A Bibliometric Review of Research Progress, Trends, and Updates on Smart Tourism Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Tittle: A bibliometric review of research progress, trends, and updates on smart tourism research

 

The sentence: However, little is  understood about the systematic and significant ramifications for the smart tourism growth of a place. It is not true that is lack of information about the significance of ramifications for the smart tourism, the author/s should search in the different sources/ countries.

Those sentences are also not necessarily wrote: Authors from People’s Republic of China have the most publications and international co-authorships, while the most influential institution is the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Moreover, research keywords have been identified, including smart tourism, smart cities, Internet of Things and Big data. Research findings of  this study provide valuable insights to further improve smart tourism research. It should be write as main goal/s.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Tittle: A bibliometric review of research progress, trends, and updates on smart tourism research

The sentence: However, little is understood about the systematic and significant ramifications for the smart tourism growth of a place. It is not true that is lack of information about the significance of ramifications for the smart tourism, the author/s should search in the different sources/ countries.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge the concern raised and have revised the sentence to more accurately reflect the state of the literature.

Those sentences are also not necessarily wrote: Authors from People’s Republic of China have the most publications and international co-authorships, while the most influential institution is the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Moreover, research keywords have been identified, including smart tourism, smart cities, Internet of Things and Big data. Research findings of this study provide valuable insights to further improve smart tourism research. It should be writing as main goal/s.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We acknowledge the concern raised and we have revised the abstract.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers a timely and bibliometric analysis of the smart tourism literature, utilizing tools and techniques. It offers valuable insights into key authors, journals, institutions, and evolving trends, serving as a helpful resource for researchers and policymakers. However, the paper would benefit from substantial language editing, a deeper interpretation of the results, and clearer and more precise articulation of the methodological steps. Also important is to enhance the analytical discussion, especially around thematic evolution and global research disparities, which would significantly improve its impact. With revisions, this work has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the literature on smart tourism. The following are my recommendations:

1. Make sure to revise the manuscript for grammar, syntax, and style, as there are numerous errors in article usage, verb tense, and sentence structure, which are hindering readability.
2. Consider revising the abstract. It lacks analytical depth and precision, offering a primarily descriptive overview of the study without clearly communicating its research significance, methodological rigor, or key findings. While it mentions the use of VOSviewer and the Web of Science database, it does not offer any information on the data collection method, such as PRISMA (VOSviewer is just visualizing the data you collected).
3. The introduction, in lines 56-58 you make claims regarding your study being "among the first to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis on smart tourism literature," which is surprising, as a quick Google Scholar search will offer at lest a couple dozen recent studies; this not to mention results from your bibliometric analysis. I suggest you review such statements.
4. Also, there is no critical review of previous systematic reviews or bibliometric analyses in this domain, which leaves readers wondering how novel this effort really is.
5. In line 59, you present the main contributions of this study, which should be moved to the discussion section; it is out of place. Here, you should convey to readers why they should read your research, why this topic is important, how it is placed in its respective body of knowledge, what the gap is that you have found in the literature, and most of all, what is the main objective of this SLR?
6. The paragraph in lines 67-71 is confusing. What is it trying to convey? Why is knowing the most active countries important? It may be, but you need to set a context first. The same goes for the last paragraph of this section. Consider restructuring and rewriting this section for clarity. In other words, the introduction is lacking precision, structure, and a compelling justification for the study. To align it with best practices for SLRs, you should focus more on the literature gap, provide an explicit purpose, and organize it around core research question(s). What is it about smart tourism you want to investigate? 
7. In other words, your introduction could benefit from a tighter structure, ideally progressing from context (e.g., what is smart tourism?), problem (e.g., what is lacking in the current SLR literature on the topic?), purpose (e.g., what is this study doing to fill the gap?), scope and method (e.g., what approach is used and why?).
8. In the research methods section, you need to be more specific. You fail to specify why these tools or datasets were chosen, what gaps in the literature this study addresses, or how the findings contribute to advancing the field of smart tourism. 
9. In your database selection, why did you choose WoS instead of Scopus, or Dimensions, or any other? Why is WoS considered to be one of "the most comprehensive?" In which way? Why?
10. Also, in line 134, you cite Science Citation Index Expanded (SSCI) as the index, but do not explain what that means (is it the index/database you used?), especially since SSCI is part of WoS...
11. In line 135, you indicate that "Bibliometric approaches were employed to examine the gathered data." But you did not offer details about the criteria used, the inclusions and exclusion criteria, if you checked for duplicates, if you considered all sources (dissertations and conference proceedings too, even if not peer reviewed?), etc. I strongly recommend you revise this section. The MDPI Merits recently published sound systematic literature reviews (SLRs) that may be of assistance.
12. The search query needs to be more specific, structured, and follow a clear method. For instance, a more robust approach would have been the use of Boolean strings. In other words, when you use "smart" combined with "tourism," instead of "smart*" and "tourism*" you are potentially missing out on a lot of references that could have included keywords such as "smarts." The same for "travel," whereas "travel*" could have picked up on "travels," traveler," "travelers," etc.
13. In line 147, you start discussing VOSviewer without explaining the entire bibliometric process of data collection. I encourage you to review this section.
14. In line 148, please provide full information on VOSviewer, including its version, the filters used, and the reasons for their selection. You offer some screenshots later on, but you do not explain what the networks are conveying and what type of network they are.
15. Under results, how did you arrive at the total of 563 papers and 9348 citations?
16. In Figure 1, you need to define what the blue and red line means.
17. Table 3 lists MIT as in England?!
18. Also in Table 3, consider checking your data. South Korea stands out as the country with the most published research on smart tourism, followed by Spain and the United States. China is definitely among the top countries, along with Thailand, Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan. I suggest you verify the accuracy of your dataset.
19. The same for Table 4. The Journal of Smart Tourism is among the top journals, but it is not the top one; it is not even listed there.
20. Regarding concerns about the dataset and tables, I suggest reviewing all tables.
21. I don't understand what Figure 3 shows... What's the value of it for this paper? In VOSviewer, it is a headmap, but I am not sure what you are analyzing here. Please clarify.
22. I don't understand the paragraph in lines 301-311... Consider rewriting it.
23. Try to go beyond describing counts and trends by interpreting, for example, why certain countries dominate, or what co-citation patterns suggest about subfields. 
24. Consider avoiding redundancy by avoiding repeating the same statistics or phrases. For example, “citations of these publications” and streamline descriptions of authors, countries, and institutions.
25. Consider addressing the thematic evolution by incorporating discussion on how the intellectual structure of smart tourism has evolved over time, possibly using keyword timelines or citation bursts.
26. Consider unpacking the conclusion section and expanding it. For an SR, especially using bibliometric methods across hundreds of sources such as yours, the conclusion should not only summarize findings but also synthesize insights, reflect critically on limitations, and offer concrete implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. In other words, consider briefly restating the major trends uncovered (e.g., most influential countries, authors, institutions, keywords, thematic shifts), highlight major gaps or underexplored areas, such as limited contributions from Africa and Latin America.
27. Consider adding a section on the Limitations of your research. For example, the study exclusively uses the WoS, which, while reputable, may exclude relevant literature indexed in Scopus, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, or domain-specific databases. This introduces selection bias and limits comprehensiveness. Language Bias (English-only), excludes a significant portion of regional smart tourism research, particularly from Latin America, Asia, and non-Anglophone Europe, limiting global representativeness. Also, you alluded to it, author affiliation volatility is a limitation, which can distort institutional productivity and network relationships. These are just a few.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit substantially from thorough English language editing to enhance clarity, readability, and academic tone. Common issues include grammatical errors such as incorrect subject–verb agreement, improper article usage, and inconsistent pluralization. The writing also suffers from awkward phrasing and redundant expressions that obscure the intended meaning and reduce narrative flow. Several sentences are overly long or convoluted, and punctuation is inconsistently applied, affecting sentence clarity. Additionally, the use of terminology is at times imprecise, with terms like “productive authors” used where “prolific” would be more appropriate. Addressing these issues through careful revision and, ideally, professional language editing by a native English speaker or an academic editing service would significantly improve the manuscript’s overall quality and readability.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers a timely and bibliometric analysis of the smart tourism literature, utilizing tools and techniques. It offers valuable insights into key authors, journals, institutions, and evolving trends, serving as a helpful resource for researchers and policymakers. However, the paper would benefit from substantial language editing, a deeper interpretation of the results, and clearer and more precise articulation of the methodological steps. Also important is to enhance the analytical discussion, especially around thematic evolution and global research disparities, which would significantly improve its impact. With revisions, this work has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the literature on smart tourism. The following are my recommendations:

1. Make sure to revise the manuscript for grammar, syntax, and style, as there are numerous errors in article usage, verb tense, and sentence structure, which are hindering readability.

 

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript for grammar, syntax, and style. Special attention was given to article usage, verb tense consistency, and sentence structure to ensure improved clarity and readability throughout the paper.

 

1. Consider revising the abstract. It lacks analytical depth and precision, offering a primarily descriptive overview of the study without clearly communicating its research significance, methodological rigor, or key findings. While it mentions the use of VOSviewer and the Web of Science database, it does not offer any information on the data collection method, such as PRISMA (VOSviewer is just visualizing the data you collected).

 

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to enhance its analytical depth and precision. The updated version now clearly articulates the research significance, outlines the methodological approach, and highlights the key findings and their implications.

 

1. The introduction, in lines 56-58 you make claims regarding your study being "among the first to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis on smart tourism literature," which is surprising, as a quick Google Scholar search will offer at lest a couple dozen recent studies; this not to mention results from your bibliometric analysis. I suggest you review such statements.

 

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the statement in lines 56-58 to more accurately reflect the study’s contribution without overstating its novelty.

 

1. Also, there is no critical review of previous systematic reviews or bibliometric analyses in this domain, which leaves readers wondering how novel this effort really is.

 

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge the importance of critically situating our study within existing systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses. In response, we would like to clarify that our study does indeed address previous bibliometric efforts in the domain of digital transformation and smart tourism. Specifically, we reviewed and discussed prior bibliometric studies

 

1. In line 59, you present the main contributions of this study, which should be moved to the discussion section; it is out of place. Here, you should convey to readers why they should read your research, why this topic is important, how it is placed in its respective body of knowledge, what the gap is that you have found in the literature, and most of all, what is the main objective of this SLR?

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We agree that the main contributions are more appropriately placed in the Discussion section. Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript and relocated the relevant content from line 59 to the Discussion section to enhance the logical flow and structure of the paper.

 

1. The paragraph in lines 67-71 is confusing. What is it trying to convey? Why is knowing the most active countries important? It may be, but you need to set a context first. The same goes for the last paragraph of this section. Consider restructuring and rewriting this section for clarity. In other words, the introduction is lacking precision, structure, and a compelling justification for the study. To align it with best practices for SLRs, you should focus more on the literature gap, provide an explicit purpose, and organize it around core research question(s). What is it about smart tourism you want to investigate? 

 

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We acknowledge that the paragraph in lines 67–71 may have lacked clarity. We have revised it to ensure clearer phrasing, improved logical flow, and better alignment with the surrounding content.

 

1. In other words, your introduction could benefit from a tighter structure, ideally progressing from context (e.g., what is smart tourism?), problem (e.g., what is lacking in the current SLR literature on the topic?), purpose (e.g., what is this study doing to fill the gap?), scope and method (e.g., what approach is used and why?).

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the structure of the introduction. In response, we have revised the introduction to follow a clearer and more logical progression. It now begins with the broader context of smart tourism, followed by the identification of gaps in existing systematic literature reviews and bibliometric studies. We then clearly state the purpose of our study in addressing these gaps and outline the scope and methodology used, including the rationale for applying bibliometric and network analysis.

 

1. In the research methods section, you need to be more specific. You fail to specify why these tools or datasets were chosen, what gaps in the literature this study addresses, or how the findings contribute to advancing the field of smart tourism. 

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have revised the manuscript

 

1. In your database selection, why did you choose WoS instead of Scopus, or Dimensions, or any other? Why is WoS considered to be one of "the most comprehensive?" In which way? Why?

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the research methods section. We acknowledge that the original version lacked sufficient detail in justifying the choice of tools and datasets. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded this section to clearly explain the rationale behind each methodological choice.

1. Also, in line 134, you cite Science Citation Index Expanded (SSCI) as the index, but do not explain what that means (is it the index/database you used?), especially since SSCI is part of WoS...

 

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the reference to the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Specifically, we now explain that SCIE is a multidisciplinary index within the Web of Science Core Collection that was used to retrieve peer-reviewed journal articles relevant to our study. We chose SCIE because it ensures a high standard of publication quality and provides comprehensive coverage of influential journals in the fields of tourism, hospitality, and digital transformation. This clarification has been added to Line 134 to avoid any ambiguity regarding the data source.

 

1. In line 135, you indicate that "Bibliometric approaches were employed to examine the gathered data." But you did not offer details about the criteria used, the inclusions and exclusion criteria, if you checked for duplicates, if you considered all sources (dissertations and conference proceedings too, even if not peer reviewed?), etc. I strongly recommend you revise this section. The MDPI Merits recently published sound systematic literature reviews (SLRs) that may be of assistance.

 

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. We appreciate your suggestion and have revised the methodology section accordingly to provide a clearer and more transparent account of the bibliometric approach employed. In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria used.

 

1. The search query needs to be more specific, structured, and follow a clear method. For instance, a more robust approach would have been the use of Boolean strings. In other words, when you use "smart" combined with "tourism," instead of "smart*" and "tourism*" you are potentially missing out on a lot of references that could have included keywords such as "smarts." The same for "travel," whereas "travel*" could have picked up on "travels," traveler," "travelers," etc.

 

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the search query structure. We appreciate your feedback; we have chosen to maintain our original query structure, as it aligns with the focus and scope of our study.

 

1. In line 147, you start discussing VOSviewer without explaining the entire bibliometric process of data collection. I encourage you to review this section.

 

Response: Thank you for your observation. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the methodology section to provide a clearer and more comprehensive explanation of the entire bibliometric data collection process prior to the discussion of VOSviewer.

 

1. In line 148, please provide full information on VOSviewer, including its version, the filters used, and the reasons for their selection. You offer some screenshots later on, but you do not explain what the networks are conveying and what type of network they are.

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have revised the manuscript to include full details about the use of VOSviewer.

 

1. Under results, how did you arrive at the total of 563 papers and 9348 citations?

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have revised the manuscript

 

1. In Figure 1, you need to define what the blue and red line means.

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. Figure 1 has been revised on the manuscript

 

1. Table 3 lists MIT as in England?!

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. Table 3 has been revised on the manuscript

 

1. Also in Table 3, consider checking your data. South Korea stands out as the country with the most published research on smart tourism, followed by Spain and the United States. China is definitely among the top countries, along with Thailand, Hong Kong, Korea, and Japan. I suggest you verify the accuracy of your dataset.

 

Response: Thank you for your observation regarding Table 3. We have carefully reviewed the dataset used in our analysis and verified that the country rankings reflect the metadata retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection based on our defined search parameters, time frame, and inclusion criteria. While we acknowledge that countries like China, Thailand, and Japan are prominent in smart tourism research, the final rankings in our results are influenced by the specific dataset filtered through our bibliometric criteria (e.g., peer-reviewed journals, SCIE indexing, and English language). Therefore, we have decided to retain the current results in Table 3, as they accurately represent the output of the dataset selected for this study.

 

1. The same for Table 4. The Journal of Smart Tourism is among the top journals, but it is not the top one; it is not even listed there.

 

Response: Thank you for your observation regarding Table 4. The final rankings in our results are influenced by the specific dataset filtered through our bibliometric criteria (e.g., peer-reviewed journals, SCIE indexing, and English language). Therefore, we have decided to retain the current results in Table 4, as they accurately represent the output of the dataset selected for this study.

 

1. Regarding concerns about the dataset and tables, I suggest reviewing all tables.

 

Response: Thank you for your observation regarding of all TABLES. The final rankings in our results are influenced by the specific dataset filtered through our bibliometric criteria (e.g., peer-reviewed journals, SCIE indexing, and English language). Therefore, we have decided to retain the current results of all Tables, as they accurately represent the output of the dataset selected for this study.

 

1. I don't understand what Figure 3 shows... What's the value of it for this paper? In VOSviewer, it is a headmap, but I am not sure what you are analyzing here. Please clarify.

 

Thank you for your helpful comment. Figure 3, which presents the visualization of publication journals, has been carefully revised to improve clarity

 

1. I don't understand the paragraph in lines 301-311... Consider rewriting it.

 

Response: Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in the paragraph between lines 301–311. The authors have carefully reviewed and revised this section to improve clarity, coherence, and readability. We believe the updated version more effectively communicates the intended message.

 

1. Try to go beyond describing counts and trends by interpreting, for example, why certain countries dominate, or what co-citation patterns suggest about subfields.

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. Major changes have been made.

 

1. Consider avoiding redundancy by avoiding repeating the same statistics or phrases. For example, “citations of these publications” and streamline descriptions of authors, countries, and institutions.

 

Response: Thank you for your observation regarding redundancy in the use of statistics and descriptive phrases. The authors have revised the manuscript to remove repetitive expressions

 

1. Consider addressing the thematic evolution by incorporating discussion on how the intellectual structure of smart tourism has evolved over time, possibly using keyword timelines or citation bursts.

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful recommendation. The authors have incorporated a discussion on the thematic evolution of smart tourism by analyzing keyword co-occurrence timelines and identifying key citation bursts.

 

1. Consider unpacking the conclusion section and expanding it. For an SR, especially using bibliometric methods across hundreds of sources such as yours, the conclusion should not only summarize findings but also synthesize insights, reflect critically on limitations, and offer concrete implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. In other words, consider briefly restating the major trends uncovered (e.g., most influential countries, authors, institutions, keywords, thematic shifts), highlight major gaps or underexplored areas, such as limited contributions from Africa and Latin America.

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. Changes have been made.

 

1. Consider adding a section on the Limitations of your research. For example, the study exclusively uses the WoS, which, while reputable, may exclude relevant literature indexed in Scopus, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, or domain-specific databases. This introduces selection bias and limits comprehensiveness. Language Bias (English-only), excludes a significant portion of regional smart tourism research, particularly from Latin America, Asia, and non-Anglophone Europe, limiting global representativeness. Also, you alluded to it, author affiliation volatility is a limitation, which can distort institutional productivity and network relationships. These are just a few.

 

Response: Thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have added a dedicated "Limitations" section to the manuscript to explicitly address the concerns raised.

 

Comments on the Quality of the English Language

The manuscript would benefit substantially from thorough English language editing to enhance clarity, readability, and academic tone. Common issues include grammatical errors such as incorrect subject–verb agreement, improper article usage, and inconsistent pluralization. The writing also suffers from awkward phrasing and redundant expressions that obscure the intended meaning and reduce narrative flow. Several sentences are overly long or convoluted, and punctuation is inconsistently applied, affecting sentence clarity. Additionally, the use of terminology is at times imprecise, with terms like “productive authors” used where “prolific” would be more appropriate. Addressing these issues through careful revision and, ideally, professional language editing by a native English speaker or an academic editing service would significantly improve the manuscript’s overall quality and readability.

Response: Thank you for your detailed feedback regarding the language quality of the manuscript. The authors have carefully revised the manuscript with the help of an English Editor.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors submitted an interesting and timely manuscript in an increasingly relevant area within tourism. As the authors also pointed out in their work, the development of smart tourism is gaining more attention in the academic landscape. They employed bibliometric analysis through VOSviewer, focusing on publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection.

While the article addresses a relevant topic and uses appropriate tools, it requires certain revisions listed in the comments below.

Comment 1. The manuscript's structure is adequate, but the study's limitations are not mentioned, and there are only suggestions for further research. The authors should also incorporate limitations.

Comment 2. What were the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of papers? The authors mentioned in the end the idea of including non-English articles in future research. What is the justification for excluding them in this research?

Comment 3. What is the justification for selecting the 2000–2024 timeframe? It is understandable why the authors did not include the articles before 2000, but half of 2025 has passed, and many interesting articles regarding smart tourism have been published.

Comment 4. The segment regarding "authors affiliations" as a disadvantage is irrelevant to the readers. 

Comment 5. Fonts must be unified (adopt fonts in Figures 2, 3 and 4 to match the font in the rest of the paper).

Comment 6. Change Figure 3 to have a white background to suit the rest of the Figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

To further enhance the quality of English in the proposed manuscript, the authors should check if articles are missing ("a," "an," and "the"). There are also other minor issues and solutions to structure sentences differently for more clarity. The authors could consult with native English speakers or employ some software.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors submitted an interesting and timely manuscript in an increasingly relevant area within tourism. As the authors also pointed out in their work, the development of smart tourism is gaining more attention in the academic landscape. They employed bibliometric analysis through VOSviewer, focusing on publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection.

While the article addresses a relevant topic and uses appropriate tools, it requires certain revisions listed in the comments below.

Comment 1. The manuscript's structure is adequate, but the study's limitations are not mentioned, and there are only suggestions for further research. The authors should also incorporate limitations.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the inclusion of study limitations. However, we would like to clarify that the limitations of the study are discussed on page 13 of the manuscript, where we address key methodological and contextual constraints. These include the scope of the bibliometric dataset, potential bias due to database selection, and the interpretive limits of co-authorship analysis. We have ensured that these limitations are explicitly stated and tied to the suggestions for future research.

Comment 2. What were the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of papers? The authors mentioned in the end the idea of including non-English articles in future research. What is the justification for excluding them in this research?

Response: Thank you for your observation. Your comments has been explained on the methodology section

Comment 3. What is the justification for selecting the 2000–2024 timeframe? It is understandable why the authors did not include the articles before 2000, but half of 2025 has passed, and many interesting articles regarding smart tourism have been published.

Response: Thank you for your observation. The 2000–2024 timeframe was selected to capture the evolution and development of smart tourism within the broader context of digital transformation, which gained momentum in the early 2000s with the rise of ICT and e-tourism. This period allows for the inclusion of foundational studies as well as recent advancements, offering a comprehensive overview of trends, patterns, and research gaps over nearly 25 years. Furthermore, it reflects both the formative and current stages of smart tourism scholarship, making it a meaningful window for bibliometric analysis.

Comment 4. The segment regarding "authors affiliations" as a disadvantage is irrelevant to the readers. 

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the mention of “authors’ affiliations” as a disadvantage may not be directly relevant or necessary for the intended readership.

Comment 5. Fonts must be unified (adopt fonts in Figures 2, 3 and 4 to match the font in the rest of the paper).

Response: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency in font usage. We have unified the fonts in Figures 2, 3, and 4 to ensure they are consistent with the formatting used throughout the rest of the manuscript. The revised figures have been updated accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 6. Change Figure 3 to have a white background to suit the rest of the Figures.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the background color of Figure 3. However, we have intentionally retained the original background of Figure 3, as it enhances visual contrast and improves the readability of overlapping elements, such as nodes and labels. Changing to a white background would reduce the figure’s clarity and potentially compromise its interpretability.

Comments on the Quality of the English Language

To further enhance the quality of English in the proposed manuscript, the authors should check if articles are missing ("a," "an," and "the"). There are also other minor issues and solutions to structure sentences differently for more clarity. The authors could consult with native English speakers or employ some software.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have consulted with native English speakers and employ some software

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made the paper significantly improved.

Author Response

Comments 1: The Conclusions section is not really a conclusion since it does not end the paper. It should be renamed "Theoretical implications" or "Discussion".

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have renamed this section to “discussion”

Comments 2: This paper also lacks theory-based agenda for future research which should be more than a "future directions" section. This section should be moved prior to the current "Conclusions" section. Moreover, the research avenues should be formulated as "research proposisionts" (RPs) and numbered (RP1, RP2, etc.) with a verb at the beginning (ex. determine, examine, identify, explore...). This will provide more visually identifiable and straightforward guidance for future research. Importantly, each research proposition should be a meaningful derivation of the bibliometric analysis and be introduced with sufficient discussion and links to the theory and analysis per se.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback. In response to your recommendation, the future research agenda section has been relocated to precede the discussion section, and the content has been revised as suggested.

10 July 2025