Agile Development Methodologies and Natural Language Processing: A Mapping Review
, Ramón R. Palacio 2,*,†, Gilberto Borrego Soto 3,†and Samuel González-López 4,†Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The study reviews the literature on NLP usage in Agile development and documentation.
While the research is interesting, it lacks some major points.
In the abstract, the sentence is unclear “In this regard, Natural Language Processing (NLP) can help to perform various related 4 tools (such as assistants) to support the documentation process”
Please revise the abstract, focusing on your literature review's motivation, research problem, and approach. For example, the sentence in line 11 might be too detailed as it is well-known that such a finding should be done. I suggest providing themes extracted from the literature in the abstract
The 3.3.1. Quality Assessment is subjective; please elaborate on how a paper’s quality gets evaluated. For example, where is the quality assessment in the results section?
Without going directly to the results, it is highly recommended to elaborate on conducting the review. How papers were filtered, explaining a step by step of process presented in figure 1. how papers are split, and how a decision was taken to include or exclude a paper. This also should be lined up with the quality assessment.
you might follow some steps from similar papers in software engineering, such as these papers
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9558838
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950584922001422
How did the authors come to your themes in section 4.1? Please expand this part
The discussion should focus on the presented research questions.
It is very critical to provide the related works of similar literature reviews in the same area
The research misses the research challenges and future directions, which to some extent be extracted from the discussion and the conclusion sections.
The limitation section and threats to validity might be necessary.
Please revise the conclusion focusing on the conclusion rather than summaries from this review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is suggested that the conclusions compare the results obtained with other reviews of a similar nature carried out previously in the state of the art, so that it can be identified whether there have been improvements in the methods or related issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Most of the comments are addressed sufficiently. Thank you.
