In a “Reviewer voice,” I might gently suggest that the literature review and list of references both indicate a novice level of knowledge. The references from the educational literature—the only ones in your references that are pre-2010—are from general or introductory sources. None of your references on AI in education pre-date 2010, which suggests a need for more historical context. In your list of sixteen references, you cite two popular-readership books (Noble and O’Neill) and two refereed articles, neither from journals in areas related directly to your research question. Beyond those sources, the rest are blog posts, TED talks, and other forms of knowledge that are perhaps suited to discussion in a popular article, but are not scholarly. In some cases—for example, the Morris & Stommel blog post—this results in erroneous claims or arguments, based upon those authors’ mistaken or incomplete readings of their sources. One advantage of citing scholarly sources is that lists of references allow one to directly trace where ideas come from, and thereby reduce the propagation of error. As a reviewer, I often skip first to a submission’s list of references, so I have an idea where the author’s coming from. In this case, I would already be suspecting that the submission’s claims will be somewhat vague and perhaps unaware of the substantial broader context and history of the argument—which means it will likely restate claims and arguments that have been made elsewhere without awareness of the counterclaims and counterarguments.