Nurse leadership and Artificial Intelligence integration in nursing workforce management: A scoping review

This manuscript has a strong foundation and addresses a critical gap, but it requires significant revision to meet the reporting and analytical standards of high-quality scoping reviews.

Strengths
1. Timely and Relevant Topic: The integration of AI in nursing workforce management and the role of nurse leaders is a contemporary and vital issue in healthcare.
2. Clear Aim and Scope: The study clearly states its objective and uses a systematic approach to map the literature.
3. Comprehensive Search: Multiple major databases were searched.
4. Limitations Stated: The authors acknowledge the potential for language bias and the early stage of research in this field.

Key Issues
1. Some studies (Byrne et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2022; Zlotnik et al., 2015) that the researchers selected seemed not to be appropriate for analysis because their aims were not to explore the relationship between nursing leaders and AI. Therefore, the reviewer recommends that the researchers explain the selection of the studies. There would also be other AI studies among over 1,000 that are not directly related to the aim of the scoping review. Why did the researchers include or exclude the studies that are indirectly related to the purpose of the scoping review? Explain why the researchers excluded the studies in detail. More details on the selection process and characteristics of the included studies are needed.
2. While scoping reviews are not required to appraise study quality in depth, a brief discussion or acknowledgment of the quality and potential bias of included studies would strengthen the manuscript.
3. The practical strategies for AI competency development and leadership engagement could be more specific and actionable. The practicality of the paper will increase if specific suggestions for practical application strategies, such as ways to strengthen the AI capabilities of nursing leaders, are added.
4. Suggestions for future research are present, but could be more detailed and prioritized.
5. Typo: 3.3.1~4 → 3.2.1~4

Thank you for your work revising the manuscript.