Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Research on Sustainability in the Impact of Social Media on Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors did a good revision. As a minor suggestion:

add the paper's structure in the ending of introduction

extend the literature review

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewer comments

Dear Editor,

We have revised our paper (2074839) thoroughly in line with the reviewers' comments, including the introduction, literature review, and grammar mistakes. We also rephrase a few sentences according to the editor’s comments, and we re-wrote them this time. So that is a little change in this version, revised the paper by using the track changes mode in MS Word (it looks uncomfortable because of little changes).

 

Please note that reviewers 1, 2, and 3 comments are addressed in yellow and light red color text.

1^st Reviewer’s comments-

1. We added the introduction, and literature review as per the reviewer’s comments.

2^nd Reviewer’s comments-

We have added some words, which were grammar mistakes.

3^rd Reviewer’s comments-

No, comments.

 

*N.B.- Regarding the similarity

1. We have rephrased some sentences according to the editor’s suggestions.
2. In our study found some similarities found in the tables (institution names, country names, journal names), and references, please ignore all these. For instance, see table 4, we have added the manuscript of the titles for interpretation, but here also shown similarities.
3. In the reference section, all references are similar. Please ignore all.

            Please ignore all similarities.

 

 Best regards!

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The paper can be accepted as its revised version.

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewer comments

Dear Editor,

We have revised our paper (2074839) thoroughly in line with the reviewers' comments, including grammar.  We have added some words, which were grammar mistakes. So that is a few words correction for grammar in this version. We would like to thank you for suggesting to the editors for acceptance of our manuscript.

 

 

 Best regards!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

As I have already written, the paper is interesting for scientific community  and can be published by the journal.

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewer comments

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank you for suggesting to the editors for acceptance of our manuscript.

 

 

 Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper's aim corresponds to the Journal areas. The authors do a good analysis. However, before publishing few changes should be done:

 

1. Please, clarify What filters are used for selecting paper (Year, Language, Country, Type of Documents...)

 

2. Considering the requirements:

 

Reviews: These provide concise and precise updates on the latest progress made in a given area of research. Systematic reviews should follow the PRISMA guidelines.

Review manuscripts should comprise the front matter, literature review sections and the back matter. The template file can also be used to prepare the front and back matter of your review manuscript. It is not necessary to follow the remaining structure. Structured reviews and meta-analyses should use the same structure as research articles and ensure they conform to the PRISMA guidelines.

Please, take into account the abovementioned requirements. 

 

3. Please, clarify the thresholds for VosViwer. Besides, It would be better to show and explain the meaning of the links and the total links strengths. As a recommendation, see the following papers:

 

Fetscherin, M., & Heinrich, D. (2015). Consumer brand relationships research: A bibliometric citation meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 380-390. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.010

 

Muhuri, P. K., Shukla, A. K., & Abraham, A. (2019). Industry 4.0: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 78, 218-235. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2018.11.007

 

Soliman, M., Lyulyov , O., Shvindina, H., Figueiredo, R., & Pimonenko, T. (2021). Scientific Output of the European Journal of Tourism Research: A Bibliometric Overview and Visualization. European Journal of Tourism Research, 28, 2801. https://ejtr.vumk.eu/index.php/about/article/view/2069

 

Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101-114. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003

 

4. The keywords in the network map of co-occurrence (Figure 6) should be cleaned from the irrelevant words: China, plural and single practise and practises, and etc. 

 

5. It would be better, in conclusion, to add the comparison analysis with the previous investigations.

 

6. Besides, pay attention to the Journal requirements on citations, now, it is not correct.

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewer comments

Dear Editor,

We have revised our paper (2004120) thoroughly in line with the reviewers' comments, including methodology (PRISMA), VOS viewer (link and total link strength), references and English. As PRISMA and results VOS viewer (link and total link strength) are weak in previous draft, we re-wrote them this time. So that is a big change in this version, revised paper by using the track changes mode in MS Word (it looks uncomfortable because of many changes.

 

Please note that reviewer 1, 2, and 3 comments are addressed in yellow and light red color text.

1^st Reviewer’s comments-

1. We filtered on language (English) for selecting papers from WoS as per reviewer comments.
2. We have added the flowchart of PRISMA in Figure 1.
3. As per reviewer’s comments regarding thresholds, links and the total links strengths, we added few paragraphs.

2^nd Reviewer’s comments-

1. We modified Figure 3 as per the reviewer’s comment.
2. We have added some words, which are words in yellow color, and the comments section. And also changed grammar.
3. We added more new references. (number 21, 26, and 27).

3^rd Reviewer’s comments-

 

 

 

 Best regards!

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the study, a literature review on social media in higher education using publication data from the WOS database has been done.
The paper aimed to examine the growth and country collaboration in the research on social media in higher education through a bibliometric analysis and investigate the influence of this body of work
through citation and network analyses.
Pros:
Most important papers have been examined.
The paper is well-designed.
The paper can help academic researchers, organizations, and policymakers to understand the ongoing research on social media in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cons:
The figures and tables can be improved with the writing rules of the journal.
Also, the paper can be improved in terms of grammar rules and typos.
The reference list is limited. It may be increased because the paper is a type of review paper.

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewer (2) comments

Dear Editor,

We have revised our paper (2004120) thoroughly in line with the reviewers' comments, including references and English. So that is a little changes in this version, revised paper by using the track changes mode in MS Word (it looks uncomfortable because of many changes.

 

Please note that reviewer’s comments are addressed in yellow and light red color text.

Authors’ response to reviewer comments:

We modified Figure 2 as per the reviewer’s comment.

We have added some words, which are words in yellow color, and the comments section. And also changed grammar.

We have added some references as per the reviewer’s comments.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The quality of work is excellent. It has a correct theoretical argument. The methodology used is rigorous and uses the appropriate procedures and instruments.
The results are correctly presented and analyzed rigorously and thoroughly.
The discussion and the conclusions are very revealing and this research is very interesting for the scientific community.

Congratulations!

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewer (3) comments

Dear Editor,

As per the 3^rd reviewer’s comments not give any corrections regarding our manuscript.

 

 

 Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors partly considered the previous suggestions. 

The authors have not explained the filters used for selecting papers in detail in the text. It is the bibliometric analysis and criteria at the first stage has a significant impact on further results.  

Besides, the authors have not cleaned the findings of co-occurrence analysis which is one of the core findings. Visualising network contains words which are not relevant: China, plural and single practise and practises, and etc.

Please, pay attention that VOS viewer correctly writes VOSviewer (without space).

The author did not add the comparison analysis with the previous investigation. 

Please, read and analyse the papers which focused on bibliometric analysis. It will help you to structure and improve your investigations. 

 

 

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewer comments

Dear Editor,

We have revised our paper (2004120) thoroughly in line with the reviewers' comments, including methodology (Filter), co-occurrences, and references. As results from co-occurrences, discussion, and conclusion part are weak in the previous draft, we re-wrote them this time. So that is a big change in this version, revised the paper by using the track changes mode in MS Word (it looks uncomfortable because of many changes.

 

Please note that the reviewer’s comments are addressed in light red color text.

 

1. We filtered for selecting papers from WoS as per reviewer comments.
2. As per the reviewer’s comments we modified the co-occurrences figure and explained which keyword is the core word.
3. We used the corrected word “VOS viewer”
4. We compared the previous studies.
5. We separated the discussions and conclusions by comparison.

 

 Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx