The Intersection of Business Models and SME Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study addresses a relevant and important topic, the intersection of business models and SME performance, through a bibliometric analysis. Below are some general and specific suggestions for improving the manuscript:

General Comments

1. The topic is highly relevant, and the bibliometric method is appropriate for mapping research trends. However, the link between the theoretical framework and the bibliometric findings could be strengthened. For instance, how do Resource-Based Theory or Institutional Theory specifically shape or explain the observed trends?
2. The paper acknowledges the geographical bias towards high-income economies, which is valuable. It would be helpful if you proposed practical ways to encourage more SME research in developing regions, such as through collaborative networks, targeted funding, or methodological adaptations.
3. The practical recommendations for SME owners and policymakers could be made more actionable. Consider highlighting strategies tailored to SMEs operating in different economic contexts (developed vs. developing economies).

Specific Comments

• Abstract: Clarify whether "business model studies" refers to all firms or specifically SMEs. This will help set expectations.
• Introduction: Expand the rationale for why SMEs have been overlooked in comparison to start-ups and larger firms.
• Methods: The choice of Scopus is justified, but acknowledging the limitations of excluding regional databases would strengthen the methodology.
• Figures: Improve the readability and clarity of some figures, particularly Figure 3.
• Discussion: Enrich the discussion with some real-world SME examples from emerging economies to balance the Western-centric literature used in the analysis.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good day,

Thank you for the valuable reviews kindly see attached document addressing each comment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "The Intersection of Business Models and SME Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends"

Thanks for the opportunity to review your paper. The paper's topic is important and fits well with the journal's scope. That said, it needs substantial improvements. Here are some comments that hopefully could be useful in a future revision:

The title is okay but should perhaps indicate the study period. The abstract could generally be improved, for example, by highlighting more clearly the study’s value-added.

Section 2 (theoretical framework) is a bit short, especially considering the extensive research on the resource-based view, transaction cost economics, or the dynamic capabilities perspective. I think a table or figure could be useful for summarizing the similarities and differences between these different perspectives and how they relate to SMEs/business models.

In the methods section, you could discuss more about the choice of VosViewer, and its pros and cons vis-à-vis alternative software packages.

The discussion section (5) could be expanded. It also lacks references. I recommend engaging more directly with the literature in the discussion. Maybe also add some subsections related to the main themes.

In the conclusion section (6), I would like to see more discussion of your bibliometric analysis's limitations and a clearer link to future research opportunities.

Other issues:

• Some figures are blurry (for example, Figure 3). Figure 4 is much clearer.
• I’m not an expert on this, but using Scopus screenshots (e.g., Fig 5-1) might be a copyright issue. However, you can download the Scopus data and create your own in Excel.
• The reference list needs to be alphabetized. On line 813, it restarts with A…

Good luck with the revisions!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from general copyediting and proofreading. 

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable input and suggestions. Kindly see the attached document addressing each comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments:

- Line 2: Move "A" to line 3.

- Line 67: Makes me wonder why put a list of abbreviations at the end when abbreviations are introduced here?

- Line 72: The abbreviation DCF (Dynamic Capabilities Framework) can also be introduced for this theory.

- Line 77: Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) - If the authors choose to keep the abbreviation list at the end, this abbreviation should also be included.

- Line 167: Remove unnecessary full stop after Techniques.

- Line 324: Corporate Social Responsibility - Consider adding the abbreviation CSR as it is listed in the abbreviations section (e.g. on line 406).

- Line 389: At least a brief explanation of the term "fintech " (financial technology) is recommended.

- Lines 580-612 (4.6. Summary of key findings and research gaps): A reassessment of the need for this section in the article should be considered. Although it provides a concise summary of key findings, it may seem redundant when reading the full manuscript.

- Line 824: The list of publications begins in alphabetical order, other than in Appendix A: Reviewed Articles (line 718). To improve clarity, it would be advisable to distinguish clearly between ‘References’ and "Appendix A: Peer-reviewed articles". In addition, ‘Appendix A’ should be placed after the main list of References, as indicated in line 134.

- Lines 714-716 (Abbreviations): I suggest considering placing the list of abbreviations earlier in the manuscript rather than at the end. This would be more logical and help readers navigate the text more easily. Alternatively, this could be dispensed with altogether as these abbreviations are introduced in the text.

Formatting issues for journal titles in the References section: Journal titles should be in capital letters and italics. In Appendix A, most are not italicised and are spelt incorrectly (no capital letters). However, the journal titles in the actual bibliography are correctly formatted. Consistency should be ensured throughout the manuscript. In addition, other minor formatting errors in the Bibliography need to be corrected. Below is a list of the errors found:

725-726: European journal of information systems

727: Strategic management journal

734: Strategic management journal

737: Operations research

745: Industrial and corporate change

748-749: Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research

750: Long range planning

753: Journal of business research

755: Journal of management

756-757: Long range planning

771: no journal title or other data (only the title of the article?)

776: Harvard business review

780: Academy of Management annals

783: Only the abbreviation of the name of the journal was used (inconsistent) Educ. Sci.

791-792: Review of managerial science

795-796: Systematic Reviews (italics here - inconsistent)

798-799: Journal of cleaner production

804: doi link is unnecessarily bold

807-808: Long range planning

809-810: Long range planning

811: Strategic management journal

815: American journal of sociology

820: Journal of management

822: Organizational research methods

824-825: International Journal of Innovation Management (italics here - inconsistent)

862: Sustainability (Switzerland) – here the name is written with the addition (Switzerland), and in Appendix without.

873: it seems that it should be (ICOT) and not (ICOT 2018)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable input and comments. Kindly see the attached document of how each comment was addressed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recognize that the authors have made some improvements in the revised version. The figures are still blurry. To me, at least, they appear to be the same figures (cropped screenshots); I could be wrong, however (but not about the blurriness). I recommend downloading the data from Scopus, importing it into Excel, and creating clear figures. This is, of course, a stylistic thing that is mostly up to the journal.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Could still be improved in terms of flow. 

Author Response

Thank you for your prompt review. Kindly see the attached response by authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx