Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper uses a bibliometric approach to analyze the impact of regional policies in the case of Chinese business growth.

After reading the paper I have the following observations:

• Please consider discussing more the research gap in the introduction which will support the need for the present paper research. 
• In materials and methods section, the authors have used PRISMA. I suggest to the authors to consider adding the keywords used for search into section 2.1. and to better stating their choice for the keywords by providing references to works in the scientific literature that have used the same keywords. 
• Please better stated the choice for the inclusion criteria by providing support through bibliographical references. In the current form, the choices seems arbitrary as no explication or support is provided.
• As the end year of the dataset extraction is 2022, and we are in 2025, please also include the 2023-2024 period. 
• For the bibliometric indicators selected please provide more insight by adding a scheme or a formula (where is the case).
• Figure 2 is hard to read and interpret. Please improve it. 
• For all the analyses provided, please try to add more insight on the reasons behind the obtained result, rather than stating the elements that are obvious from the figures and tables. This applies also for thematic maps, thematic map evolution, and all the other analyses included in the paper. 

Please make conclusion section 5 and limitation section 4. 

Author Response

Dear editor, 

Thank you very much for your kind suggestions, recommendations, and corrections. We have improved the manuscript. Please kindly find the attached document for your reference and detailed explanations. 

regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the methodology is a core strength of this paper, the description of the search query is too brief to allow for full reproducibility. On page 5, the authors state that "the keywords used to extract the data were regional policy, business, and Chinese company." For a study of this nature, providing the detailed search string—including all synonyms, truncations, and Boolean operators used in the Web of Science database—is essential for transparency and replicability.

Further clarification on the methodology is needed in a few areas. On page 5, the authors should explicitly define the criteria used to determine the "relevance" of articles. The selection of the top 50 most relevant articles for the in-depth qualitative review is a practical approach to analyzing the large dataset of 3,428 articles. However, the manuscript would be strengthened by a more detailed justification for choosing the specific number of 50. The authors should clarify whether this number was selected for practical reasons or if a point of theoretical saturation was observed.

The manuscript presents the bibliometric analysis and the qualitative review as two distinct, sequential sections. Although both are well-executed, the paper would be improved by more explicitly integrating their findings, particularly in the conclusion. For instance, the authors could discuss how the specific policy mechanisms identified in the qualitative review (e.g., the FTA strategy, support for public services) reflect the broader thematic clusters (e.g., regional development, innovation) identified in the VOSviewer analysis.

Several points in the text and figures require clarification to enhance clarity and consistency:

• Page 7 (Lines 217-221): There appears to be a minor inconsistency. The text states that there are "17 articles with general relevance to this topic, accounting for 58%." However, 17 out of 50 is 34%. The 58% figure seems to represent the sum of "closely related" (12 articles) and "generally relevant" (17 articles), as 29/50 equals 58%. This sentence should be clarified to avoid confusion.
• Page 19 (Figure 4): The title "Authors' Production over Time" could be more precise. Since the figure illustrates both author productivity and citation impact over time, a title such as "Author Productivity and Impact Over Time" would be more descriptive.
• Page 5 (Figure 1): The PRISMA diagram indicates 3,428 "reports of new included studies," yet the box for "New studies included in review" shows n=0. This appears to be a contradiction that should be addressed.
• Line 200: A reference is made to "Figure B," but no such figure is present in the text.
• Page 23 (Lines 639-644): The description of the Thematic Map is unclear, potentially due to translation issues. The sentence, "The development is good, but it doesn't make sense in related fields," is confusing. This section should be rephrased to clearly explain the four quadrants of the thematic map (motor themes, niche themes, emerging/declining themes, and basic themes) using the concepts of centrality and density from the cited work of Callon et al. (1991).

Finally, the abstract and discussion highlight a key finding: a shift toward "sustainable development issues" in research since 2015. The authors could strengthen the discussion by briefly speculating on the potential drivers of this shift, possibly linking it to major Chinese policy initiatives such as the "Made in China 2025" plan or the increased national emphasis on developing an "ecological civilization."

Author Response

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have improved the manuscript based on the suggestions, recommendations, and comments. Please kindly find the attached file for your reference with the detailed explanations. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of the paper and for considering the comments from the previous round of review. Much appreciated! I have no further comments.