Dissemination of Social Accounting Information: A Bibliometric Review
, Cidália Oliveira 3, Vera Vale 4, José Vale 5 and Rui Silva 6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript ID economies-1126795 titled “Dissemination of Social Accounting Information: A Bibliometric Review” is an interesting and well done. However, there are still some issues to resolve that the authors find here below.
- Discussion: this section should be more critical. The authors should make an effort to be able to answer the aim and the main research questions. Hence, I suggest to integrate the analysis by a research using Google Scholar. For instance, the following article can help the authors to improve the current article: Di Vaio, A., Syriopoulos, T., Alvino, F., & Palladino, R. (2020). “Integrated thinking and reporting” towards sustainable business models: a concise bibliometric analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research.
- “A comparative analysis compared to previous studies” should be included after the discussion section.
- Academic and managerial implications are required.
- Conclusion: The authors should they should make an effort to improve the conclusions, they are not so clear.
Author Response
We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in red within the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a bibliometric analysis of social accounting and disclosure of CSR information using R software based on the Web of Science database. In recent years there is a tendency to make bibliometric analyzes on several topics. The paper is interesting, but some aspects need to be improved.
In the end of section Introduction is not included the paragraph with the structure of the paper.
The literature review is too brief, it is necessary to debate previous papers on bibliometric analysis on the topic, below is a selection of relevant articles.
Erkens, M., Paugam, L., & Stolowy, H. (2015). Non-financial information: State of the art and research perspectives based on a bibliometric study. Comptabilité-Contrôle-Audit, 21(3), 15-92.
Kulevicz, R. A., Porfirio, G. E. D. O., de Oliveira, O. S., Zavala Zavala, A. A., Silva, B. A. D., & Constantino, M. (2020). Influence of sustainability reports on social and environmental issues: bibliometric analysis and the word cloud approach. Environmental Reviews, 28(4), 380-386.
Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J. B. (2017). Accounting research: A bibliometric analysis. Australian Accounting Review, 27(1), 71-100.
Sikacz, H. (2017). CSR reporting as an object of bibliometric analysis of scientific publications. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, (474), 160-172.
The articles: Ekundayo & Okoh, 2018, Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 are not on references list. Please check all the references.
The subject of social accounting can be developed on several levels. I believe that a review of the terms used should be made, because the same information can be included in social accounting, sustainability reporting, non-financial information or another similar term.
In this context, the number of analyzed documents is relatively small, because the topic in question was researched much more, but probably in other keywords. I propose a revision of the selection of the analyzed articles.
In table 1 check the language, is not all in English.
In table 2 column 2 the data are shifted by one row, please check.
The result of bibliometric analysis must be correlated with other results of relevant articles on bibliometric analysis on this topic.
Author Response
We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in red within the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal: Economies (ISSN 2227-7099)
Manuscript ID: economies-1126795
Manuscript Type: Article
Title: Dissemination of Social Accounting Information: A Bibliometric Review
Review Report
Using a bibliometric review method, the current study tries to map the literature on social accounting and its dissemination. Using the 126 sampled articles, it reports three distinctly clustered research areas in accounting – social accounting disclosures, legitimacy versus disclosure of social accounting, and motivations for disclosure of social accounting. It claims the following four major contributions: 1) no literature review articles have been found that include the theme of the disclosure of information on social accounting, 2) it is the first research article utilizing an R package for bibliometric and co-citation analysis called Bibliometrix, 3) unlike prior studies, it identifies the main research approaches, and, 4) it is the first bibliometric review done on the subject of social accounting information disclosure (refer to the Abstract). In sum, I believe that the current research project asks an interesting and important concurrent research question. Indeed, we are seeing more and more papers published in the field of “social accounting.” And, there is no good survey paper putting and explaining the directional changes and/or trends in the literature. However, I do not think the authors did a good job explaining what they are trying to do. In addition, there are some serious mistakes the authors must correct (or modify) in order to meet the journal’s and readers’ expectations.
Structured scientific writing: I strongly recommend revising the current manuscript with a professional English editor. Due to the writing, I find that the current research paper is hard to understand. For example, I do not see the difference between Introduction and Literature Review. In particular, I think the very last paragraph in the Introduction section must be placed in the very first paragraph in that section. Also, in the Introduction, the authors need to define what it means by “social accounting.” It may have different meanings.
Use citation properly: In writing, you must use citation to indicate where the ideas and/or prior findings are coming from. It must follow a scientific writing format/style for publication and must define these terms - what it means. For example, in the Introduction, you compare the three theories: the theory of legitimacy, the theory of stakeholders, and institutional theory. Define what they are. Then, we will be able to cite what different studies have found in their studies. Another example can be found here on page 3 the second paragraph, where you cite Hopper and Powell’s work (1985). To help readers please explain what they are. If it is going to explain further in the later section, please state that in your writing.
Table 1 needs to be corrected and converted into English to meet the journal’s requirement.
In Table 2, what does it mean by “Average years from publication?” And, the number of documents must be verified. Is it 48 or 126 articles as you wrote in Abstract?
In Table 3, I do not understand why The Accounting Review is not listed on this table. Does it mean that your method, Web of Science Impact Factor, eliminates The Accounting Review? From your citations, it is clear that The Accounting Review has published at least three papers, i.e., Dhaliwal et al (2011), Dhaliwal et al (2021), and Soana (2012), and, why The Accounting Review is not listed? This type of mistake will lower the credibility of the reported findings in the manuscript.
In sum, I again thank you for giving me this opportunity to learn from your research project and I wish you the very best.
Best Regards,
Author Response
We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in red within the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is improved, only a minor aspect needs to be corrected. In line 690 please change "Google Scholar" with "other relevant academic database" like Scopus, because Google Scholar is an academic search engine an not an academic database.
Author Response
We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in green within the revised manuscript.
Many thanks for your great effort and time.
Kind regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for taking the time to answer my comments and suggestions. I do not have anything else to add.
Author Response
We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions.
Many thanks for your great effort and time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
