Understanding Business Failure: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda
, Erick Oswaldo Salazar Montoya 2, Julio Cesar Valera Aredo 3, Sebastián Cardona-Acevedo 4, Paula Andrea RodrÃguez-Correa 4, Jackeline Valencia 5,6 and Diana Arango-Botero 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is a review paper. It claims to search for and analyze studies on the topic of “Business Failure.” The literature used is relevant to the research theme, but the literature review itself is rather disorganized. It is not clear what the authors’ contribution is.
In terms of structure, the article is properly organized; however, within the main sections, the presentation is very fragmented.
Overall, the paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on business failures, to identify underexplored areas, and to suggest future research directions. In its current form, however, the article is not useful. The authors should conduct a more in-depth investigation and identify the causes of business failures in order to make the study valuable.
The presented methodology is too general; it is unclear how the collected articles are processed. It is only mentioned that Excel is used. No models for extracting key phrases, assessing the risk of research bias, or performing cluster analysis are provided.
In my opinion, the aim of the article should be revised, and the research methodology and the software tools used for data processing should be clearly described. I recommend that the authors thoroughly revise their paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we detail the response point by point:
Comment: The article is a review paper. It claims to search for and analyze studies on “Business Failure.” The literature used is relevant, but the review itself is disorganized. It is not clear what the authors’ contribution is.
Response: The theoretical framework was restructured by grouping the studies into three thematic categories (causes, predictive models and crisis management), and two paragraphs were added at the end of the introduction to clarify the unique contribution of the article.
_________________
Comment: In terms of structure, the article is properly organized; however, within the main sections, the presentation is very fragmented.
Response: We appreciate your comment. The article has all the required structural sections (introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions), organized according to the journal's guidelines. The subsections within methodology, results, and discussion comply with the PRISMA protocol, whose purpose is to ensure transparency, consistency, and quality in the review process.
_________________
Comment: The paper aims to provide an overview of research on business failures and identify underexplored areas, but in its current form, it is not useful. The authors should investigate more deeply and identify causes of business failures.
Response: A new subsection entitled “Main causes of business failure” was added, where empirical findings are summarized and factors are classified as financial, strategic, governance and external.
_________________
Comment: The presented methodology is too general; it is unclear how the collected articles are processed. It is only mentioned that Excel is used. No models for extracting key phrases, assessing risk of bias, or performing cluster analysis are provided.
Response: We appreciate your comment. Indeed, the articles were processed using office software (Microsoft Excel®) and VOSviewer®, without applying automated text mining or key phrase extraction models. We have included this clarification in the limitations section, noting that future research could use more advanced computational techniques to deepen the analysis and reduce potential biases.
_________________
Comment: The aim of the article should be revised, and the research methodology and software tools should be clearly described.
Response: A new paragraph was added at the end of the introduction to clarify the objective (what, how and why) and describe the tools used in the bibliometric analysis (Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer).
_________________
Comment: I recommend that the authors thoroughly revise their paper.
Response: A comprehensive review of the structure was carried out
_________________
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses the topic of business failure through a systematic bibliometric analysis, using the PRISMA 2020 protocol. Its novelty lies in the integration of thematic and bibliometric perspectives to outline a future research agenda, and its main contribution, in our view, is the identification of emerging thematic clusters and conceptual gaps in the specialized literature.
The objectives are explicitly formulated, the overall structure is appropriate for an academic article, and the literature is extensive and up-to-date, although some references are cited redundantly (e.g., Dimitras et al., which appears multiple times across different pages).
The hypotheses are not formally or explicitly stated, but rather implied through the research questions — we recommend a more rigorous formulation. Although the research gap is well identified, a clearer distinction between thematic and methodological gaps would be useful.
The methodology is described in detail (pp. 3–6), with the application of PRISMA and the use of VOSviewer and Excel. The choice of databases (Scopus and WoS) is justified, but the authors should clarify more explicitly the exclusion of other sources. The selection process is rigorous, but the relevance assessment on a 1–3 scale should be complemented with explanation regarding the involved criteria.
We recommend that the interpretation of results go beyond descriptive reporting and adopt a more critical approach.
The section on theoretical and practical implications is well structured, but the limitations are presented superficially (we recommend a more in-depth discussion). Future directions are relevant, but prioritization would be beneficial.
The writing is generally clear, though some passages are redundant. Some subsection titles are too long or unclear (e.g., “Analysis of the frequency and conceptual validity…”). Tables are readable, but some are overly dense (e.g., Table 1, Table 2). We recommend reformatting (if possible) and avoiding excessive jargon.
The use of varying font sizes and types gives the paper an unpolished aspect.
Most figures have both an external title (placed below the figure) and an identical internal title - we recommend removing the internal title. Moreover, figure titles are schematic (“main authors,” “main countries,” “research agenda,” etc.) and do not sufficiently or suggestively express the content - we recommend more elaborate and academically appropriate formulations.
References
The reference list is extensive and well structured, but there are some inconsistencies:
- Entry [36] lacks author /authors.
- Entry [44] has unclear formatting (“vol. N Y”).
- Initials should follow the surname; the entire list needs reformatting.
- It should be verified whether DOIs have been included for all contributions where available (e.g., [11], [18], etc.).
As a general observation, typical of bibliometric studies (and not necessarily a weakness of this particular work): the article provides a broad synthesis of the literature on business failure, but in the current context of proliferating bibliometric studies, its utility risks being diluted. Although it identifies trends and influential authors, its real contribution to understanding the phenomenon is limited by an excessive focus on quantitative indicators, co-citation networks, and rankings that often reflect visibility rather than intrinsic scholarly value - which perpetuates the neglect of valuable but less-cited studies.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we detail the response point by point:
Comment: The methodology is described in detail (pp. 3–6), but clarify exclusion of other databases. The 1–3 relevance scale should be explained.
Response: The selection process section was expanded to justify the exclusion of other databases (based on reliability and replicability criteria), and a detailed definition of the 1–3 relevance scale used in the study evaluation was added.
_________________
Comment: Interpretation of results should go beyond descriptive reporting and adopt a more critical approach.
Response: We expand the interpretation of the results by incorporating analytical sections on conceptual, methodological, and cultural gaps in the literature.
_________________
Comment: Theoretical and practical implications are well structured, but limitations are superficial.
Response: The limitations section was expanded to include a detailed explanation of potential biases related to the database, language, and type of analysis, in order to provide a more critical and transparent interpretation of the results.
_________________
Comment: Future directions are relevant, but prioritization would be beneficial.
Response: We have prioritized future lines of research by identifying three main areas: (1) the development of integrative theoretical frameworks, (2) the application of computational and mixed methodologies, and (3) the analysis of cultural differences in business failure. The other lines remain complementary or emerging for further study.
_________________
Comment: Writing is generally clear, though some passages are redundant.
Response: The manuscript was revised to eliminate conceptual and textual repetitions, unifying similar ideas between sections (introduction, results, implications, and conclusions).
_________________
Comment: Some subsection titles are too long or unclear.
Response: We have revised and simplified several subsection titles to improve the clarity and consistency of the manuscript. The new headings are more concise and accurately reflect the content of each section.
_________________
Comment: Tables are readable but overly dense.
Response: The presentation of the tables was improved to make them easier to read, reducing text density, grouping information by category, and simplifying descriptions.
_________________
Comment: The use of varying font sizes and types gives an unpolished aspect.
Response: The manuscript has been reorganized according to the format established by the journal, standardizing font types and sizes to ensure a consistent and professional presentation throughout the document.
_________________
Comment: Figures have both internal and external titles; remove internal ones. Titles should be more descriptive.
Response: The internal titles of the figures were removed and the external titles were reworded to make them more descriptive and consistent with the journal's formatting guidelines.
_________________
Comment: Reference list has inconsistencies (missing authors, unclear formatting, missing DOIs).
Response: All references were reviewed and corrected in accordance with the citation style established by the journal, ensuring uniformity in format, complete inclusion of authors, and incorporation of the corresponding DOIs.
_________________
Comment: The paper’s contribution risks being diluted due to focus on quantitative indicators over interpretive understanding.
Response: In order to strengthen the interpretation of the results, analytical sections addressing conceptual, methodological, and cultural gaps in the literature were incorporated. These additions complement the quantitative indicators with a more in-depth interpretive analysis.
_________________
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents a systematic review of the literature on bankruptcy and business failure. The aim of the study is to identify key trends, key authors, thematic clusters, and gaps in this field. The methodology is based on the PRISMA 2020 principles, using bibliometric analysis of publications from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The results demonstrate an exponential increase in the number of publications after 2019, indicating growing interest in the topic. The most influential authors, journals, and leading countries for publications are identified. Thematic evolution demonstrates a shift from the study of small business failures to such contemporary topics as business resilience, machine learning, and bankruptcy prediction. Using keyword co-occurrence analysis, seven thematic clusters were identified, dominated by entrepreneurial failure and forecasting. Based on the results, an agenda for future research is proposed, including an in-depth study of business resilience, interdisciplinary approaches, and the application of artificial intelligence methods. This article contributes to the structuring of knowledge on business failures and suggests directions for further research.
However, it would be necessary to clarify a number of comments that are available to the article:
- The authors do not directly compare their findings with the results of previous bibliometric studies (e.g., [10], [11], [12]).
- Adherence to PRISMA 2020 is stated, but it is not explained how exactly this protocol, developed for systematic reviews in medicine, was adapted for bibliometric research in the social sciences.
- Using only Scopus and WoS may have resulted in the omission of relevant studies from regional or interdisciplinary databases (e.g., Google Scholar, EconLit), limiting the completeness of the sample.
- It is not stated whether the search was conducted by abstracts and keywords simultaneously, which impacts the reproducibility of the search.
- Using a subjective relevance rating scale (1–3) without clear criteria or inter-rater validation may introduce bias into the article selection. Parameters for the co-occurrence analysis (minimum term frequency, normalization method) are also not specified.
- In Section 3.6, "validity" is defined in terms of "time," which is methodologically unjustified; validity cannot be measured solely by a time parameter.
- Figures 3 and 4 do not sufficiently explain the basis for assigning authors and journals to one group or another (e.g., h-index, number of publications, citations).
- Although Section 4.10 mentions cultural gaps, they are largely ignored in the main analysis, despite their importance for understanding business failures.
- How country contributions changed over time is not explored, which could reveal a shift in research focus across periods.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we detail the response point by point:
Comment: The authors do not compare their findings with previous bibliometric studies (e.g., [10], [11], [12]).
Response: The comparison section was strengthened by incorporating a discussion of previous bibliometric studies on business failure and related fields.
_________________
Comment: PRISMA 2020 adherence is stated, but not explained how it was adapted for bibliometric research.
Response: A methodological paragraph was added explaining the adaptation of the PRISMA 2020 protocol to the bibliometric approach, detailing the equivalent identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion phases applied in the study.
_________________
Comment: Using only Scopus and WoS may have omitted regional/interdisciplinary studies (Google Scholar, EconLit).
Response: The limitations section was expanded to acknowledge the potential bias arising from the exclusive use of Scopus and Web of Science, noting the potential omission of regional or interdisciplinary studies and recommending the inclusion of complementary databases in future research.
_________________
Comment: It is not stated whether the search was conducted by abstracts and keywords simultaneously.
Response: The search strategy section was expanded to specify that searches were performed simultaneously in the title, abstract, and keyword fields of the Scopus and Web of Science databases to ensure comprehensive and accurate retrieval.
_________________
Comment: The 1–3 relevance scale lacks clear criteria or inter-rater validation. Parameters for co-occurrence analysis are not specified.
Response: The criteria for the 1–3 relevance scale were specified, incorporating a detailed description of the validation process between reviewers. Likewise, the parameters used for co-occurrence analysis in VOSviewer® were added.
_________________
Comment: In Section 3.6, “validity” is defined in terms of “time,” which is methodologically unjustified.
Response: The section was corrected to replace the use of the term “validity” with “temporal relevance,” in order to more accurately reflect the bibliometric nature of the analysis.
_________________
Comment: Figures 3 and 4 do not explain how authors and journals were grouped (h-index, publications, citations).
Response: A detailed methodological description of the clustering process was included in Figures 3 and 4, specifying that the clusters were generated using co-authorship and co-occurrence analysis in VOSviewer®.
_________________
Comment: Cultural gaps are mentioned but ignored in the analysis.
Response: A new subsection on cultural differences in the causes of business failure was integrated, supported by comparative studies, to strengthen the contextual analysis and the global understanding of the phenomenon.
_________________
Comment: How country contributions changed over time is not explored.
Response: We have included in the limitations section that the study did not analyze the temporal evolution of countries' contributions, noting that this aspect could be addressed in future research. We have included in the limitations section that the study did not analyze the temporal evolution of countries' contributions, noting that this aspect could be addressed in future research.
_________________
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe that the authors have adequately addressed my comments and recommendations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have properly addressed the suggestions and recommendations we made in the previous round of review, carefully revising the manuscript and providing the necessary clarifications and systematizations. In this present form, the paper is better organized and more relevant.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented a comprehensive and methodologically rigorous bibliometric analysis of the business bankruptcy literature. The article is relevant, well-structured, and makes a significant contribution to the field by identifying trends, thematic clusters, and promising directions for future research. After a thorough revision, taking into account the reviewers' comments, the manuscript was significantly improved. The authors adequately addressed all criticisms, making necessary clarifications to the methodology, deepening the analysis, and expanding the limitations section. In its current form, the article represents a complete and high-quality study and is recommended for publication.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed this criticism by adding a direct comparison of their findings with the results of previous bibliometric reviews (e.g., [10], [21], [22]) to subsection 4.14 "Comparison with Other Studies." This section articulates the added value of the current study, which, unlike its predecessors, integrates thematic and conceptual analysis, identifying emerging trends such as machine learning and organizational resilience. A separate methodological paragraph has been added to the "Materials and Methods" section, clearly and transparently explaining how the PRISMA 2020 protocol was adapted for the purposes of this bibliometric study. The authors detailed how the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion steps were applied to the bibliometric data collection and processing processes, which enhanced the methodological rigor and reproducibility of the study.
A discussion of the potential bias introduced by using only Scopus and Web of Science has been added to the "Limitations" section. The authors acknowledge that this may have resulted in the omission of relevant regional or interdisciplinary studies and recommend that future work consider including additional databases to improve comprehensiveness.
Section 2.3 "Search Strategy" has been clarified that the search was conducted simultaneously using the Title, Abstract, and Author Keywords fields in both databases. This clarification addresses potential concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the initial search.
Sections 2.1 and 2.5 have been updated with clear criteria for the relevance rating scale (1-3), as well as a description of the independent validation process by reviewers to ensure consistency.
Section 2.4, "Data Management," includes a description of the parameters used in VOSviewer® for keyword co-occurrence and co-authorship analysis (minimum occurrence threshold, normalization method), making the analysis fully transparent and reproducible.
Section 2.4 also includes a methodological explanation of how clusters for authors (based on co-authorship) and journals (based on keyword co-occurrence) were generated.
In Section 3.6 (Figure 8), the methodologically incorrect term "validity" has been replaced with "temporal relevance," which accurately reflects the essence of bibliometric analysis. The authors significantly strengthened the article by adding a new thematic subsection, 4.12, "Cultural Perspectives on Business Failure." This section presents a comparative analysis of how cultural norms influence the perception, causes, and management of business failures in different regions of the world, filling a previously noted gap and enriching the contextual understanding of the phenomenon.
The authors appropriately addressed this concern by acknowledging in the "Limitations" section (subsection 4.10) that the study did not analyze the temporal evolution of individual countries' contributions and suggesting this as an avenue for future research. Given the breadth and complexity of the analysis, this limitation is justified.
