Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find this research paper very interesting.  The authors demonstrate a fairly good knowledge of bibliometric methodology. The explanations and discussions are clear. Even so, I think there are some things that can improve the article:

1. The literature review section needs to be improved, research questions are not well justified. It is a bibliometric analysis and there is more bibliography on the methodology used than on the research questions. 

2. In some of the tables and graphs are not indicated the "source".

3. The final conclusion (reflection) of the authors is missing, there is only the results discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The articles focuses an interesting subject but should be revised before publishing. Regarding the structure of the paper we would advise the following changes: 

• The derivation of the research questions RQ2-5 is still too diffuse and should be elaborated
• The hypothesis “Is socially-responsible consumer behaviour (SRCB) an underdeveloped theme from the research viewpoint? (RQ2)“  is more a „yes“ or „no“ question and should be revised
• Shorten the paper > for example the description of the method of Bibliometrics can be much shorter
• Concentrate on the most important parts of the results > focusing on the message that the papers wants to communicate to the reader
• The title of the paper is a bit misleading as the paper does not give an answer if the tipping point is reached or not. 
• Using “…there is a feeling that the focus has always followed a certain pattern” doesn’t quite fit to a scientific paper
• Figure 3 > the graphs summ up to 341 and not 340 as mentioned above
• In 4.1: The results described here don´t contribute directly to answering the hypotheses, maybe this content could go in the annex
• The “Figure 9. Longitudinal evolution map” needs a box with a description what the color, connected dots and forms of the bubbles stand for
• Naming of the illustrations: not "the authors" but better use „own illustration“
• For the outlook, it would also be interesting to look at how political reports and priorities have developed over time and to relate them to developments in scientific publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well written and  clarifies major aspects related to of socially responsible consumer behavior (SRCB). It also offers a strong conceptual approach as well as a robust data analysis.

I would only have a few interventions / questions related to minor improvements.

Related to the fact that you have analysed 340 articles from the WoS database. Is this the total number of existing articles? If not, how did you select them? What is the reason why you made this selection? Have you considered only those with free access or not? Is the number of 340 articles representative for all the research literature published during the analysed period? Further details on this aspect would be helpful.

Another interesting aspect that generates a curiosity question and not necessarily an answer to include in the article:

Starting from main thematic networks that you have identified in the analysed period, could you state an actual operational definition of SRCB different from the one that Mohr gave in 2001 (lines 98-99 in your article)? Maybe one that will link the motor themes that you have identified in your articles between 2017-2019?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is well written and well structured.  However, despite this, I suggest a few changes that will in my opinion improve the quality of the article.

• The abstract should contain 2-3 statements of justification, answering the question – why Authors decided to select the topic of their research. The aim of the paper should be clearly stated in the abstract.  According to the principles of abstract construction, after formulating the aim, the research methodology and findings should be briefly described.
• The literature review should more justify the need to formulate research problems indicated by the authors of paper.
• The research methodology has been described in a clear way. I like the idea of ​​the strategic diagram - Figure 1
• Presentation of results - I am not sure if there should be both Table 3 and Figure 9 in the article if they contain similar content?
• The "Discussion" section should be completed with a references. This part of the article should, in principle, contain a reference of own research results to the research of other authors, with the indication whether the results obtained are similar or different.
• It is worth supplementing the list of references with publications from the journal to which the authors submits the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All our comments have been taken into consideration.

We understand the arguments for a more detailed method description.