Emerging Trends in Interactive Space: A Scientometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper offers a systematic and innovative analysis of the evolution of the concept of interactive space through the use of CiteSpace to construct knowledge maps based on a corpus of 450 publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (1990–2025). The methodological framework is rigorous and well-structured. By generating nine types of bibliometric maps—including author co-citation, institutional collaboration, and keyword co-occurrence—the study clearly reconstructs the developmental trajectory of the field, identifying its intellectual bases, research hotspots, and emerging trends.

One of the major strengths of the paper is the clear periodization into three developmental phases—Enlightenment, Awakening, and Fission—which enables a coherent historical reading of interactive space research, from the paradigm of ubiquitous computing to the current convergence of physical and virtual environments in the metaverse era. Particularly noteworthy is the identification of a ten-year generational lag between technological clusters and humanistic clusters, which quantitatively highlights a structural tension between technological innovation and social reflection.

The theoretical contribution is original and forward-looking. The proposed “technology–humanities–institution” trinity framework represents a significant step toward overcoming the current technology-dominated paradigm. By advocating for a multidimensional evaluation system that integrates technical performance, user experience, social impact, and environmental sustainability, the study addresses a critical gap in the literature. The emphasis on collaborative governance, co-creation, inclusivity, and ethical foresight further strengthens the relevance of the work in relation to sustainable urban development (SDG 11) and contemporary discussions on AI governance and digital urban transformation.

Overall, the paper is well-argued, methodologically sound, and theoretically stimulating. The integration of advanced bibliometric visualization with a substantive interdisciplinary framework justifies its acceptance for publication.

As a constructive suggestion, the introduction could be strengthened by a more explicit discussion of the non-neutrality of technology. A deeper ethical and cultural reflection on how technological choices embody specific values, power structures, and social assumptions—and on how and which technologies should be adopted—would further enhance the conceptual depth of the study. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the overall quality and relevance of the contribution.

In conclusion, the manuscript represents a significant and timely contribution to the debate on interactive spaces and the socio-technical transformation of contemporary cities, and it merits publication.

     

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lines 16, 157, 170: The authors state that 458 papers show a “year-on-year increase,” but no quantitative or statistical test is provided. Please add numerical evidence to support this claim.
2. Line 28: The proposed “technology–humanities–institution” framework is mentioned but not clearly defined in the abstract, neither in the main content part. The contribution remains vague and needs clearer articulation.
3. Lines 36: The definition of interactive space is conceptually broad and partly speculative. It would benefit from a more formal academic definition supported by core literature. Please add more references.
4. Lines 46-47, 101-102: The policy examples (e.g., Virtual Singapore, City Brain) are descriptive but not analytically linked to the research problem. At this moment, they are just the cases that are mentioned. The logical bridge should be strengthened. And you need to elaborate more details and discuss them.
5. Lines 69: The “Space-as-a-Service” paradigm is introduced, but its theoretical origin and key references are insufficiently explained. Please clarify its novelty relative to existing smart space concepts. Is this paradigm provided by the author of [9] or by yourself?
6. Section 2.2, Lines 84–90: The three-stage classification (Enlightenment, Awakening, Fission) appears author-defined. The criteria for stage division are not rigorously justified. You should provide objective indicators for the reason why split the time for this range.
7. Section 2.6, Lines 136: Several forward-looking claims (e.g., blockchain governance) appear speculative and weakly supported by the bibliometric evidence. And add more references about blockchain- or edge-based governance.
8. Section 3.1, Line 150: The search query TS = (“interactive space” OR “interactive spaces”) is too narrow and risks missing synonymous terms. This threatens dataset completeness. I suggest expanding the query, and try more synonyms.
9. Section 3.2, Line 176: The manuscript reports 458 records reduced to 450 valid documents, but the exact removal criteria are not fully transparent. Please provide a PRISMA-style flow. Don't just write 'leaving 450 valid documents for analysis'. And why did you exclude the type of 'review', since it's an important type when screening papers?
10. Section 3.2.2, Line 203: The authors claim the sample “covers all dimensions of the research,” which is too strong given the acknowledged search bias. Please moderate this statement.
11. Section 4.1.1, Lines 276–289: The three-stage evolution interpretation is interesting but partly speculative (e.g., linking to mobile internet penetration). Provide stronger evidence or citations.
12. Section 4.1.2, Lines 326: The conclusion that computer science “dominates” the field should be supported with proportional statistics rather than descriptive wording. Please cite the data from the table or from your analytics.
13. Section 4.1.4, Line 389: The claim of “accelerated theoretical iteration” is interpretive and not clearly derived from network metrics. Please clarify the analytical basis.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a review paper in which the authors systematically examine and discuss the development history, research hotspots, and evolutionary trajectories of the field of interactive space. However, the manuscript contains the following issues that require revision:

1.Although the Introduction outlines the digital background and presents several international cases, it lacks clearly defined research questions or research hypotheses.

2.Section 2.5 of the literature review proposes a “novel socio-technical framework,” yet this framework is not empirically developed or validated in the subsequent methodology or results sections, resulting in a logical disconnect from the bibliometric approach adopted in the study.

3.There is an inconsistency in the stated time span of the data source. The abstract indicates 1950–2025, whereas the Methods section states 1990–2025. The retrieval period should be unified.

4.In the search strategy, the authors use only TS = (“interactive space” OR “interactive spaces”) (Lines 150–158), yet Lines 458–466 acknowledge the evolution of terminology. This suggests a potential systematic omission of relevant literature.

5.In Section 3.2, the statement that “other parameters were left at their defaults” (Lines 176; 215–218) is overly vague and undermines methodological transparency and reproducibility.

6.In Section 4.1, a substantial portion is devoted to United Nations policy documents (Lines 232–263; Table 1). However, these contents are not directly generated from the bibliometric analysis but rather represent an external policy review, which is not fully aligned with the logic of the knowledge mapping analysis.

7.Section 4.2.1 claims that there has been a lack of highly influential publications after 2003 (Lines 458–466), yet this conclusion is based solely on Top degree ranking (Table 5, Line 455) without providing time-segmented citation comparisons.

8.In Table 7, “Subject names” and “Electronic Engineering” appear repeatedly, indicating possible data processing or formatting errors that should be verified against the original outputs.

9.In the country collaboration analysis, the manuscript states that China exhibits a “regionally focused collaboration pattern” (Lines 374–377), but no specific centrality values or network density comparisons are provided to support this claim.

10.Figures 3–5 are currently presented only as trend lines or bar charts (Lines 275–296), without specific numerical labels or data annotations. This makes it difficult for readers to accurately assess annual growth rates and stage-based variations.

11.The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors and instances of Chinglish expression. A thorough language revision by a professional editor or native speaker is strongly recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors and instances of Chinglish expression. A thorough language revision by a professional editor or native speaker is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all identified comments from the last round review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for making revisions based on my feedback. The revised manuscript has been greatly improved. There are only two minor issues that need to be addressed:

1.Please elaborate in detail on the problem the paper aims to solve at the end of the introduction.

2.The authors claim that the data in Table 7 is directly generated; however, there is a repetition error with the Subject names (row 9) and Electronic Engineering (row 10) in the table, which also appear in the header. Please carefully check this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx