Constitutional Rights in Educational Administration: A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scholarship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would advise the author to better explain the purpose of the paper. It is not really clear how a higher number of publications in the field can have an acual impact on education administration. I understand that it is not the purpose of the paper, nevertheless, I believe that discussing also the quality of the articles mentioned in the paper my strengthen the claim of the paper. Hence, I suggest minor revisions in the metholody paragraph and in the conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. I have carefully revised the paper in light of your comments. Specifically, I clarified the purpose of the paper in the introduction to better demonstrate how the bibliometric analysis contributes to understanding developments in education administration research. Additionally, I addressed the issue of quality of publications by briefly discussing the significance of citation patterns and the impact of highly cited works, which helps strengthen the overall claims of the paper.

In line with your recommendations, I made minor revisions to the methodology section to better justify the chosen approach, and I updated the conclusion to reflect both the quantity and quality aspects of the reviewed articles. These changes aim to enhance the clarity and rigor of the study while maintaining its primary objectives.

I appreciate your helpful remarks, which have contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good day, 

Please the attached comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We carefully addressed all the points raised and made the following revisions:

1. Constitutional values, rights, and principles (lines 25–27) were clearly separated and defined to avoid confusion and better contextualize the study.

2. Courts around the world (line 38) were specified by naming major jurisdictions and examples, including the U.S. Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights, and constitutional courts in selected countries.

3. Challenges (lines 58–59) were explicitly described, replacing vague terms like “problem,” and illustrative examples were added.

4. Representative bureaucracy and constitutional observance (line 64) were clearly defined in context.

5. Objectives (lines 89–103) were clarified. We distinguished between identifying trends and promoting constitutionally based approaches, and explicitly included policy makers, educators, and academics as beneficiaries of the study.

6. Concepts such as digitized and diverse educational landscapes and institutional rights (lines 103, 107) were explained in relation to how institutions uphold the constitutional rights of stakeholders.

7. Abbreviations such as AR-EAS (line 117) were written in full when first introduced.

8. Document exclusions (line 118) were justified with clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion, including handling of duplicates, inaccessible documents, and non-peer-reviewed sources.

9. The terms strictness and consistency (line 145) were clarified as referring to methodological rigor, transparency, and reproducibility.

10. The roles of the 21 reviewers (lines 149/187) were explicitly described, including initial screening, full-text review, thematic coding, and consensus resolution.

11. The relevance of automation tools (line 151) was explained, highlighting their role in metadata extraction, accuracy, and efficiency, while all flagged records were manually verified.

12. The term fund (line 153) was revised to “initial pool of records” for clarity.

13. Bibliometric analysis (line 231) was fully conceptualized, including the use of citations, keyword co-occurrence, and network mapping.

14. All instances of “we” (line 334) were replaced with “the researchers of this study” to maintain a formal academic tone.

15. Methodology and data collection sections were revised to include details on quality assessment, citation patterns, handling of missing data, and robustness of findings.

These revisions enhanced clarity, rigor, and alignment between the objectives, methodology, and findings of the study. We greatly appreciated the reviewer’s guidance, which significantly improved the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments.