Smart Mobility in Urban Areas: A Bibliometric Review and Research Agenda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Introduction
The introduction does not adequately discuss how and why you planned to conduct this research, what the future benefits of this research will be to upcoming scholars, and what the findings of this study are. Make sure to:
· Identify a research niche by opposing an existing assumption, and/or revealing a gap in existing research, and/or formulating a research question or problem, and/or continuing a disciplinary tradition.
· Place your research within the research niche by stating the intent of your study, outlining the key characteristics of your research, describing important results, and giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper.
2. What are the limitations of this study?
3. How will this study contribute practically and theoretically?
4. I recommend considering the following related papers to embellish your paper:
Savastano, Marco, Marta-Christina Suciu, Irina Gorelova, and Gheorghe-Alexandru Stativă. "How smart is mobility in smart cities? An analysis of citizens' value perceptions through ICT applications." Cities 132 (2023): 104071.
Pribyl, Ondrej, Miroslav Svitek, and Leon Rothkrantz. "Intelligent Mobility in Smart Cities." Applied Sciences 12, no. 7 (2022): 3440.
Bokhari, Syed Asad A., and Seunghwan Myeong. "Use of artificial intelligence in smart cities for smart decision-making: A social innovation perspective." Sustainability 14, no. 2 (2022): 620.
Zapolskytė, Simona, Martin Trépanier, Marija Burinskienė, and Oksana Survilė. "Smart urban mobility system evaluation model adaptation to Vilnius, Montreal and Weimar cities." Sustainability 14, no. 2 (2022): 715.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper provides a holistic examination of smart mobility research using a bibliometric review. A few concerns should be addressed:
(1) Section 1 and section 2 should be shorted.
(2) For the methodology section, the data source should be specified more clearly. The expression “Web of Science database” is not enough. The authors can refer to one article published in Scientometrics for more information (Title: The data source of this study is Web of Science Core Collection? Not enough.)
(3) Table 1: the values of mSM and PY for the second journal are null?
(4) Table 2: some values are also missing. Please also note the name disambiguation problem.
(5) Figure 3: England is not a country name.
(6) Table 3: Top cited authors or papers?
(7) Table 5 and Figure 5: please clean the data including merge “smart city” and “smart cities” together.
(8) It is a bit interesting to find the high rank of China. Maybe China has been the leader regarding the number of SCIE indexed papers? Please give more explanation in the discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript reads well and has provided an interesting overview of the smart mobility arena. However, I have some comments to help authors improve their research as follows.
1- The authors should be more careful with referencing their statements. For instance, in the introduction section, you have written “An analysis of the top 20 sources shows that smart mobility research is fragmented 67 and confined to specific disciplines with a limited influence on the wider business com-68 munity”. But this is not sound in terms of academic presentation. Top 20 sources of what? Where? When? Who? What is the reference? Please double-check the whole manuscript and try to address this issue.
2- Addressing the authors of cited references needs some modifications. For instance, “A paper by [18] addresses governance….”. Or, “For instance [21] argued…..”. In such cases, the name of the authors should be mentioned, like research conducted by X [ref]. There are many errors like this in the paper. Carefully CHECK this issue within the whole manuscript.
3- In line 129, the authors have written “This review extends earlier analyses by [1] and [36], with a wider scope of the smart 129 mobility literature in the broader context of sustainability transitions”. There is another research in this area titled “Carsharing services in sustainable urban transport: An inclusive science map of the field” that addresses carsharing schemes using a bibliometric analysis similar to your research. You might also acknowledge this research in this part.
4- My main concern regarding the reliability and soundness of this research is the insufficient coverage of the target literature. This is due to the unreliable search string that the authors have used to collect relevant articles from the target literature. In fact, this is just a subjective collection of the articles rather than a realistic collection of the existing studies in the smart mobility sector. For instance, the authors have just relied on (“smart mobility” OR "smart urban mobility" OR “intelligent transport” OR "sustainable urban mobility"), leading to neglecting a lot of relevant studies in this area, such as “mobility as a service”, “shared mobility”, “carsharing”, etc.
5- In section 3.2, the authors only named the software they used without any explanation of the used methods and bibliometric techniques. Please clarify and explain applied methods and their usefulness, such as co-citation and bibliographic coupling analyses that you have used. In this regard, you can use the following papers, “An inclusive trend study of techno-economic analysis of biofuel supply chains”, “Biomass and organic waste potentials towards implementing circular bioeconomy platforms: A systematic bibliometric analysis”, and other bibliometric-based research papers.
6- You should clean your data before conducting any keyword-based analysis. It sounds like the authors have not done this. for instance, in table 5, smart city and smart cities should be merged before running the analysis since they are the same concepts, etc. Please try to respect such basics in analysis. This section should be thoroughly rerun and rewritten.
7- What do you mean by word titles and word abstracts in table 5? How they have been generated? There is NO explanation in this section!!
8- In general, the manuscript lacks reliable findings and critical conversation and just reports some bibliometric characteristics. This part needs more attention and elaboration. What the authors have presented sounds like a library report which might be helpful for librarians rather than researchers involved within the smart mobility sector. Please go beyond such superficial reporting and try to come up with more solid research and outcomes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has witnessed significant revisions, ensuring its readiness for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
（1） My concern about the clear description of the data source has not been solved. A similar study also shows that without a clear description of the data source, some indicators may not reproducible (for example different h index values may exist as depicted in “Which h-index? An exploration within the Web of Science”). If these studies are useful to the authors and potential readers of this manuscript, they should be acknowledged.
（2） Line 273: what does “or or Cit*” mean? “citizen” can also be hit.
（3） Please use one symbol to indicate missing values.
（4） Table 4: it seems only author’s family name are given?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to authors for revising the manuscript taking the comments into account. I perceive the manuscript has an acceptable quality for publication in this version. The only comment remaining is that some of the references has been repeated in the reference list (e.g. references 15 and 34 are the same), which can be corrected at the proofreading stage.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
can be accepted
