9 Hena Female Honors (1 st year) Public S10 Mukul Male Masters Public S11 Asma Female Honors (4 th year) Private S12 Motin Male Masters Private S13 Tanni Female Honors (2 nd year) Public S14 Shahid Male Honors (1 st year) Public S15 Naju Female Masters Private S16 Mollik Male Honors (3 rd year) Private The following figure ( Figure 2 ) demonstrates a comprehensive framework developed from thematic analysis of qualitative data. Figure 2. Comprehensive framework from thematic analysis. This figure illustrates a comprehensive framework of this study, which emerged from the thematic analysis of qualitative data from 16 teachers and 16 students in in-depth interviews. It highlights seven key themes, including knowledge, attitude, and skills; influence on performance; effort to use ChatGPT; support and Accessibility; Social Influence; concerns for using ChatGPT; and challenges for intention and use of ChatGPT. Knowledge, attitude and skill of using ChatGPT For students and teachers in Bangladesh, using ChatGPT is an unconventional idea. Both public and private university teachers claim that they need to become more acquainted with ChatGPT as their proficiency in using ChatGPT for teaching is average. Many university students, both public and private, have the necessary knowledge and abilities to make successful use of ChatGPT. The majority of them claim to be sufficiently knowledgeable about ChatGPT. These involve interacting with artificial intelligence as well as navigating and using ChatGPT. With their ability to command and instruct, they have the necessary skills and knowledge to extract accurate data from AI efficiently. Most of them used YouTube tutorial videos to learn how to use ChatGPT. One public university (S14) student said, “I am proficient in utilizing ChatGPT without any difficulty. I employed ChatGPT without undergoing any training. I acquired proficiency in using new programs using YouTube. I utilize it as a means of assistance when I encounter difficulties.” A private university student (S5) also mentioned, "It is easy to use ChatGPT. Anyone with a basic idea about technology can operate ChatGPT easily. However, to get a genuine answer, it is crucial to know how to ask questions effectively to ChatGPT. So, these questioning skills are crucial." However, ChatGPT is highly regarded by both students and teachers at private universities. Private university students and teachers have shown great interest in and excitement about using ChatGPT. Using ChatGPT, users can quickly receive answers to their questions and verify the accuracy of their information. A private university teacher (T4) said, “ChatGPT and other AI have a very positive impact on our education sector. I consider ChatGPT positively, but everyone needs to be careful to maintain academic integrity.” Some teachers in public universities, on the other hand, have a negative outlook. Some teachers have reported negative consequences for teachers and students due to using ChatGPT. Some teachers believe using ChatGPT in the classroom can jeopardize current teaching strategies and possibly reduce teachers’ efficacy. Furthermore, several teachers contend that ChatGPT impedes students’ intellectual growth. A public university teacher (T10) said, “ChatGPT is fostering a sense of laziness among our adolescent learners. Students are currently quickly accessing information through ChatGPT, diminishing their reliance on cognitive abilities. Consequently, students’ creativity and mental abilities are being impaired.” Influence on performance ChatGPT is viewed favorably by faculty members at private universities when it comes to creating course materials. According to several teachers, ChatGPT is a tool that helps them better comprehend any content and improves their knowledge of the material. Teachers at public universities point out that ChatGPT’s ability to offer thorough information on a range of topics is limited. Though the teachers acknowledged that relying solely on ChatGPT for developing classroom presentations is inappropriate, they foud it convenient to having a comprehensive review of the topic. Both teachers in public and private universities acknowledge that ChatGPT enhances their capacity to address students’ inquiries, elucidate concepts, generate stimulating discussion topics, perform language translations, and generate personalized learning materials such as quizzes and flashcards. It guides the most effective teaching strategies or tactics for a specific subject. Moreover, it facilitates designing lessons and provides comprehensive expertise in several subjects, positively impacting their professional competence. A teacher from a private university (T16) remarked, “Previously, I needed a comprehensive grasp of several topics. However, I now endeavor to enhance my knowledge by utilizing ChatGPT, which has resulted in improved academic achievement. I have learned the appropriate techniques to employ for different types of content.” Through ChatGPT, faculty members at public and private universities can easily perform research activities such as idea generation, setting research objectives, developing theoretical frameworks, evaluating literature, and developing techniques. However, most teachers are hesitant to use ChatGPT in their domain because of the inaccurate and deceptive information it produces. The links or sources that ChatGPT offers are not trustworthy. Several academics argue that ChatGPT’s citations to DOI (Digital Object Identifier) are inaccurate. A public university teacher (T1) said, “For basic understanding about a topic, ChatGPT is great. It can also guide which process we can follow in our research, but it provides a lot of wrong information which can cause a disastrous effect in research and academic outcomes.” On the other hand, both students at public and private universities concur that it enhances their academic outcomes. With ChatGPT, users may easily comprehend the subject matter and obtain suggestions for assignments or presentations, directly influencing their academic achievements. It enhances students’ learning efficiency, hence facilitating the attainment of their learning goals. In addition, numerous students at public universities assert that they can utilize it to disseminate content through different approaches. Currently, students in the classroom exhibit heightened receptiveness and increased engagement compared to previous instances. A student of a public university (S9) claimed, “Utilizing ChatGPT has dramatically enhanced our learning efficacy. Now, it is straightforward to acquire a comprehension of the predetermined syllabus. Consequently, our active engagement in the classroom learning process has intensified.” Besides, both private and public university students concur that it facilitates their study and research. They increasingly rely on ChatGPT to obtain answers to a wide range of issues. They acquire a diverse range of knowledge from it. It facilitates the development of their essays, reports, and compositions for monographs. They get advantages from it while creating presentation slides and collaborating in groups. They also derive benefits from it for their thesis. A student of a private university (S15) said, “The little time given for assignments poses a significant challenge in creating a well-crafted task within a tight timeframe. With the assistance of ChatGPT, I can now efficiently generate well-informed and suitable assignments in a short period.” Teachers and students at public and private universities point out the different kinds of assistance and guidance that are accessible when using ChatGPT. They spend the same time looking through numerous search engines to read stuff. It also helps them overcome the challenges presented by the English language, simplify complex ideas, and create educational materials. It assists people in improving their subject matter, pedagogical, and technological proficiency. Teachers and students at both public and private universities have shown their support for ChatGPT. ChatGPT is reportedly expanding its knowledge base and improving its research and analytical skills. Several students highlight that ChatGPT’s constant availability allows them to seek assistance beyond regular class hours. Students also noted that ChatGPT has the potential to assist them in addressing a problem by considering multiple perspectives, thus enhancing their capacity for critical and creative thinking from different angles. A student of a private university (S8) said, “ChatGPT has expanded the scope of my learning. The processing time for every task is minimal. Each time I inquire, I promptly receive a highly rational explanation, enhancing my cognitive abilities.” Effort to use ChatGPT All participants assert that the ChatGPT interface is user-friendly. Consequently, all individuals can use ChatGPT without encountering significant challenges. They can function and traverse effortlessly as a result of a straightforward interface. All participants acknowledge that ChatGPT provides prompt responses. It uses simple and easily understandable language. It endeavors to illustrate any idea using examples and in a straightforward manner. A student from the public university (S3) said, “When I used ChatGPT for the first time , I thought it might be complex. As I am not handy to technology, but I found simple steps to use it. I just need to provide specific command to get sufficient answer.” However, teachers of both public and private universities considered the interface of ChatGPT user friendly . Though it is easy to operate, they are concerned for using it in academic research purpose due to lack of specific guideline to use it in the research. One of the private university teachers (T11) mentioned, “It is good to use ChatGPT to get a basic idea about research. It even helps guide the theoretical framework. However, my concern is how I will use it in the study, as I do not know whether specific guideline prevails or not to use it. As a result, I have not tried to use it in research. I use it to get some basic ideas.” Support and accessibility Participants opine they use multiple electronic devices and operating systems (smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop computer) to access ChatGPT. However, they require strong networks and speedy internet connections. Sometimes, network problems can stop them from using ChatGPT. Everyone agrees that ChatGPT also works in other languages, but its answers in English are always better. It fails to give correct answers in Bangla in some cases and misinterprets commands sent in Bangla at times. In addition, study participants asserted that they could not use the ChatGPT Plus subscription edition. All the participant did not get any institutional support to use ChatGPT Given the budgetary constraints, many teachers and students in Bangladesh need help to afford the expensive fees associated with premium usage—consequently, users of the complimentary version express dissatisfaction with the few resources provided by ChatGPT. A private university student (S12) said, “I use the accessible version of ChatGPT. I cannot buy the premium version as it is costly. Sometimes, I do not get answers from ChatGPT about my queries.” A teacher of public university (T14) said, “I think to cope with present era, we cannot ignore AI like ChatGPT. We need to get access to be updated ourselves by using this tools but our financial barrier impedes us to use ChatGPT-4. Universities can support in this sector.” Social influence Most of the students from public and private universities admitted that they were inspired to use ChatGPT by their peers. Peers who are good at using ICT, they mainly influence other students to use ChatGPT for assignment, presentation slide, and various queries. A private university student (S16) said, “When I struggled to prepare my assignment, my classmate suggested using ChatGPT. For his inspiration, I signed up for the ChatGPT free version, and he was waiting for me. I got everything that I needed. I embraced my friend for his suggestion.” Few students get inspiration from teachers to get basic ideas of different complex term, but teachers are not influenced by their colleagues. Most of the teachers of public and private universities admitted that they were not influenced by their colleague to use ChatGPT or other AI tools. A public university teacher (T7) said, “We are swamped taking classes as it is a teaching university. We do not have time to discuss innovations or things like that. If we meet, we chitchat to relax. Hardly academic discussion we do.” However, a private university teacher (T13) mentioned, “My colleagues and I sometimes discuss the use of ChatGPT. If anyone becomes confused about any issue, others suggest seeking help from ChatGPT.” Concern for using of ChatGPT Most faculty members know its reliability, indicating that they possess an elementary awareness of its advantages and disadvantages. Teachers have noted that it sometimes provides inaccurate information. The system autonomously generates information; however, its information is unreliable. It generates random and imprecise points of reference. Occasionally, it needs to more comprehend the context of a query, leading to responses that appear irrelevant or unrelated. Furthermore, it generates stuff that is hypothetical or fictional. In addition, several educators express dissatisfaction with its practice of distributing identical content to multiple users, which diminishes their confidence in its effectiveness. In this regard, a teacher of a public university (T2) stated, “I have reservations about ChatGPT due to its tendency to disseminate inaccurate content and its need for more transparency on the sources of information. I solely utilize it for grasping the fundamentals, as I need clarification regarding the reliability of the content.” However, all students admit that they use ChatGPT without fully understanding its workings. They never doubt the precision of ChatGPT. As digital technologies become increasingly prevalent in classrooms and other learning environments, students often need to pay more attention to their limitations and potential for error. One public university student (S14) mentioned, “I am not worried about the reliability of the AI information because it makes my life more enjoyable. I finished my assignments very quickly with the help of ChatGPT.” Issues regarding the ethical implications of ChatGPT are expressed by all university teachers, whether from private or public universities. Using material that requires author acknowledgment might be difficult for teachers due to ethical constraints. Several academics state that there is no standard procedure for keeping track of data produced via ChatGPT. Therefore, more extended data retention periods give rise to privacy and data security issues. In addition, teachers at both public and private universities note that students require more excellent education regarding the moral implications of ChatGPT. While additional plagiarism detection methods are needed and their use is limited, teachers cannot evaluate the authenticity of their students’ assignments, reports, and monographs. As a result, using ChatGPT requires adherence to institutional rules and policies. Teachers at private and public universities acknowledge the potential disadvantages of ChatGPT in educational settings and take steps to deal with them. They express concerns over excessive dependence on ChatGPT. They are concerned that relying on it too often may hinder their capacity to learn autonomously and solve difficulties. Teachers at private universities complain that ChatGPT is fostering complacency among them. Teachers employ ChatGPT to confine their expertise inside a specific domain, unlike their predecessors, who would amass their knowledge by perusing several books, publications, and articles. Excessive reliance on ChatGPT may undermine teachers’ capacity for critical thinking and independent inquiry. In this regard, a teacher at a private institution (T8) stated that, “ChatGPT has fostered our reliance on technology. Previously, we relied on diverse sources to acquire knowledge, while now we can promptly get information. Its detrimental impact outweighs its beneficial effects. We are diminishing our cognitive abilities.” Teachers are reluctant to exclusively utilize technology for their advantage due to concerns for their students. Most university faculty members acknowledge the potential danger of excessive reliance on technology as students grow increasingly intertwined with artificial intelligence. Consequently, students’ capacity for critical thinking and problem-solving is reduced. The utilization of ChatGPT by students is hindering their potential to cultivate autonomous thinking and originality, as well as their aptitude to engage with people, communicate proficiently, and foster commendable reading and writing practices. One of public university teachers (T5) remarked, “Previously, students acquired knowledge by engaging in peer discussions. Nevertheless, their current utilization of ChatGPT for information retrieval impedes their consciousness development.” However, university students and teachers concur that educational establishments can mitigate the adverse impacts by fostering critical thinking, digital literacy, well-rounded integration, and ethical considerations. Furthermore, they believe continuous assessment and adjustment are vital to ensure that AI improves rather than diminishes these tools. It is necessary to develop and enforce specific policies for utilizing ChatGPT in educational and research endeavors to mitigate potential adverse consequences arising from its use over an extended period . Challenges for intention and use of ChatGPT The majority of participants encounter diverse challenges when using ChatGPT. Several teachers emphasize the limitations of ChatGPT, such as its tendency to present biased or inaccurate material, its need for more subject-specific expertise, and its tendency to provide superficial or shallow information. Teachers need help to place confidence in the content produced by ChatGPT due to its failure to attribute credit to the original authors of the information which decrease their intention to use ChatGPT in research purpose. Evaluating the authenticity and novelty of assignments provided by students through ChatGPT also poses difficulties for teachers. Academic integrity is compromised when students exploit ChatGPT to generate plagiarised content for their assignments and examinations. Teachers face challenges in fostering critical and profound engagement among their students, as they can quickly obtain answers using ChatGPT. Considering the current prevalence of student attachment to ChatGPT, all teachers unanimously agree that ChatGPT poses some challenges. In this regard, a public university teacher (T9) stated, “Within our educational system, a significant proportion of the students enroll in higher education institutions to acquire a degree, which serves as a means to ensure future work opportunities. They continuously assess their efficiency in earning degrees. These students are fortunate to have access to ChatGPT but they are reluctant to attend classes.” While utilizing ChatGPT, students face many challenges in conjunction with lecturers. Students also met the language intricacy of ChatGPT, which hindered their comprehension of the information it conveyed. Most students held unfavorable views on the exorbitant cost of ChatGPT’s premium edition, as it was outside their financial means. ChatGPT users may encounter technical difficulties such as system crashes, malfunctions, network challenges, or internet connectivity problems. Discussion Bangladesh, as a developing nation, is undergoing through a transformation since it has been trying to integrate technology into several sectors, including education. The swift progress in Natural Language Processing technology has allowed educational institutions to consider incorporating innovative ways of instruction and learning. Teachers and students in the tertiary educational institutions at Bangladoesh use ChatGPT for their academic needs. According to this study, students of both public and private universities use ChatGPT as a highly immersive platform, demonstrating a high-performance expectation across the platform. This finding aligns with the research done by Limna et al. (2023) , which found that students think ChatGPT helps them learn complex subjects. However, performance expectancy scores were lower for teachers than students at both public and private universities. This discrepancy can result from teachers’ cautious views regarding ChatGPT’s effects on learning environments. According to study by Kasneci et al. (2023) , teachers are more suspicious about the practical usage of ChatGPT in teaching and research, even when students adapt it to some degree due to possible benefits. According to the effort expectancy results for both student groups of this study, ChatGPT was user-friendly. This is in line with Ollivier et al. (2023) , who highlight how easy it may be for students to use AI tools. Both public and private university teachers’ have moderate level effort expectancy scores that also reflected in Sok and Heng (2023) study while they resonates with the need for professional development that can boost confidence and ease of use of AI. Social influence is an important factor for ChatGPT usage. The findings show a moderate social influence on students’ use of ChatGPT, indicating that peer support plays a significant role in students’ engagement with AI tools. These findings support earlier research suggesting that classroom social dynamics significantly influence students’ use of technology ( Winstone & Boud, 2022 ). On the other hand, both teacher groups scored lower on social influence, indicating that their institutions and peers don’t encourage them to use ChatGPT. Dawa et al. (2023) emphasize that positive feedback from colleagues increases teachers’ ChatGPT usage and encourages them to adopt it. ChatGPT usage also depends on some facilitating conditions. All teachers and student groups have identified the availability of technology resources and the institution’s support for using ChatGPT in an educational setting as barriers and poor facilitating conditions. This is consistent with studies by Limna et al. (2023) that highlight the need to have sufficient infrastructure and support mechanisms to ensure successful technology integration. These results also highlight a critical area for educational institutions to address since the potential benefits of AI technologies for teaching and learning might be seriously hampered by a lack of supportive environments. Teachers exhibited a stronger behavioral intention to use ChatGPT than their students, although students in both groups expressed a modest intention to use ChatGPT in the future. This means teachers are more committed to employing these tools in their practices, even when students desire to use them. This result is consistent with studies that indicate teachers are beginning to recognize the benefits of using AI tools to improve their teaching ( Ollivier et al., 2023 ). However, it also emphasizes how crucial ongoing assistance and training are to guarantee this commitment. According to the actual use scores of this study, both groups of students frequently utilize ChatGPT for various academic assignments, which highlight how actively they engage with AI technologies in their studies. This is also consistent with research by Limna et al. (2023) that shows students want to use technology to improve their educational experiences. Though their ratings were lower than those of students, teacher usage rates were also quite high, suggesting impediments to integration into teaching roles that are in line with Sok and Heng’s (2023) findings. In addition to the various benefits of employing ChatGPT for academic purposes, a few teachers agree that the utilization of ChatGPT carries specific adverse ramifications for both teachers and students. Excessive comfort in working environments may hinder pupils’ intellectual maturation by suppressing their need to engage in critical thinking. Moreover, Bai et al. (2023) found that an overabundance of ChatGPT usage leads to a diminished ability to engage in critical thinking. ChatGPT has been identified as the cause of decreased memory recall. Furthermore, it might also hinder the professional growth of educators. Teachers at private universities utilize ChatGPT to enhance their lecture preparation and expand their expertise in various subjects. Conversely, teachers at public universities believe that ChatGPT’s knowledge base is limited and primarily receptive rather than comprehensive. Garg et al. (2023) and Spennemann (2023) claim that though ChatGPT is receptive to information, its capacity to provide extensive knowledge on certain subjects is very constrained. According to Castillo et al. (2023) , most students utilize ChatGPT due to its rapidity and precision, which benefit their learning process. Being a user from Bangladesh, individuals occasionally need some help due to the limitations of ChatGPT in providing proper responses in the Bangla language. It frequently misinterprets orders given in Bangla, which aligns with the research conducted by Kolar and Kumar (2023) on Hindi, Telugu, and Kannada. Furthermore, the requirement of a ChatGPT Plus subscription presents an additional obstacle to utilizing ChatGPT. Bangladesh is classified as a lower-middle-income country. In Bangladesh, there are lots of resource constraints to use online for teaching-learning like network issues, internet connectivity and speed, financial barriers ( Rahman et al., 2023a ). Hernandez (2019) posits that the financial constraints faced by hinder its ability to adapt technology in several sectors where it is required effectively. Similarly, most teachers and students in Bangladesh need help to afford the expensive fees associated with premium usage, primarily due to budgetary constraints. Consequently, consumers encounter numerous problems when using the free edition of ChatGPT. ChatGPT has been found to exhibit inaccuracies or misinformation. Since it can autonomously provide information that could be more reliable, furthermore, it occasionally shows a deficiency in comprehending the context of a query, leading to the provision of irrelevant responses. Moreover, it generates content that is speculative or fictional. Nevertheless, despite all the constraints, the students use ChatGPT without considering its drawbacks. As students get more familiar with digital tools, they may need to pay more attention to the increasing prevalence of faults in academic procedures. However, teachers have limitations in assessing the authenticity of their students’ assignments, reports, and monographs because of the absence of plagiarism detection systems and their limited accessibility. Consequently, adhering to institutional regulations and guidelines is necessary to utilize ChatGPT. Limna et al. (2023) have highlighted the necessity of establishing an institutional policy to mitigate the disadvantages associated with using ChatGPT. Teachers possess knowledge of the potential limitations of ChatGPT when used in educational settings. Despite their continual usage, they have concerns that it may hinder their capacity to learn autonomously and resolve issues. Contemporary educators utilize ChatGPT to confine their expertise to a particular domain, unlike their predecessors, who would amass their information by perusing several books, publications, and articles. The overreliance on ChatGPT may undermine teachers’ capacity for critical thinking and independent inquiry. Teachers express concerns about their students’ overreliance on technology and artificial intelligence. Consequently, students’ cognitive skills, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, may be impaired. Nevertheless, there is a consensus among both educators and learners that educational establishments can mitigate the adverse consequences by fostering critical thinking, digital literacy, well-balanced incorporation of AI technology, and ethical considerations. Explicit policies must be formulated and executed to utilize ChatGPT in educational and research endeavors. Conclusion This study endeavors to investigate the perception and use of ChatGPT by social science faculty teachers and students at public and private universities in Bangladesh for instructional purposes. This study reveals several noteworthy concerns that require further contemplation and examination. The study findings suggest that students of both public and private universities have higher performance expectancy and effort expectancy compared to their teachers. Teachers hold divergent perspectives on using ChatGPT, with some displaying enthusiasm while others expressing skepticism. Nevertheless, students at both types of universities view ChatGPT favorably for a range of educational endeavors and learning prospects, such as improved knowledge and research capabilities. Students from both private and public universities affirm that utilizing ChatGPT improves their learning outcomes and positively impacts their academic achievement. ChatGPT is also helpful for teachers. It enhances their teaching efficacy by assisting in class planning and providing comprehensive expertise on the subject matter. In addition, students of both public and private universities are more socially influenced by their peer networks, while teachers face weaker peer pressure but have higher behavioral intention to use ChatGPT. Despite these differences, neither teachers nor students are satisfied with the facilitating conditions of using ChatGPT, such as institutional support. For example, due to the exorbitant cost of ChatGPT Premium, users often resort to using the free version, which offers limited functionalities. Robust networks and high-speed internet are essential for enhancing the accessibility of ChatGPT. Furthermore, the efficiency of the English language and the limitations of other languages pose a significant obstacle to its effective utilization. This study also investigates the apprehension regarding the dependability of information offered by ChatGPT due to potential misinterpretation of queries. In addition, teachers express concerns over the ethical implications of utilizing ChatGPT and the potential for excessive reliance on it, students from both public and private universities still need to be made aware of these difficulties. Teachers concern about ethical use and over-reliance on ChatGPT reflect global debate on ChatGPT impact on academic integrity, assessment authenticity, and critical thinking ability (Kasenci et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023). Besides, students limited awareness about ethical and responsible use of ChatGPT highlights urgent institutional policy to use ChatGPT. This study findings prioritize to eliminate barriers, including addressing ethical concerns, to ensure equitable access to ChatGPT and harness its potential to enhance the quality of teaching, learning, and research in higher education. The findings of this study will assist in other developing and underdeveloped countries with socio-economic and cultural contexts similar to Bangladesh’s, contributing to their higher education systems. In addition, this study will contribute in global literature on GenAI ethics in education. However, this study only focused on the social science faculty, teachers, and students of multiple universities in Bangladesh, so the findings may not reflect the holistic perspective of ChatGPT usage among all demographic user categories. Focusing on a single set of users limits the generalizability of the findings to a larger population because users from other areas of interest or geography may have completely different experiences and perceptions. Future studies could address these challenges and investigate ethical awareness, policy implication, and leadership role to proper use of ChatGPT. Ethical approval statement This study adhered to the ethical guidelines in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institute of Education and Research Human Research Ethics Committee (IERHREC) with approval number 2023/01 on 10/02/2023. The protocol for the study was reviewed to ensure its adherence to ethical norms governing research involving humans. This review encompassed the protocol’s aims, methodology, and informed consent processes. All individuals who took part in this study provided their consent before participating, and their confidentiality and privacy rights were protected during every stage of the research procedure. All potential risks to the participants were minimized. Informed consent Researchers informed the study objectives and privacy conservation issue to the participants and provided written consent letter to the participants. After getting consent from the participants, researchers collected data. Authors contribution statement Conceptualization and planning by 1 st author, tools development by 2 nd author, data collection and data analysis by 3 rd and 4 th author; writing introduction, literature review, and implication by 1 st author, theoretical framework and methodology by 2 nd author, discussion by 3 rd author, conclusion by 4 th author; supervision, review and editing by 1 st and 2 nd author. All authors read the manuscript thoroughly and agreed to submit and publish in this journal. Data availability statement Underlying data Figshare: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh , https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28351223 ( Rahman et al., 2025a ) This study dataset entitled consists of the following three data: Dataset1—This data set consists of 402 teacher survey responses from social science faculty of public and private universities about their perceptions and practices of using ChatGPT. Dataset2—This data set consists of 440 student survey responses from social science faculty of public and private universities about their perceptions and practices of using ChatGPT. Dataset3—This dataset consists of qualitative data from 16 teachers and 16 students in-depth interviews. These data are available under the license CC BY 4.0, which allows unrestricted use and reproduction. To ensure confidentiality and privacy, all data sets have been attached after hiding participants’ identities. Extended data Figshare: Supplementary file for ChatGPT use of social science faculty teachers and students. 10.6084/m9.figshare.30025888.v1 ( Rahman et al., 2025b ) This supplementary file consist of five data files as an extended data: Survey questionnaire: Two survey questionnaires and in-depth interview protocol used for teachers and students of the social science faculty of both public and private universities of Bangladesh in this study. Moreover, a consent form and an example of coding have also been provided. These data are available under the license CC BY 4.0, which allows unrestricted use and reproduction. To ensure confidentiality and privacy, all data from supplementary file have been attached after hiding participants’ identities. Software availability statement IBM SPSS: IBM SPSS is an data analysis software usually use for social science research. It is available from IBM Corp. (2021) . https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-27 JASP: JASP is an open-source statistical software for data analysis which can perform similar functionalities like SPSS. It is freely available at https://jasp-stats.org Acknowledgement The authors express their gratitude to the interview participants for generously contributing their time to this study. We express gratitude to the University of Dhaka for providing financial assistance for publishing this research work. References Bai L, Liu X, Su J: ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X. 2023; 1 (3). Publisher Full Text Baidoo-Anu D, Ansah OL: Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Available at SSRN 4337484. 2023. Reference Source Biswas S: Role of Chat GPT in Education. Available at SSRN 4369981. 2023. Reference Source Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006; 3 (2): 77–101. Publisher Full Text Castillo-González W: The importance of human supervision in the use of ChatGPT as a support tool in scientific writing. Metaverse Basic Appl. Res. 2023; 2 : 29–29. Publisher Full Text Chassignol M, Khoroshavin A, Klimova A, et al. : Artificial Intelligence trends in education: a narrative overview. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018; 136 : 16–24. Publisher Full Text Cotton DR, Cotton PA, Shipway JR: Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in theera of ChatGPT. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2023; 61 : 228–239. Publisher Full Text Dawa T, Dhendup S, Tashi S, et al. : Technology literacies and chat GPT: perspectives on emerging technology adoption in academic writing.2023. Dehouche N: Plagiarism in the age of massive Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT-3). Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 2021; 21 : 17–23. Publisher Full Text Dentella V, Günther F, Murphy E, et al. : Testing AI on language comprehension tasks reveals insensitivity to underlying meaning. Sci. Rep. 2024; 14 (1): 28083. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Dwivedi YK, Kshetri N, Hughes L, et al. : “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges, and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice, and policy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023; 71 : 102642. Publisher Full Text Firat M: What ChatGPT means for universities: Perceptions of scholars and students. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2023; 6 (1): 57–63. Garg RK, Urs VL, Agarwal AA, et al. : Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review. Health Promot. Perspect. 2023; 13 (3): 183–191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B: Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Educ. Today. 2017; 56 : 29–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hernandez K: Barriers to digital services adoption in Bangladesh. UK: Department for International Development; 2019. Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Maes B, et al. : Critical Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2013; 7 (4): 302–327. Publisher Full Text IBM Corp: IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 27.0. IBM Corp; 2021. Reference Source Islam I, Islam MN: Opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academia: A conceptual analysis. Authorea Preprints; 2023. Johnson RB: Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education. 1997; 118 (2): 282–292. Kasneci E, Seßler K, Küchemann S, et al. : ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2023; 103 : 102274. Publisher Full Text Kaswan KS, Dhatterwal JS, Ojha RP: AI in personalized learning. Advances in technological innovations in higher education. CRC Press; 2024; pp. 103–117. Publisher Full Text Kolar S, Kumar R: Multilingual Tourist Assistance using ChatGPT: Comparing Capabilities in Hindi, Telugu, and Kannada. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15376. 2023. Kshetri N, Hughes L, louise Slade E, et al. : “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023; 71 : 102642. Li C, Xing W: Natural language generation using deep learning to support MOOC learners. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 2021; 31 (2): 186–214. Publisher Full Text Limna P, Kraiwanit T, Jangjarat K, et al. : The use of ChatGPT in the digital era: Perspectives on chatbot implementation. J. Appl. Learn. Teach. 2023; 6 (1): 64–74. Mariani MM, Machado I, Nambisan S: Types of innovation and artificial intelligence: A systematic quantitative literature review and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2023; 155 : 113364. Publisher Full Text Mertler CA: Action Research: Teachers as Researchers in the Classroom. 2nd ed.Los Angles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE; 2009. Mogavi RH, Deng C, Kim JJ, et al. : Exploring user perspectives on chatgpt: Applications, perceptions, and implications for ai-integrated education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13114. 2023. Ollivier M, Pareek A, Dahmen J, et al. : A deeper dive into ChatGPT: history, use and future perspectives for orthopaedic research. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023; 31 (4): 1190–1192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Pérez JQ, Daradoumis T, Puig JMM: Rediscovering the use of chatbots in education: A systematic literature review. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2020; 28 (6): 1549–1565. Publisher Full Text Prodhan M: The educational system in Bangladesh and scope for improvement. J. Int. Soc. Issues. 2016; 4 (1): 11–23. Rahman A, Islam MK, Al-Mamun A, et al. : Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh. [Data set]. Figshare. 2025a. Publisher Full Text Rahman A, Islam MK, Al-Mamun A, et al. : Extended file for Teachers and students use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh. [Data set]. Figshare. 2025b. Publisher Full Text Rahman A, Islam MS, Ahmed NF, et al. : Students’ perceptions of online learning in higher secondary education in Bangladesh during COVID-19 pandemic. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open. 2023a; 8 (1): 100646. Publisher Full Text Rahman MM, Watanobe Y: ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. App. Sci. 2023; 13 (9): 5783. Publisher Full Text Rahman N, Salamzadeh A, Rahaman S: ChatGPT and Academic Research: A Review and Recommendations Based on Practical Examples. J. Educ. Manag. Dev. Stud. 2023b; 3 (1): 1–12. Publisher Full Text Rawas S: ChatGPT: Empowering lifelong learning in the digital age of higher education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2024; 29 (6): 6895–6908. Publisher Full Text Rofiah C, Suhermin S: Importance of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence on behavioral intention and actual usage e-healthcare application in Indonesia. Int. J. Res. Anal. Rev. 2022. Samala AD, Rawas S, Wang T, et al. : Unveiling the landscape of generative artificial intelligence in education: a comprehensive taxonomy of applications, challenges, and future prospects. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025; 30 (3): 3239–3278. Sarker MFH, Mahmud RA, Islam MS, et al. : Use of e-learning at higher educational institutions in Bangladesh: Opportunities and challenges. J. Appl. Res. Higher Educ. 2019; 11 (2): 210–223. Publisher Full Text Shoufan A: Exploring students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic analysis and follow-up survey. IEEE Access. 2023; 11 : 38805–38818. Publisher Full Text Silverman D: Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative research. Fourth ed.Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, & Washington DC: Sage; 2011. Sok S, Heng K: ChatGPT for education and research: A review of benefits and risks. Cambodian Journal of Educational Research. 2023; 3 (1): 110–121. Publisher Full Text Sok S, Heng K: Opportunities, challenges, and strategies for using ChatGPT in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Digital Educational Technology. 2024; 4 (1): ep2401. Publisher Full Text Spennemann DH: ChatGPT and the generation of digitally born “knowledge”: How does a generative AI language model interpret cultural heritage values? Knowledge. 2023; 3 (3): 480–512. Publisher Full Text Vázquez-Parra JC, Henao-Rodríguez C, Lis-Gutiérrez JP, et al. : Importance of university students’ perception of adoption and training in artificial intelligence tools. Societies. 2024; 14 (8): 141. Publisher Full Text Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. : User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003; 27 : 425–478. Publisher Full Text Winstone NE, Boud D: The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 2022; 47 (3): 656–667. Publisher Full Text Wu X, Duan R, Ni J: Unveiling security, privacy, and ethical concerns of ChatGPT. J. Inf. Intell. 2024; 2 (2): 102–115. Publisher Full Text Zawacki-Richter O, Marín VI, Bond M, et al. : Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2019; 16 (1): 1–27. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Mar 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 2 Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 3 Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 4 Jaggo Foundation, Rajshahi, Rajshahi, 6205, Bangladesh Arifur Rahman Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Md Khairul Islam Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Abdullah Al-Mamun Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Md Shahidul Islam Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 05 Sep 2025, 14:269 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161351.2 version 1 Published: 06 Mar 2025, 14:269 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161351.1 Copyright © 2025 Rahman A 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 Rahman A, Islam MK, Al-Mamun A and Islam MS. Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161351.2 ) 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 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 05 Sep 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sok S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411881 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2#referee-response-411881 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 24 Sep 2025 Sarin Sok , University of Puthisastra,, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411881 Thank you for giving me the chance to review this manuscript again. Overall, the authors addressed all my comments and suggestions With that being said, I came up with a few suggestions. For example, in Figure 2, ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for giving me the chance to review this manuscript again. Overall, the authors addressed all my comments and suggestions With that being said, I came up with a few suggestions. For example, in Figure 2, page 16, some capital letters were not consistently used, so please pay closed attention on this matter. Another observation is related to the use of participants' quotes following the APA 7 style. Please kindly consider that quotation marks are not required to use when a quote is more than 40 words while you enter it. However, I suggest checking the journal's format. References 1. Rahman A, Islam M, Al-Mamun A, Islam M: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh. F1000Research . 2025; 14 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: AI in Education and research 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 Sok S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411881 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2#referee-response-411881 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: Rawas S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411882 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2#referee-response-411882 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 16 Sep 2025 Soha Rawas , Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411882 I have reviewed the revisions and confirm that ... Continue reading READ ALL I have reviewed the revisions and confirm that the authors have sufficiently addressed the previous comments. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Artificial Intelligence in Education, Educational Technology, Human–Computer Interaction, Ethical Implications of AI, Generative AI in Higher Education 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 Rawas S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411882 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2#referee-response-411882 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 Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Mar 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rawas S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r392651 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v1#referee-response-392651 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 19 Aug 2025 Soha Rawas , Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r392651 Summary of the Article This study investigates how teachers and students at the social science faculties of public and private universities in Bangladesh are adopting and using ChatGPT in their academic practices. The authors employ a mixed-method approach framed ... Continue reading READ ALL Summary of the Article This study investigates how teachers and students at the social science faculties of public and private universities in Bangladesh are adopting and using ChatGPT in their academic practices. The authors employ a mixed-method approach framed by the UTAUT model, incorporating a large-scale survey (n=783) and in-depth interviews (n=32). The findings explore users’ perceptions, usage patterns, and factors influencing adoption, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence. Major Comments 1. Clarity and Literature Review – Partly While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript suffers from significant grammatical issues , typographical errors, and frequent awkward phrasing. These linguistic issues hinder clarity and reduce the academic quality expected of a high-tier journal. Moreover, the literature review is somewhat surface-level and descriptive , lacking critical engagement with the most recent or global literature on GenAI tools in higher education. Key contributions from recent global studies (post-2023) on ChatGPT in education are missing. Recommendation : The manuscript requires professional language editing and a more nuanced engagement with recent, high-impact literature to enhance clarity and academic positioning. 2. Study Design and Technical Rigor – Partly The use of the UTAUT framework is theoretically sound. However, the authors do not use validated scales from prior UTAUT studies nor mention any confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. The convenience sampling for interviews is also not justified, and the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped , lacking direct quotes or clear thematic coding schemes. Recommendation : Clarify how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. Strengthen qualitative analysis with detailed coding strategy and supporting quotations from participants. 3. Methodological Transparency and Replicability – Partly The study reports basic details on questionnaire construction and Cronbach’s alpha, but omits critical information such as survey instrument appendices , exact question wording , and full interview protocols . These omissions hinder replication. Recommendation : Include the full survey and interview protocols as supplementary material and provide examples of qualitative questions and coding categories. 4. Statistical Analysis – Yes The statistical analysis is generally appropriate and clearly presented. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post hoc tests are suitable given the design. However, interpretation lacks depth , particularly in terms of effect size or practical implications. Recommendation : Discuss the practical significance (not just statistical) of the reported group differences. 5. Source Data Availability – Partly The manuscript mentions that data were cleaned and analyzed in SPSS, but does not provide raw datasets or a link to the repository , nor specify whether the qualitative transcripts are available (even partially). Recommendation : Make anonymized survey and interview data available in a trusted open-access repository to ensure reproducibility. 6. Conclusions – Partly While the conclusions are consistent with the data, they remain descriptive and context-specific , lacking deeper theoretical or cross-national implications. Ethical concerns are mentioned but not integrated meaningfully into the conclusions. Recommendation : Expand the conclusion to reflect broader educational implications, policy insights, and integration with global literature on GenAI ethics in education. Summary of Required Revisions Conduct full language editing to improve readability. Integrate recent literature (2023–2025) on ChatGPT and AI in education. Clarify and justify UTAUT adaptation , and provide survey and interview tools. Enrich the qualitative analysis with quotes and thematic clarity. Ensure open access to raw data or codebooks to support reproducibility. Provide more theory-driven and generalizable conclusions . Overall Assessment This manuscript presents valuable empirical insights from an underrepresented geographic context. However, to meet the standards of a Q1 journal or rigorous peer-reviewed outlet, it must undergo major revisions in language, methodological transparency, and analytical depth Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Rahman A, Islam M, Al-Mamun A, Islam M: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh. F1000Research . 2025; 14 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Artificial Intelligence in Education, Educational Technology, Human–Computer Interaction, Ethical Implications of AI, Generative AI in Higher Education 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 Rawas S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r392651 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v1#referee-response-392651 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 Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Arifur Rahman , Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, what, how and where we addressed your insightful suggestions carefully has been provided. 1. Clarity and Literature Review While ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, what, how and where we addressed your insightful suggestions carefully has been provided. 1. Clarity and Literature Review While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript suffers from significant grammatical issues, typographical errors, and frequent awkward phrasing. These linguistic issues hinder clarity and reduce the academic quality expected of a high-tier journal. Moreover, the literature review is somewhat surface-level and descriptive, lacking critical engagement with the most recent or global literature on GenAI tools in higher education. Key contributions from recent global studies (post-2023) on ChatGPT in education are missing. Recommendation: The manuscript requires professional language editing and a more nuanced engagement with recent, high-impact literature to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have completed language editing of full manuscript considering grammatical issues, typographical errors, and awkward phrasing. Page 1-33. Following your instructions, we have added a literature review section and used recent (post -2023), high impact literature in the ‘ Literature Review’ section to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Page 3-6. 2. Study Design and Technical Rigor The use of the UTAUT framework is theoretically sound. However, the authors do not use validated scales from prior UTAUT studies nor mention any confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. The convenience sampling for interviews is also not justified, and the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped, lacking direct quotes or clear thematic coding schemes. Recommendation: Clarify how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. Strengthen qualitative analysis with detailed coding strategy and supporting quotations from participants. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. We have also strengthened qualitative analysis of data. Detailed coding strategy have been explained and more quotations from the participants has been added Page- 7, 8, 9, and finding section 3. Methodological Transparency and Replicability The study reports basic details on questionnaire construction and Cronbach’s alpha, but omits critical information such as survey instrument appendices, exact question wording, and full interview protocols. These omissions hinder replication. Recommendation: Include the full survey and interview protocols as supplementary material and provide examples of qualitative questions. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Full survey questionnaires for teachers and students, and interview protocols for qualitative data were added in the Appendix and depository linked was provided in the article. 4. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis is generally appropriate and clearly presented. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post hoc tests are suitable given the design. However, interpretation lacks depth, particularly in terms of effect size or practical implications. Recommendation: Discuss the practical significance (not just statistical) of the reported group differences. Addressed Comment: Thank you again. The statistical findings include group differences and practical significance. Your suggestions have been addressed in Page 16, 18, 19 20, 21. 5. Source Data Availability The manuscript mentions that data were cleaned and analyzed in SPSS, but does not provide raw datasets or a link to the repository, nor specify whether the qualitative transcripts are available (even partially). Recommendation: Make anonymized survey and interview data available in a trusted open-access repository to ensure reproducibility. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Data repository linked was provided from where anyone can download data. 6. Conclusions While the conclusions are consistent with the data, they remain descriptive and context-specific, lacking deeper theoretical or cross-national implications. Ethical concerns are mentioned but not integrated meaningfully into the conclusions. Recommendation: Expand the conclusion to reflect broader educational implications, policy insights, and integration with global literature on GenAI ethics in education. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the ‘conclusion’ and ethical concerns were effectively integrated into the conclusion, along with broader impact, policy, and GenAI ethics in education. Page 31, 32. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, what, how and where we addressed your insightful suggestions carefully has been provided. 1. Clarity and Literature Review While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript suffers from significant grammatical issues, typographical errors, and frequent awkward phrasing. These linguistic issues hinder clarity and reduce the academic quality expected of a high-tier journal. Moreover, the literature review is somewhat surface-level and descriptive, lacking critical engagement with the most recent or global literature on GenAI tools in higher education. Key contributions from recent global studies (post-2023) on ChatGPT in education are missing. Recommendation: The manuscript requires professional language editing and a more nuanced engagement with recent, high-impact literature to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have completed language editing of full manuscript considering grammatical issues, typographical errors, and awkward phrasing. Page 1-33. Following your instructions, we have added a literature review section and used recent (post -2023), high impact literature in the ‘ Literature Review’ section to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Page 3-6. 2. Study Design and Technical Rigor The use of the UTAUT framework is theoretically sound. However, the authors do not use validated scales from prior UTAUT studies nor mention any confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. The convenience sampling for interviews is also not justified, and the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped, lacking direct quotes or clear thematic coding schemes. Recommendation: Clarify how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. Strengthen qualitative analysis with detailed coding strategy and supporting quotations from participants. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. We have also strengthened qualitative analysis of data. Detailed coding strategy have been explained and more quotations from the participants has been added Page- 7, 8, 9, and finding section 3. Methodological Transparency and Replicability The study reports basic details on questionnaire construction and Cronbach’s alpha, but omits critical information such as survey instrument appendices, exact question wording, and full interview protocols. These omissions hinder replication. Recommendation: Include the full survey and interview protocols as supplementary material and provide examples of qualitative questions. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Full survey questionnaires for teachers and students, and interview protocols for qualitative data were added in the Appendix and depository linked was provided in the article. 4. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis is generally appropriate and clearly presented. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post hoc tests are suitable given the design. However, interpretation lacks depth, particularly in terms of effect size or practical implications. Recommendation: Discuss the practical significance (not just statistical) of the reported group differences. Addressed Comment: Thank you again. The statistical findings include group differences and practical significance. Your suggestions have been addressed in Page 16, 18, 19 20, 21. 5. Source Data Availability The manuscript mentions that data were cleaned and analyzed in SPSS, but does not provide raw datasets or a link to the repository, nor specify whether the qualitative transcripts are available (even partially). Recommendation: Make anonymized survey and interview data available in a trusted open-access repository to ensure reproducibility. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Data repository linked was provided from where anyone can download data. 6. Conclusions While the conclusions are consistent with the data, they remain descriptive and context-specific, lacking deeper theoretical or cross-national implications. Ethical concerns are mentioned but not integrated meaningfully into the conclusions. Recommendation: Expand the conclusion to reflect broader educational implications, policy insights, and integration with global literature on GenAI ethics in education. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the ‘conclusion’ and ethical concerns were effectively integrated into the conclusion, along with broader impact, policy, and GenAI ethics in education. Page 31, 32. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Arifur Rahman , Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, what, how and where we addressed your insightful suggestions carefully has been provided. 1. Clarity and Literature Review While ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, what, how and where we addressed your insightful suggestions carefully has been provided. 1. Clarity and Literature Review While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript suffers from significant grammatical issues, typographical errors, and frequent awkward phrasing. These linguistic issues hinder clarity and reduce the academic quality expected of a high-tier journal. Moreover, the literature review is somewhat surface-level and descriptive, lacking critical engagement with the most recent or global literature on GenAI tools in higher education. Key contributions from recent global studies (post-2023) on ChatGPT in education are missing. Recommendation: The manuscript requires professional language editing and a more nuanced engagement with recent, high-impact literature to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have completed language editing of full manuscript considering grammatical issues, typographical errors, and awkward phrasing. Page 1-33. Following your instructions, we have added a literature review section and used recent (post -2023), high impact literature in the ‘ Literature Review’ section to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Page 3-6. 2. Study Design and Technical Rigor The use of the UTAUT framework is theoretically sound. However, the authors do not use validated scales from prior UTAUT studies nor mention any confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. The convenience sampling for interviews is also not justified, and the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped, lacking direct quotes or clear thematic coding schemes. Recommendation: Clarify how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. Strengthen qualitative analysis with detailed coding strategy and supporting quotations from participants. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. We have also strengthened qualitative analysis of data. Detailed coding strategy have been explained and more quotations from the participants has been added Page- 7, 8, 9, and finding section 3. Methodological Transparency and Replicability The study reports basic details on questionnaire construction and Cronbach’s alpha, but omits critical information such as survey instrument appendices, exact question wording, and full interview protocols. These omissions hinder replication. Recommendation: Include the full survey and interview protocols as supplementary material and provide examples of qualitative questions. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Full survey questionnaires for teachers and students, and interview protocols for qualitative data were added in the Appendix and depository linked was provided in the article. 4. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis is generally appropriate and clearly presented. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post hoc tests are suitable given the design. However, interpretation lacks depth, particularly in terms of effect size or practical implications. Recommendation: Discuss the practical significance (not just statistical) of the reported group differences. Addressed Comment: Thank you again. The statistical findings include group differences and practical significance. Your suggestions have been addressed in Page 16, 18, 19 20, 21. 5. Source Data Availability The manuscript mentions that data were cleaned and analyzed in SPSS, but does not provide raw datasets or a link to the repository, nor specify whether the qualitative transcripts are available (even partially). Recommendation: Make anonymized survey and interview data available in a trusted open-access repository to ensure reproducibility. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Data repository linked was provided from where anyone can download data. 6. Conclusions While the conclusions are consistent with the data, they remain descriptive and context-specific, lacking deeper theoretical or cross-national implications. Ethical concerns are mentioned but not integrated meaningfully into the conclusions. Recommendation: Expand the conclusion to reflect broader educational implications, policy insights, and integration with global literature on GenAI ethics in education. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the ‘conclusion’ and ethical concerns were effectively integrated into the conclusion, along with broader impact, policy, and GenAI ethics in education. Page 31, 32. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, what, how and where we addressed your insightful suggestions carefully has been provided. 1. Clarity and Literature Review While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript suffers from significant grammatical issues, typographical errors, and frequent awkward phrasing. These linguistic issues hinder clarity and reduce the academic quality expected of a high-tier journal. Moreover, the literature review is somewhat surface-level and descriptive, lacking critical engagement with the most recent or global literature on GenAI tools in higher education. Key contributions from recent global studies (post-2023) on ChatGPT in education are missing. Recommendation: The manuscript requires professional language editing and a more nuanced engagement with recent, high-impact literature to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have completed language editing of full manuscript considering grammatical issues, typographical errors, and awkward phrasing. Page 1-33. Following your instructions, we have added a literature review section and used recent (post -2023), high impact literature in the ‘ Literature Review’ section to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Page 3-6. 2. Study Design and Technical Rigor The use of the UTAUT framework is theoretically sound. However, the authors do not use validated scales from prior UTAUT studies nor mention any confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. The convenience sampling for interviews is also not justified, and the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped, lacking direct quotes or clear thematic coding schemes. Recommendation: Clarify how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. Strengthen qualitative analysis with detailed coding strategy and supporting quotations from participants. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. We have also strengthened qualitative analysis of data. Detailed coding strategy have been explained and more quotations from the participants has been added Page- 7, 8, 9, and finding section 3. Methodological Transparency and Replicability The study reports basic details on questionnaire construction and Cronbach’s alpha, but omits critical information such as survey instrument appendices, exact question wording, and full interview protocols. These omissions hinder replication. Recommendation: Include the full survey and interview protocols as supplementary material and provide examples of qualitative questions. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Full survey questionnaires for teachers and students, and interview protocols for qualitative data were added in the Appendix and depository linked was provided in the article. 4. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis is generally appropriate and clearly presented. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post hoc tests are suitable given the design. However, interpretation lacks depth, particularly in terms of effect size or practical implications. Recommendation: Discuss the practical significance (not just statistical) of the reported group differences. Addressed Comment: Thank you again. The statistical findings include group differences and practical significance. Your suggestions have been addressed in Page 16, 18, 19 20, 21. 5. Source Data Availability The manuscript mentions that data were cleaned and analyzed in SPSS, but does not provide raw datasets or a link to the repository, nor specify whether the qualitative transcripts are available (even partially). Recommendation: Make anonymized survey and interview data available in a trusted open-access repository to ensure reproducibility. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Data repository linked was provided from where anyone can download data. 6. Conclusions While the conclusions are consistent with the data, they remain descriptive and context-specific, lacking deeper theoretical or cross-national implications. Ethical concerns are mentioned but not integrated meaningfully into the conclusions. Recommendation: Expand the conclusion to reflect broader educational implications, policy insights, and integration with global literature on GenAI ethics in education. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the ‘conclusion’ and ethical concerns were effectively integrated into the conclusion, along with broader impact, policy, and GenAI ethics in education. Page 31, 32. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sok S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r373476 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v1#referee-response-373476 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 21 Apr 2025 Sarin Sok , University of Puthisastra,, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r373476 Dear Editor, Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to review this manuscript. While this research topic is emerging and significant for global readers, and the paper is well-structured and academically sound, some issues were identified, and ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear Editor, Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to review this manuscript. While this research topic is emerging and significant for global readers, and the paper is well-structured and academically sound, some issues were identified, and that they must be addressed provide nuanced insights and clarity. Introduction : In this introduction part, it clearly and critically discussed the use of ChatGPT in the global and local contexts. However, it would be of benefit to combine the last sentence of the last para with second one. E.g., this study aims to address the significant research gap by investigating …….in Bangladesh. Moreover, although concise research aim was highlighted, it might be beneficial to clearly mention your research questions. This will allow readers to better understand to findings. Research methods The research methods were clearly discussed, but lack of justification to some extent. Therefore, it is important to address these concerns: How were the questionnaires established? They were informed by synthesising relevant existing studies or adopted from other ones? It also appeared to me that you tended to miss discussing how to ensure the validity of your questionnaire beyond the Cronbach’s alpha. It is also important to comment on what you did after conducting the pilot study with teachers and students. Did you revise the questionnaires? Were the responses in the pilot used included in the current study? With regard to questionnaire distribution, How did you distribute this questionnaire? What tool/platform did you use, Google Forms or .....? Please also comment the number of female teachers and students. Findings It is of benefit to provide the table of participants's profile in the qualitative stage, as it may enable readers to understand their profile. Beyond the saying a public or private student, can clearly specify the participants whom you quoted in your findings. In this regard, you may use S1, S1….S16 for students, and T1, T2…T16 for teachers. This may provide better detail for the readers. Conclusion While conclusion, implications, and limitations were clearly and comprehensively written. It might be better sound and more logical to include these implications and limitations in the conclusion section, probably in the last para. In particular, the limitations should like to call for future research to address these limitations. Thank you. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: AI in Education and Research, MOOCs for Professional Development, and Teacher's Professional Development 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 Sok S. Reviewer Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r373476 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v1#referee-response-373476 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 Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Arifur Rahman , Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, how and where we addressed your insightful comments are provided. Introduction: In this introduction part, it clearly ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, how and where we addressed your insightful comments are provided. Introduction: In this introduction part, it clearly and critically discussed the use of ChatGPT in the global and local contexts. However, it would be of benefit to combine the last sentence of the last para with second one. E.g., this study aims to address the significant research gap by investigating …….in Bangladesh. Moreover, although concise research aim was highlighted, it might be beneficial to clearly mention your research questions. This will allow readers to better understand to findings. Address Comment : Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page- 3. In the introduction section, the last paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestions, along with the addition of research questions. Research methods The research methods were clearly discussed, but lack of justification to some extent. Therefore, it is important to address these concerns: How were the questionnaires established? They were informed by synthesising relevant existing studies or adopted from other ones? It also appeared to me that you tended to miss discussing how to ensure the validity of your questionnaire beyond the Cronbach’s alpha. It is also important to comment on what you did after conducting the pilot study with teachers and students. Did you revise the questionnaires? Were the responses in the pilot used included in the current study? With regard to questionnaire distribution, How did you distribute this questionnaire? What tool/platform did you use, Google Forms or .....? Please also comment the number of female teachers and students. to be briefly explained for clarity. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page-7, 8. Justification for the research tools guiding the UTAUT model and existing literature was provided. Moreover, content validity and reflection from the pilot test have been added. Questionnaire distribution for data collection was added, and the number of female participants was provided for clarity. Findings It is of benefit to provide the table of participants's profile in the qualitative stage, as it may enable readers to understand their profile. Beyond the saying a public or private student, can clearly specify the participants whom you quoted in your findings. In this regard, you may use S1, S1….S16 for students, and T1, T2…T16 for teachers. This may provide better detail for the readers. Addressed Comment: Thank you for this suggestion. We have addressed it now. We have provided profile of participants and used S1, S2, S3....for students and T1, T2, T3 ....for teachers. Page 21, 22, 23. Conclusion While conclusion, implications, and limitations were clearly and comprehensively written. It might be better sound and more logical to include these implications and limitations in the conclusion section, probably in the last para. In particular, the limitations should like to call for future research to address these limitations. Addressed Comment: Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. We have deleted the sections ‘implications’ and ‘limitations’. We have included these two sections in the last part of ‘conclusion’ a suggested. Page 31. 32, 33. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, how and where we addressed your insightful comments are provided. Introduction: In this introduction part, it clearly and critically discussed the use of ChatGPT in the global and local contexts. However, it would be of benefit to combine the last sentence of the last para with second one. E.g., this study aims to address the significant research gap by investigating …….in Bangladesh. Moreover, although concise research aim was highlighted, it might be beneficial to clearly mention your research questions. This will allow readers to better understand to findings. Address Comment : Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page- 3. In the introduction section, the last paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestions, along with the addition of research questions. Research methods The research methods were clearly discussed, but lack of justification to some extent. Therefore, it is important to address these concerns: How were the questionnaires established? They were informed by synthesising relevant existing studies or adopted from other ones? It also appeared to me that you tended to miss discussing how to ensure the validity of your questionnaire beyond the Cronbach’s alpha. It is also important to comment on what you did after conducting the pilot study with teachers and students. Did you revise the questionnaires? Were the responses in the pilot used included in the current study? With regard to questionnaire distribution, How did you distribute this questionnaire? What tool/platform did you use, Google Forms or .....? Please also comment the number of female teachers and students. to be briefly explained for clarity. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page-7, 8. Justification for the research tools guiding the UTAUT model and existing literature was provided. Moreover, content validity and reflection from the pilot test have been added. Questionnaire distribution for data collection was added, and the number of female participants was provided for clarity. Findings It is of benefit to provide the table of participants's profile in the qualitative stage, as it may enable readers to understand their profile. Beyond the saying a public or private student, can clearly specify the participants whom you quoted in your findings. In this regard, you may use S1, S1….S16 for students, and T1, T2…T16 for teachers. This may provide better detail for the readers. Addressed Comment: Thank you for this suggestion. We have addressed it now. We have provided profile of participants and used S1, S2, S3....for students and T1, T2, T3 ....for teachers. Page 21, 22, 23. Conclusion While conclusion, implications, and limitations were clearly and comprehensively written. It might be better sound and more logical to include these implications and limitations in the conclusion section, probably in the last para. In particular, the limitations should like to call for future research to address these limitations. Addressed Comment: Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. We have deleted the sections ‘implications’ and ‘limitations’. We have included these two sections in the last part of ‘conclusion’ a suggested. Page 31. 32, 33. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Arifur Rahman , Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh 10 Sep 2025 Author Response Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, how and where we addressed your insightful comments are provided. Introduction: In this introduction part, it clearly ... Continue reading Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, how and where we addressed your insightful comments are provided. Introduction: In this introduction part, it clearly and critically discussed the use of ChatGPT in the global and local contexts. However, it would be of benefit to combine the last sentence of the last para with second one. E.g., this study aims to address the significant research gap by investigating …….in Bangladesh. Moreover, although concise research aim was highlighted, it might be beneficial to clearly mention your research questions. This will allow readers to better understand to findings. Address Comment : Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page- 3. In the introduction section, the last paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestions, along with the addition of research questions. Research methods The research methods were clearly discussed, but lack of justification to some extent. Therefore, it is important to address these concerns: How were the questionnaires established? They were informed by synthesising relevant existing studies or adopted from other ones? It also appeared to me that you tended to miss discussing how to ensure the validity of your questionnaire beyond the Cronbach’s alpha. It is also important to comment on what you did after conducting the pilot study with teachers and students. Did you revise the questionnaires? Were the responses in the pilot used included in the current study? With regard to questionnaire distribution, How did you distribute this questionnaire? What tool/platform did you use, Google Forms or .....? Please also comment the number of female teachers and students. to be briefly explained for clarity. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page-7, 8. Justification for the research tools guiding the UTAUT model and existing literature was provided. Moreover, content validity and reflection from the pilot test have been added. Questionnaire distribution for data collection was added, and the number of female participants was provided for clarity. Findings It is of benefit to provide the table of participants's profile in the qualitative stage, as it may enable readers to understand their profile. Beyond the saying a public or private student, can clearly specify the participants whom you quoted in your findings. In this regard, you may use S1, S1….S16 for students, and T1, T2…T16 for teachers. This may provide better detail for the readers. Addressed Comment: Thank you for this suggestion. We have addressed it now. We have provided profile of participants and used S1, S2, S3....for students and T1, T2, T3 ....for teachers. Page 21, 22, 23. Conclusion While conclusion, implications, and limitations were clearly and comprehensively written. It might be better sound and more logical to include these implications and limitations in the conclusion section, probably in the last para. In particular, the limitations should like to call for future research to address these limitations. Addressed Comment: Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. We have deleted the sections ‘implications’ and ‘limitations’. We have included these two sections in the last part of ‘conclusion’ a suggested. Page 31. 32, 33. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, how and where we addressed your insightful comments are provided. Introduction: In this introduction part, it clearly and critically discussed the use of ChatGPT in the global and local contexts. However, it would be of benefit to combine the last sentence of the last para with second one. E.g., this study aims to address the significant research gap by investigating …….in Bangladesh. Moreover, although concise research aim was highlighted, it might be beneficial to clearly mention your research questions. This will allow readers to better understand to findings. Address Comment : Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page- 3. In the introduction section, the last paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestions, along with the addition of research questions. Research methods The research methods were clearly discussed, but lack of justification to some extent. Therefore, it is important to address these concerns: How were the questionnaires established? They were informed by synthesising relevant existing studies or adopted from other ones? It also appeared to me that you tended to miss discussing how to ensure the validity of your questionnaire beyond the Cronbach’s alpha. It is also important to comment on what you did after conducting the pilot study with teachers and students. Did you revise the questionnaires? Were the responses in the pilot used included in the current study? With regard to questionnaire distribution, How did you distribute this questionnaire? What tool/platform did you use, Google Forms or .....? Please also comment the number of female teachers and students. to be briefly explained for clarity. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page-7, 8. Justification for the research tools guiding the UTAUT model and existing literature was provided. Moreover, content validity and reflection from the pilot test have been added. Questionnaire distribution for data collection was added, and the number of female participants was provided for clarity. Findings It is of benefit to provide the table of participants's profile in the qualitative stage, as it may enable readers to understand their profile. Beyond the saying a public or private student, can clearly specify the participants whom you quoted in your findings. In this regard, you may use S1, S1….S16 for students, and T1, T2…T16 for teachers. This may provide better detail for the readers. Addressed Comment: Thank you for this suggestion. We have addressed it now. We have provided profile of participants and used S1, S2, S3....for students and T1, T2, T3 ....for teachers. Page 21, 22, 23. Conclusion While conclusion, implications, and limitations were clearly and comprehensively written. It might be better sound and more logical to include these implications and limitations in the conclusion section, probably in the last para. In particular, the limitations should like to call for future research to address these limitations. Addressed Comment: Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. We have deleted the sections ‘implications’ and ‘limitations’. We have included these two sections in the last part of ‘conclusion’ a suggested. Page 31. 32, 33. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Mar 2025 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 Version 2 (revision) 05 Sep 25 read read Version 1 06 Mar 25 read read Sarin Sok , University of Puthisastra,, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Soha Rawas , Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon 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 © 2025 Sok S. 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. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. 24 Sep 2025 | for Version 2 Sarin Sok , University of Puthisastra,, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sok S. 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. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. 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 Thank you for giving me the chance to review this manuscript again. Overall, the authors addressed all my comments and suggestions With that being said, I came up with a few suggestions. For example, in Figure 2, page 16, some capital letters were not consistently used, so please pay closed attention on this matter. Another observation is related to the use of participants' quotes following the APA 7 style. Please kindly consider that quotation marks are not required to use when a quote is more than 40 words while you enter it. However, I suggest checking the journal's format. References 1. Rahman A, Islam M, Al-Mamun A, Islam M: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh. F1000Research . 2025; 14 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise AI in Education and research 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) Sok S. Peer Review Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411881) 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/14-269/v2#referee-response-411881 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rawas S. 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. 16 Sep 2025 | for Version 2 Soha Rawas , Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rawas S. 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 I have reviewed the revisions and confirm that the authors have sufficiently addressed the previous comments. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Artificial Intelligence in Education, Educational Technology, Human–Computer Interaction, Ethical Implications of AI, Generative AI in Higher Education 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) Rawas S. Peer Review Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.187222.r411882) 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/14-269/v2#referee-response-411882 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rawas S. 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. 19 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Soha Rawas , Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rawas S. 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 (1) 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 Summary of the Article This study investigates how teachers and students at the social science faculties of public and private universities in Bangladesh are adopting and using ChatGPT in their academic practices. The authors employ a mixed-method approach framed by the UTAUT model, incorporating a large-scale survey (n=783) and in-depth interviews (n=32). The findings explore users’ perceptions, usage patterns, and factors influencing adoption, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence. Major Comments 1. Clarity and Literature Review – Partly While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript suffers from significant grammatical issues , typographical errors, and frequent awkward phrasing. These linguistic issues hinder clarity and reduce the academic quality expected of a high-tier journal. Moreover, the literature review is somewhat surface-level and descriptive , lacking critical engagement with the most recent or global literature on GenAI tools in higher education. Key contributions from recent global studies (post-2023) on ChatGPT in education are missing. Recommendation : The manuscript requires professional language editing and a more nuanced engagement with recent, high-impact literature to enhance clarity and academic positioning. 2. Study Design and Technical Rigor – Partly The use of the UTAUT framework is theoretically sound. However, the authors do not use validated scales from prior UTAUT studies nor mention any confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. The convenience sampling for interviews is also not justified, and the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped , lacking direct quotes or clear thematic coding schemes. Recommendation : Clarify how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. Strengthen qualitative analysis with detailed coding strategy and supporting quotations from participants. 3. Methodological Transparency and Replicability – Partly The study reports basic details on questionnaire construction and Cronbach’s alpha, but omits critical information such as survey instrument appendices , exact question wording , and full interview protocols . These omissions hinder replication. Recommendation : Include the full survey and interview protocols as supplementary material and provide examples of qualitative questions and coding categories. 4. Statistical Analysis – Yes The statistical analysis is generally appropriate and clearly presented. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post hoc tests are suitable given the design. However, interpretation lacks depth , particularly in terms of effect size or practical implications. Recommendation : Discuss the practical significance (not just statistical) of the reported group differences. 5. Source Data Availability – Partly The manuscript mentions that data were cleaned and analyzed in SPSS, but does not provide raw datasets or a link to the repository , nor specify whether the qualitative transcripts are available (even partially). Recommendation : Make anonymized survey and interview data available in a trusted open-access repository to ensure reproducibility. 6. Conclusions – Partly While the conclusions are consistent with the data, they remain descriptive and context-specific , lacking deeper theoretical or cross-national implications. Ethical concerns are mentioned but not integrated meaningfully into the conclusions. Recommendation : Expand the conclusion to reflect broader educational implications, policy insights, and integration with global literature on GenAI ethics in education. Summary of Required Revisions Conduct full language editing to improve readability. Integrate recent literature (2023–2025) on ChatGPT and AI in education. Clarify and justify UTAUT adaptation , and provide survey and interview tools. Enrich the qualitative analysis with quotes and thematic clarity. Ensure open access to raw data or codebooks to support reproducibility. Provide more theory-driven and generalizable conclusions . Overall Assessment This manuscript presents valuable empirical insights from an underrepresented geographic context. However, to meet the standards of a Q1 journal or rigorous peer-reviewed outlet, it must undergo major revisions in language, methodological transparency, and analytical depth Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Rahman A, Islam M, Al-Mamun A, Islam M: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh. F1000Research . 2025; 14 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Artificial Intelligence in Education, Educational Technology, Human–Computer Interaction, Ethical Implications of AI, Generative AI in Higher Education 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 (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Arifur Rahman, Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, what, how and where we addressed your insightful suggestions carefully has been provided. 1. Clarity and Literature Review While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript suffers from significant grammatical issues, typographical errors, and frequent awkward phrasing. These linguistic issues hinder clarity and reduce the academic quality expected of a high-tier journal. Moreover, the literature review is somewhat surface-level and descriptive, lacking critical engagement with the most recent or global literature on GenAI tools in higher education. Key contributions from recent global studies (post-2023) on ChatGPT in education are missing. Recommendation: The manuscript requires professional language editing and a more nuanced engagement with recent, high-impact literature to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have completed language editing of full manuscript considering grammatical issues, typographical errors, and awkward phrasing. Page 1-33. Following your instructions, we have added a literature review section and used recent (post -2023), high impact literature in the ‘ Literature Review’ section to enhance clarity and academic positioning. Page 3-6. 2. Study Design and Technical Rigor The use of the UTAUT framework is theoretically sound. However, the authors do not use validated scales from prior UTAUT studies nor mention any confirmatory factor analysis to test construct validity. The convenience sampling for interviews is also not justified, and the qualitative analysis is underdeveloped, lacking direct quotes or clear thematic coding schemes. Recommendation: Clarify how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. Strengthen qualitative analysis with detailed coding strategy and supporting quotations from participants. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your suggestion. We have explained how UTAUT items were developed or adapted. We have also strengthened qualitative analysis of data. Detailed coding strategy have been explained and more quotations from the participants has been added Page- 7, 8, 9, and finding section 3. Methodological Transparency and Replicability The study reports basic details on questionnaire construction and Cronbach’s alpha, but omits critical information such as survey instrument appendices, exact question wording, and full interview protocols. These omissions hinder replication. Recommendation: Include the full survey and interview protocols as supplementary material and provide examples of qualitative questions. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Full survey questionnaires for teachers and students, and interview protocols for qualitative data were added in the Appendix and depository linked was provided in the article. 4. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis is generally appropriate and clearly presented. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post hoc tests are suitable given the design. However, interpretation lacks depth, particularly in terms of effect size or practical implications. Recommendation: Discuss the practical significance (not just statistical) of the reported group differences. Addressed Comment: Thank you again. The statistical findings include group differences and practical significance. Your suggestions have been addressed in Page 16, 18, 19 20, 21. 5. Source Data Availability The manuscript mentions that data were cleaned and analyzed in SPSS, but does not provide raw datasets or a link to the repository, nor specify whether the qualitative transcripts are available (even partially). Recommendation: Make anonymized survey and interview data available in a trusted open-access repository to ensure reproducibility. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much. Data repository linked was provided from where anyone can download data. 6. Conclusions While the conclusions are consistent with the data, they remain descriptive and context-specific, lacking deeper theoretical or cross-national implications. Ethical concerns are mentioned but not integrated meaningfully into the conclusions. Recommendation: Expand the conclusion to reflect broader educational implications, policy insights, and integration with global literature on GenAI ethics in education. Addressed Comment: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the ‘conclusion’ and ethical concerns were effectively integrated into the conclusion, along with broader impact, policy, and GenAI ethics in education. Page 31, 32. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Rawas S. Peer Review Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r392651) 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/14-269/v1#referee-response-392651 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sok S. 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. 21 Apr 2025 | for Version 1 Sarin Sok , University of Puthisastra,, Phnom Penh, Cambodia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sok S. 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 (1) 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 Dear Editor, Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to review this manuscript. While this research topic is emerging and significant for global readers, and the paper is well-structured and academically sound, some issues were identified, and that they must be addressed provide nuanced insights and clarity. Introduction : In this introduction part, it clearly and critically discussed the use of ChatGPT in the global and local contexts. However, it would be of benefit to combine the last sentence of the last para with second one. E.g., this study aims to address the significant research gap by investigating …….in Bangladesh. Moreover, although concise research aim was highlighted, it might be beneficial to clearly mention your research questions. This will allow readers to better understand to findings. Research methods The research methods were clearly discussed, but lack of justification to some extent. Therefore, it is important to address these concerns: How were the questionnaires established? They were informed by synthesising relevant existing studies or adopted from other ones? It also appeared to me that you tended to miss discussing how to ensure the validity of your questionnaire beyond the Cronbach’s alpha. It is also important to comment on what you did after conducting the pilot study with teachers and students. Did you revise the questionnaires? Were the responses in the pilot used included in the current study? With regard to questionnaire distribution, How did you distribute this questionnaire? What tool/platform did you use, Google Forms or .....? Please also comment the number of female teachers and students. Findings It is of benefit to provide the table of participants's profile in the qualitative stage, as it may enable readers to understand their profile. Beyond the saying a public or private student, can clearly specify the participants whom you quoted in your findings. In this regard, you may use S1, S1….S16 for students, and T1, T2…T16 for teachers. This may provide better detail for the readers. Conclusion While conclusion, implications, and limitations were clearly and comprehensively written. It might be better sound and more logical to include these implications and limitations in the conclusion section, probably in the last para. In particular, the limitations should like to call for future research to address these limitations. Thank you. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise AI in Education and Research, MOOCs for Professional Development, and Teacher's Professional Development 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 (1) Author Response 10 Sep 2025 Arifur Rahman, Institute of Education and Research, University of Dhaka, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. In following, how and where we addressed your insightful comments are provided. Introduction: In this introduction part, it clearly and critically discussed the use of ChatGPT in the global and local contexts. However, it would be of benefit to combine the last sentence of the last para with second one. E.g., this study aims to address the significant research gap by investigating …….in Bangladesh. Moreover, although concise research aim was highlighted, it might be beneficial to clearly mention your research questions. This will allow readers to better understand to findings. Address Comment : Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page- 3. In the introduction section, the last paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestions, along with the addition of research questions. Research methods The research methods were clearly discussed, but lack of justification to some extent. Therefore, it is important to address these concerns: How were the questionnaires established? They were informed by synthesising relevant existing studies or adopted from other ones? It also appeared to me that you tended to miss discussing how to ensure the validity of your questionnaire beyond the Cronbach’s alpha. It is also important to comment on what you did after conducting the pilot study with teachers and students. Did you revise the questionnaires? Were the responses in the pilot used included in the current study? With regard to questionnaire distribution, How did you distribute this questionnaire? What tool/platform did you use, Google Forms or .....? Please also comment the number of female teachers and students. to be briefly explained for clarity. Addressed Comment: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have addressed it now. Page-7, 8. Justification for the research tools guiding the UTAUT model and existing literature was provided. Moreover, content validity and reflection from the pilot test have been added. Questionnaire distribution for data collection was added, and the number of female participants was provided for clarity. Findings It is of benefit to provide the table of participants's profile in the qualitative stage, as it may enable readers to understand their profile. Beyond the saying a public or private student, can clearly specify the participants whom you quoted in your findings. In this regard, you may use S1, S1….S16 for students, and T1, T2…T16 for teachers. This may provide better detail for the readers. Addressed Comment: Thank you for this suggestion. We have addressed it now. We have provided profile of participants and used S1, S2, S3....for students and T1, T2, T3 ....for teachers. Page 21, 22, 23. Conclusion While conclusion, implications, and limitations were clearly and comprehensively written. It might be better sound and more logical to include these implications and limitations in the conclusion section, probably in the last para. In particular, the limitations should like to call for future research to address these limitations. Addressed Comment: Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. We have deleted the sections ‘implications’ and ‘limitations’. We have included these two sections in the last part of ‘conclusion’ a suggested. Page 31. 32, 33. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Sok S. Peer Review Report For: Teachers’ and students’ use of ChatGPT at Social science faculty in the public and private Universities of Bangladesh [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :269 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177362.r373476) 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/14-269/v1#referee-response-373476 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 = "Teachers\’ and students\’ use of...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Rahman A 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/14-269/v2/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/14-269", templates : { twitter : "Teachers\’ and students\’ use of ChatGPT at Social science.... Rahman A et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-269/v2" } }; 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/161351/187222") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "187222"); $(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 = { "390020": 0, "373505": 0, "373504": 0, "373506": 0, "390053": 0, "390052": 0, "390055": 0, "390054": 0, "390051": 0, "412719": 0, "390060": 0, "412716": 0, "390057": 0, "390056": 0, "390059": 0, "390058": 0, "412726": 0, "412727": 0, "412724": 0, "412725": 0, "412722": 0, "412723": 0, "412720": 0, "412721": 0, "412728": 0, "392647": 0, "392653": 0, "392652": 0, "392655": 0, "392654": 0, "392649": 0, "392648": 0, "392651": 14, "392650": 0, "392656": 0, "373477": 0, "373476": 41, "373478": 0, "411882": 4, "411881": 85, "415734": 0, "415735": 0, "415732": 0, "415733": 0, "415731": 0, "373501": 0, "373500": 0, "415740": 0, "373503": 0, "373502": 0, "415738": 0, "415739": 0, "415736": 0, "415737": 0, }; $(".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 = "f56ae80e-ee8b-47ea-8bfb-a1699ba2a678"; 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(",","/")); } }); });