Systematic Review (2003–2023): Exploring Technology-Supported Cross-Cultural Learning through Review Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a very lengthy paper, of 41 pages, but 16 of those pages consist of appendices that detail the content of the papers they eventually chose to review; these pages might be excluded from the paper, and made available only on direct request.

On page 3, there is a comment about the need for strategic searching of previous literature, and a strategy is outlined at the bottom of page 5, described as Patterns. It would help the reader understand the link between pages 3 and 5 if the Patterns on the latter were renamed as Strategy one, Strategy two, etc. Further, it would be good to understand whether the number of papers identified by each successive strategy (pattern) includes, papers identified by the earlier strategies. The progressive reduction in numbers from strategy to strategy suggest that this is a cumulative series, and that the numbers represent new papers described by that strategy, with papers detected by earlier strategies not counter.

The authors chose to review published studies of technology-supported cross-cultural learning, and we are provided with some details of the inclusion criteria, but we are not provided with details such as the overall number of publications examined by the authors. Given that the authors put forward their paper as a means of assisting future authors in this field, it will be important to provide greater detail of exclusion criteria: I find it difficult to believe that they studied “all previously published reviews” (see abstract), without finding some of only peripheral interest, not worthy of inclusion. The first paragraph of section 2.6 implies that there was a pool of identified studies that was culled in some way, but we are not told enough about how papers were culled, and how many were culled.

Given that the authors justify their study as a means of assisting future researchers, it would be useful to have some definitive examples of the new insights into  technology-supported cross-cultural learning that they have gained from their own work. The greatest benefit of review papers is the synthesis of new knowledge derived from integration of the outcome of the papers that were reviewed. I’m not clear whether the current authors have identified anything that represents such new knowledge, but I would be pleased to be proven wrong.

The last paragraph of section 2.1 implies that the number of years between 2003 and 2023 was ten; at the top of page 9, I note that the gap between 2007 and 2018 was 25 years; I assume typographical errors.

There is a brief paragraph on page 18 about the limitations of the current study, in the last paragraph of text, which writes about only two limitations, even though several disadvantages are described in earlier paragraphs. In studies like this one, understanding the limitations of the current paper is crucial, and I recommend that the limitations become a new section, or a subsection of Conclusions. The authors are clearly aware of the need to record limitations of the papers they reviewed, and I anticipate a helpful section about the limitations of their own study.

The details of several reviewed papers are anonymised in the References, which is difficult to understand because Sustainability’s peer review process is not anonymised. I assume that these references are about the authors’ own previous work. Similarly, detail of these papers are not given in the Appendices. I would need to see a version of the manuscript with these papers fully references, and their contents described and included in the analyses in the remainder of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please find our detailed responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is a review paper that aims to discuss the subject of other review papers in the area of technology-supported cross-cultural learning.

First, I think that the title sounds strange with the succession "review of review" - please try to change it and maybe to indicate that the type of document you refer in the analysis is a review.

More, as you have delimitated the time-frame to 2003-2023, you can include this information int the title. 

As the year 2023 is not yet completed, I think that the authors should consider a different period of time, e.g. 2002-2022.

Another issue that I have detected is related to the used keywords - as the paper deals with the analysis of other review papers, why the "bibliometric analysis" keyword has been used for the papers extraction? It should be noted that the bibliometric analysis deals with other issues than a review analysis. Thus, please eliminate the "bibliometric analysis" keyword.

As for the rest of the keywords, please better support your point of view and please better state in the paper how you have ensured that these are all the keywords that refer to the subject under investigation and not other. Please consider the viewpoints related to the search exposed in https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/23/12693

Also, more information should be given regarding the datset extraction - for example, which databases have you used and why? please refer to the discussion made in https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/12/12/1083 regarding the datasets extraction from various databases and on the considering of the type of paper in these types of analyses. 

The name of sub0section 3.6 should be changed as in the current form one might think that the limitations are of the current study - please better highlight the fact that the limitations are of the previous studies. 

The conclusion is too long: please divide it into a discussion section, a limitation section (which refers to the limitations of your study) and a conclusion section.

Please include future works. 

Author Response

Please find our detailed responses to comments from Reviewer 2 in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments

Minimal idiosyncrasies, which can be dealt with during subediting

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version of your paper. I have no further comments.