Indicators and Tools for Measuring Performance in the Public Education System: Bibliometric Perspectives on BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E, and EPSA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Abstract: It is suggested to streamline the most important issues of the paper: goal, research problem, hypotheses/RQ, and results. The abstract may be organized more effectively.

2) Lines 122-129: Authors should clarify if this is a conclusion, a defined problem, or just a paragraph of the literature review. In the second case the text should be referenced.

3) Line 188: The authors used the VOSviewer program. It would be a good suggestion to provide more information about the usability of this program from other researchers. How is this program supported by the research world?

4) Line 2010: The sentence 'We tried to mitigate this by using general terms and acronyms, but there is always a risk of omission' may be rewritten due to more generosity. 

5) Correct the use of symbols and words within the references (&, or, and !).

6) Ultimately, to give this paper more academic voice, it is required to review the definition of the problem (it is not sufficiently clarified), to review the methodology (there is talk of quantitative techniques, but there is no quantitative analysis!), and to review the results (the authors have formulated three questions, but it is not entirely clear how the answers were generated, and where they are presented in a consistently factual approach).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We have attempted to respond to the 6 comments on our article. The changes to the article that were reviewed are highlighted in yellow.

 

• Reviewer Comment 1: “Abstract: It is suggested to streamline the most important issues of the paper: goal, research problem, hypotheses/RQ, and results. The abstract may be organized more effectively”.

 

Author’s Response Comment 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. We have substantially revised the abstract to clearly and succinctly state the study’s purpose, the research problem and questions, the methodology, and the key findings. The revised abstract now opens with the article’s goal and research problem, specifies the research approach (bibliometric analysis of 2,626 Web of Science-indexed publications from 2020–2025), outlines the hypotheses/research questions addressed, and highlights the main results (including the three thematic clusters identified and the conclusion about successful implementation depending on relevant indicators and culture). This new abstract is more structured and provides a concise overview of the study as requested.

 

Revised Abstract line Lines 6-22:

This study examines how performance measurement frameworks, including the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Strategic Performance Management (SPM), Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), and the European Public Sector Award (EPSA), have been discussed and applied in public education. The research problem addressed is the challenge of understanding the impact and integration of these frameworks in educational management. To address this problem, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of 2626 academic publications from 2020-2025 (WOS), mapping the literature quantitatively and qualitatively. Three major themes emerged from a network of keyword co-occurrence: (1) performance measurement frameworks and methods, (2) technical/engineering performance indicators, and (3) strategic management and organisational performance in education. The findings indicate that successful implementation of performance measurement in education requires the selection of relevant and balanced indicators and the promotion of an organisational culture of continuous improvement. These insights highlight prevailing trends (such as the prominence of the BSC and the widespread use of KPIs) and provide lessons from international practice to guide decision-makers to improve education. Highlighting the link between the theoretical definition of indicators and their practical application provides policymakers and educational managers with an overview of research in the field of performance management in public education.

• Reviewer Comment 2: “Lines 122-129: Authors should clarify if this is a conclusion, a defined problem, or just a paragraph of the literature review. In the second case the text should be referenced.”

 

Author’s Response Comment 2: Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity. The paragraph in lines 122-129 was designed as part of the literature review, introducing one of the key performance frameworks (Balanced Scorecard) and its use in education. We have revised this paragraph to clarify its purpose. Specifically, we added an introductory sentence to signal that this is the context of the literature review, and we ensured that all statements in this paragraph are supported by appropriate references. The revised paragraph 2 now clearly functions as background to the literature review, rather than as a conclusion or independent statement of the problem.

 

 

• Reviewer’s Comment 3: “Line 188: The authors used the VOSviewer program. It would be a good suggestion to provide more information about the usability of this program from other researchers. How is this program supported by the research world?.”

 

Author’s Response Comment 3:: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion and have updated the methodology to acknowledge VOSviewer’s academic acceptance and relevance. In the revised Methodology section, we include a statement noting that VOSviewer is a well-established bibliometric analysis tool widely used in scholarly research for mapping co-authorship, co-citation, and keyword networks. We also added a citation to the original reference for VOSviewer (van Eck & Waltman 2010) to reinforce its credibility.

 

Revised Text (Methodology section excerpt lines 239–242):

“The VOSviewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010) is a widely used tool in bibliometric research, chosen for its capabilities to reliably map and cluster research topics. Its use in this study provides a robust visualization of the relationships between key terms in the literature.”

 

• Reviews Comment 4: “Line 2010: The sentence 'We tried to mitigate this by using general terms and acronyms, but there is always a risk of omission' may be rewritten due to more generosity.

”

Author’s Response Comment 4: Thank you for highlighting this. We have rewritten the sentence in line 2010 (in the Limitations section) to adopt a more formal and neutral academic tone. The revised sentence removes the informal phrasing and clearly states the mitigation strategy and its inherent limitation.

 

Revised Text (Limitations section, Line 696-697):

“We attempted to address this limitation by using broad search terms and common acronyms; however, the possibility of omitting some relevant studies cannot be entirely eliminated”

We have also moved the linear subsection within the Results and discussions section.

 

• Reviewer Comment 5: Correct the use of symbols and words within the references (&, or, and !).

 

Author’s Response Comment 5:: We apologize for the inconsistencies in the reference list. We have carefully revised the references to adhere to a consistent format in line with the journal’s style guidelines. All author names in multi-author references are now separated by “&” (ampersand) consistently, and we have removed any improper punctuation or symbols. For example, we corrected instances like “Corsino, L., and Fuller, A. T. (2021)”, which now reads “Corsino, L., & Fuller, A. T. (2021)…”. We also fixed minor punctuation errors; for instance, “Niven, P. R. (2003), Adapting the Balanced Scorecard to Fit the Public and Nonprofit Sector,.” has been corrected to “Niven, P. R. (2003). Adapting the Balanced Scorecard to Fit the Public and Nonprofit Sector.” ensuring the comma usage is correct. The revised reference list uses a uniform format without any extraneous symbols (no unintended “or”/“and” mismatches or exclamation points).

 

• Reviewer Comment 6: “Ultimately, to give this paper more academic voice, it is required to review the definition of the problem (it is not sufficiently clarified), to review the methodology (there is talk of quantitative techniques, but there is no quantitative analysis!), and to review the results (the authors have formulated three questions, but it is not entirely clear how the answers were generated, and where they are presented in a consistently factual approach)”

.

Author’s Response Comment 6: We appreciate this comprehensive feedback and have made several changes to strengthen the academic voice of our manuscript:

 

Clarifying the research problem:

We added explicit statements in the abstract to clearly state the research problem. Now in the abstract it reads: 'This study examines how performance measurement frameworks - including Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Strategic Performance Management (SPM), Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and the European Public Sector Award (EPSA) - have been discussed and applied in public education. The research problem addressed is the challenge of understanding the impact and integration of these frameworks in educational management. To address this issue, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of 2 626 academic publications from 2020-2025 (Web of Science), mapping the literature quantitatively and qualitatively". This addition makes the abstract more precise, informing the reader about the problem we are addressing and what our study aims to accomplish.

 

Justifying the term “quantitative techniques” in the methodology: We have clarified what we mean by “quantitative techniques” in the context of our bibliometric approach. The methodology section now explains that our analysis involved quantitative data metrics – for example, computing the number of publications, frequencies of keywords, and network statistics – which is why we describe the approach as quantitative. We added a sentence to the Methods: “These bibliometric methods are quantitative in nature, as they involve statistical analysis of publication data (e.g., co-occurrence frequencies, and network link strengths) to uncover patterns in the research landscape.” Line 252- 254 This clarification justifies the use of the term “quantitative techniques” and aligns the description with what was actually done in the study. We have also modified Table 2 by adding quantitative information to support the predominance of economic concepts.

 

Ensuring each research question is answered and indicated: We carefully reviewed the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion to explicitly tie them back to the three research questions stated in the Introduction. Line 78 -84  We added guiding statements in the discussion that signal the answer to each question. For example, after presenting the keyword co-occurrence clusters, we now note that “this analysis addresses Research Question 1, by showing how these performance measurement models have been discussed and categorized in the literature” line 491-492. In the section on publication trends, we mention “The increase in the number of publications in recent years, the volume of existing information and the variety of application of performance measurement tools answer research question 2 regarding implementation models and trends in public education” line 273-276.

Furthermore, in the Discussion/Conclusion, we explicitly state the lessons learned from international experiences (including insights from EPSA and cross-country comparisons) to answer Research Question 3 “In answer to the third research question, analysis of international practices and exchanges (such as through EPSA) suggests that the transfer of ideas accelerates innovation in per-formance measurement. Policy-makers can learn from these cases that while there is no universal model by taking successful elements from elsewhere, with careful attention to the specifics of the local level processes where they have been implemented, resulting in increased effectiveness of performance management in education” line 780-785

.

Overall, these revisions have strengthened the academic tone of the paper. The introduction now crisply defines the problem and objective, the methodology is described with appropriate justification of terms, and the connection between our research questions and our findings is explicitly articulated, thereby improving the manuscript’s clarity and scholarly rigor.

 

Thank you for your work in the review process of our article!

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

Author Team

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper that analyzes how performance measurement models are applied in public education through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. It discusses how frameworks like BSC, KPI, SPM, and M&E are used, discussed, and integrated in the academic literature. The paper is clearly structured and well-organised, so it is an engaging and easy read. 

  Below are some ideas on how the paper can be improved.   The authors have justified the importance of the topic mainly through practical motivations. While these are relevant and well-founded, they reflect a policy-oriented or applied research perspective, rather than presenting an academic perspective. The authors should more clearly present the academic research gap by identifying what has been overlooked or insufficiently addressed in prior literature.   The bibliometric method used is appropriate and clearly described; however, the authors should explain more explicitly why this method was chosen over other approaches, such as a narrative or systematic literature review, and how it offers unique analytical value in this context.   The discussion of the models (BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E, EPSA) is presented in a segmented and linear manner, without consideration of how these frameworks interact or complement each other, particularly in the governance structures of public education systems, where integration is critical for implementation effectiveness.   Finally, while policy implications are briefly mentioned, they could be further developed, including more specific recommendations for education policymakers, institutional leaders, or international agencies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We have attempted to respond to your comments on our article. The changes to the article that were reviewed are highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer Comment 1: “The authors have justified the importance of the topic mainly through practical motivations”

 

Authors' Response Comment 1

The authors thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to more clearly articulate the academic research deficit. In the original submission, the importance of the topic was indeed framed largely by practical considerations (e.g., improving accountability and outcomes in education) and we agree that the manuscript should better identify what is missing in existing literature. The abstract has been revised to explicitly indicate the gap in previous research that this study addresses. In particular, we point out that while numerous studies and reviews have examined performance measurement frameworks such as BSC, KPIs, SPM, and M&E in various contexts, few have analyzed these models in an integrated way in public education settings.

 

“Reviewing the existing literature in the Web of Science database, we did not find any comprehensive bibliometric analysis synthesising the perspectives of all five frameworks (BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E, and EPSA) specifically for public school systems.

The authors of this article believe that this is a notable gap in the scientific literature, which our study aims to fill by introducing a comprehensive bibliometric analysis so that our article can have an academic contribution in addition to its practical significance”.  Line 69-75

 

Reviewer Comment 2:” Explain more explicitly why this method was chosen over other approaches, such as a narrative or systematic literature review, and how it offers unique analytical value in this context”

 

Authors' Response Comment 2

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the methodology. We will clarify in the manuscript why a bibliometric approach was chosen over a narrative or systematic literature review, and what unique analytical value it provides in this context.

 

“Our bibliometric approach complements existing narrative analyses by providing a high-level view of the structure of the field, allows for a quantitative and objective mapping of the research landscape, revealing publication trends, keyword networks and research clusters that would be difficult to observe through a traditional narrative analysis This method was particularly appropriate given the interdisciplinary and expansive nature of the subject, allowed us to systematically treat the 2626 publications and identify thematic linkages and gaps in the field as opposed to a narrative or even systematic review, although valuable for in-depth analysis of the selected papers, might not capture the broader research patterns or network of concepts that link BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E and EPSA across different studies” line 330-339.

 

Reviewer Comment 3 (Integrating discussion of frameworks and their interaction):

Authors' Response Comment 3

The authors acknowledge the reviewer's insightful observation regarding the discussion of the five performance frameworks. In the original manuscript, we presented the BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E, and EPSA in a somewhat segmented manner. We agree that a more integrated discussion of how these frameworks interact and complement each other, particularly within the governance of public education , To fill this gap we have introduced the following content “A ministry of education could use multiple tools in tandem: a strategic performance management plan articulated through a Balanced Scorecard (BSC) that is supplemented with relevant key performance indicators (KPIs), all supported by a robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to track progress. In such a scenario, the EPSA (European Public Sector Award) can be referred to as an external incentive that encourages mainstreaming of these practices by highlighting success stories”.  Line 51-56

We also introduced section 2, where we dealt with the Literature Review separately, and in the Introduction, we left only the comments on the discussion of the five performance frameworks, the research problem, the gap, the research questions, and the structure of the article.

Providing an integrated bibliometric analysis within the article, we show that these models are not used in isolation in real governance contexts - rather, they complement each other (e.g. KPIs serve as measures within a BSC, and M&E provides feedback on these KPIs, etc.).The Conclusions section also mentioned how these frameworks collectively contribute to a culture of performance management in education, aligning strategic goals with measurement and continuous improvement.

 

Reviewer Comment 4 (Expanded policy implications and recommendations):

Authors' Response Comment 4

 

The authors thank the reviewer for pointing out that the policy implications can be developed further. Thus, we have inserted the following content in the conclusions section

"In response to the third research question, analysis of international practices and exchanges (such as through EPSA) suggests that the transfer of ideas accelerates innovation in per-formance measurement. Policy-makers can learn from these cases that, while there is no universal model, by taking elements of success from elsewhere, with careful attention to the specifics of the local-level processes in which they have been implemented, resulting in more effective performance management in education." line 780-785

 

Once again, we sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions. We believe that these revisions have improved the clarity and quality of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to address the reviewer's feedback and hope that the revised manuscript meets the expectations for publication in Businesses.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Author Team

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is clearly written but it reads more like a descriptive literature overview than an original research contribution: it lacks a specific research question and fails to articulate a compelling rationale or theoretical gap.

The methodological approach, based almost entirely on keyword co-occurrence via VOSviewer, is limited in scope and analytical depth. It seems that there is no effort to explore cluster dynamics, citation networks, or alternative interpretive frameworks, which renders the analysis superficial. The inclusion of irrelevant material, especially Cluster 2 with engineering terms unrelated to education, further weakens the focus and coherence of the study.

I think thata the cluster interpretations are often tautological and lack analytical rigor, offering little beyond surface-level categorization and the paper is devoid of a strong conceptual framework; it overlooks foundational debates in educational policy and public management, limiting its scholarly value and originality.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We thank the reviewer for his thorough analysis and recommendations. We have carefully considered each point raised and have significantly revised the manuscript to address all concerns. Below, we provide a point-by-point response. Each recommendation is restated followed by our author response, which details the changes made in the revised manuscript. Line numbers refer to the revised manuscript. The changes to the article that were reviewed are highlighted in yellow.

 

Reviewer Comment 1 “The manuscript lacks a specific research question and fails to articulate a compelling rationale or theoretical gap.”

Authors' Response Comment 1: We appreciate this observation. In the revised Abstract, we have explicitly articulated the research objectives. In the revised Introduction, we added a paragraph at the end of the Introduction that clearly states the research questions in lines 78-84 Also in the introduction, we have outlined the theoretical reasoning and the lack of a common analysis of the five elements (BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E, and EPSA) that motivated the study to fill the gap in such scientific material. lines 68 -75

This analysis will be used by two colleagues in their doctoral work.

These additions provide a clear focus and justification for the study, directly addressing the reviewer's concern.

 

Reviewer Comment 2: “The methodological approach based on keyword co-occurrence via VOSviewer is limited in analytical depth.

Authors' Response Comment 2: We agree that the methodology in the initial submission needed further depth.

In the revised manuscript, Section 2 has been expanded to enrich our bibliometric approach beyond the co-occurrence of basic keywords.

First, we provided a more detailed justification for using VOSviewer and keyword co-occurrence analysis, explaining how it helps identify thematic structures in the literature (lines 239–242).

In section 3, we justified the choice of bibliometric analysis over narrative analysis (lines 330-339).

More importantly, we supplemented our analysis with comments on each cluster to deepen the insights: we performed a qualitative analysis of the content of representative articles in each group to validate the method and results obtained from the use of bibliometric analysis.

We also included a brief discussion of co-citation analysis in the Results to complement the keyword analysis. However, the authors decided not to include a comprehensive analysis of citations or co-citations in this study due to constraints of scope and length.

These methodological improvements were incorporated to provide greater analytical depth. They ensure that our findings are not based solely on raw keyword patterns, but are supported by interpretive perspectives from the literature, thus addressing the reviewer's concern about analytical limitations.

 

Reviewer Comment 3: “There is no exploration of cluster dynamics, citation networks, or interpretive frameworks, which renders the analysis superficial. The inclusion of irrelevant material, especially Cluster 2 with engineering terms unrelated to education, further weakens the focus and coherence of the study”

 

Authors' Response Comment 3: We appreciate the suggestion to deepen our analysis. In the revised manuscript, we have taken several steps to address cluster dynamics, citation networks, and interpretive frameworks, thereby adding substantial analytical richness:

In the revised article, we have several references to how cluster interpretation contributes to formulating answers to research questions.

While our main mapping is based on keywords, we have also incorporated an analysis of the citation network to the extent possible within our dataset. In various sections of the paper, we have identified the fundamental works on the five indicators and discussed how the research results are integrated into educational management.

We have consolidated the interpretative observations of our analysis by incorporating our findings into the theoretical and conceptual frameworks established in the Discussion section.

Collectively, the above revisions address concerns that our analysis was previously superficial. We now offer a more nuanced examination of the bibliometric results, considering how themes change over time, how the literature is interconnected through citations, and how the findings relate to broader theoretical frameworks.

We understand the reviewer's concern about the coherence of the thematic groups. In the initial analysis, cluster 2 was identified as a technical/engineering cluster (with terms such as "4D printing," "activated sludge," "membrane bioreactor," etc.) that indeed does not fit within the main objective of public education.

As we mentioned at the end of the comments, the specific results of this cluster are directly related to measuring performance in education and public sector management. The results in this group reinforce our belief that the five indicators are based on mathematical and engineering principles. As this is a multidisciplinary analysis, other researchers may note that not all the results of applying mathematical models can be applied 100%.

With the clarifications and changes made, we believe that the overall coherence and focus of the paper have been greatly improved.

 

Reviewer Comment 4: “Cluster interpretations are tautological and lack analytical rigor offering little beyond surface-level categorization and the paper is devoid of a strong conceptual framework; it overlooks foundational debates in educational policy and public management, limiting its scholarly value and originality .”

Authors' Response Comment 4: We thank the reviewer for this observation and have taken advantage of it as an opportunity to substantially strengthen our interpretation of the clusters. In the revised manuscript, the descriptions of each cluster in section 3.2 have been rewritten with a more in-depth analysis to avoid tautology and add rigor. Instead of simply rephrasing the keywords of the groups, we now delve deeper into the themes and refer to the research questions:

The added examples, research questions, and cross-analysis of clusters all contribute to a more rigorous and meaningful discussion of the results, fully addressing the reviewer's concern about tautological interpretation.

We agree that the manuscript needed a clearer link to the broader conceptual and theoretical context. We have taken several steps to strengthen the conceptual framework and incorporate fundamental debates:

• In the abstract, the last sentence highlights the need to emphasize the link between the theoretical definition of indicators and their practical application so that decision-makers and educational managers can correctly apply the research results. Thus, the reader is guided from the outset by a clear conceptual framework, understanding both why performance measurement is a critical issue for education and what gaps exist in current knowledge (which our bibliometric analysis attempts to fill).
• We have significantly enriched the discussion on indicators to explicitly engage in the fundamental debates that the reviewer noted had been overlooked previously.
• We have correlated the sections where we interpreted the clusters with the research questions.

In short, the revised manuscript is now grounded in a much more robust conceptual framework. The introduction establishes theoretical rationale and acknowledges key debates in the field, and the discussion returns to these broader issues, interpreting our findings considering established theories and policy debates.

This ensures that our work is not presented in isolation, but as part of the continuum of academic discussions on performance management in the public sector and educational policy. We believe that these changes fully address the reviewer's concern, demonstrating that we have not only conducted a bibliometric analysis, but also connected it to the fundamental ideas and debates that give meaning and relevance to the analysis.

We hope that these extensive revisions and clarifications satisfactorily address all the points raised by the reviewer. We are grateful for the feedback, which has helped us to significantly improve the clarity, depth, and scientific grounding of the manuscript.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

Author Team

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article constitutes a valuable academic contribution and addresses a topic of interest for the scholarly community. However, in order to reach the standards required for publication, a minor revision is necessary. The requested changes are not related to the research design or data but are intended to improve the scientific tone, structure, and clarity of the manuscript. Below are the aspects that should be improved, explained individually and with the same numbering provided.

1. The expression “key lesson” found on line 15 is not appropriate in academic writing, especially in the context of a scientific article. It is suggested to replace this expression with a more formal and academically neutral alternative that aligns with the tone of scholarly discourse.
2. The reference to the journal in lines 17–20 is unnecessary and should be removed. Since the sample is neither derived from this specific journal nor representative of it, such a mention adds no value to the scientific validity of the work. Including it may be perceived as an attempt to appeal to the editorial scope rather than a justified methodological decision.
3. The introduction currently includes several definitions and discussions of key concepts (e.g., BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E) which, although relevant, would be better suited to a dedicated literature review section. Transferring this content to a new section would enhance the manuscript's structure and bring it in line with the conventional division between contextualization and theoretical grounding.
4. The introduction lacks a compelling opening that would serve as a hook to engage readers and highlight the importance of the study. It is advisable to begin the introduction with a strong statement or context that frames the problem or gap addressed by the paper. This would enhance the readability and encourage further interest from the academic audience.
5. The research questions posed at the end of the introduction are central to the article, yet they are not clearly labeled as such. It is strongly recommended to use the explicit term “research questions” and to enumerate them (e.g., RQ1, RQ2, etc.). This would clarify the objectives of the article and allow readers to more easily follow the logical thread of the analysis.
6. A final paragraph should be added to the introduction outlining the structure of the article. This paragraph should briefly state what each section of the manuscript covers (e.g., methodology, results, discussion, conclusions), providing the reader with a clear roadmap of the text.
7. The manuscript does not provide any justification for the decision to include publications from the year 2020 onwards as the sample starting point. This choice should be explained, either by reference to significant contextual events (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) or other methodological reasons. Without this clarification, the delimitation of the study period appears arbitrary.
8. The exclusion of Scopus as a data source for the bibliometric analysis is not justified, despite its prominence in bibliometric research. A brief explanation should be provided, indicating either limitations, redundancy with WoS, or reasons of methodological consistency for preferring WoS exclusively.
9. In lines 188 and 189, the manuscript refers to the use of "similar tools" without specifying what these tools are. To ensure transparency and replicability, the authors should explicitly name the tools
10. Section 2.3 presents the limitations of the study, but placing them within the methodology section is not ideal. Limitations should be discussed either at the end of the results or in the conclusions section. This would follow standard academic conventions and allow the limitations to be interpreted in light of the findings.
11. Table 2 lacks quantification that would allow for a more precise interpretation of the categories listed. The authors should consider including numerical values (e.g., frequency counts, percentages) to describe the weight or significance of each category within the dataset.
12. When discussing the thematic content of the clusters, the article refers to “many studies” without citing any specific works. It is advisable to include references to significant or representative studies within each cluster. This should be applied throughout the cluster analysis, to enhance the scholarly rigor of the findings.
13. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a research agenda in the conclusions section. Based on the results obtained, the authors could outline suggestions for future research directions. This would increase the academic value of the article and provide guidance to other researchers in the field.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all 13 comments, which mainly concerned the tone, structure, and clarity of the manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment. For each comment, we acknowledge the suggestion and explain the revisions made, with references to the relevant sections and line numbers in the revised manuscript. All changes are highlighted in the marked-up version of the manuscript for easy reference. The changes to the article that were reviewed are highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer Comment 1: The expression “key lesson” found on line 15 is not appropriate in academic writing, especially in the context of a scientific article. It is suggested to replace this expression with a more formal and academically neutral alternative that aligns with the tone of scholarly discourse

Authors' Response Comment 1 We appreciate the reviewer's concern about the tone of the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the language in the abstract and other sections to ensure a formal, academic tone. Abstracting the following form: “This study examines how performance measurement frameworks, including the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Strategic Performance Management (SPM), Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), and the European Public Sector Award (EPSA), have been discussed and applied in public education. The research problem addressed is the challenge of understanding the impact and integration of these frameworks in educational management. To address this problem, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of 2626 academic publications from 2020-2025 (WOS), mapping the literature quantitatively and qualitatively. Three major themes emerged from a network of keyword co-occurrence: (1) performance measurement frameworks and methods, (2) technical/engineering performance indicators, and (3) strategic management and organisational performance in education. The findings indicate that successful implementation of performance measurement in education requires the selection of relevant and balanced indicators and the promotion of an organisational culture of continuous improvement. These insights highlight prevailing trends (such as the prominence of the BSC and the widespread use of KPIs) and provide lessons from international practice to guide decision-makers to improve education. Highlighting the link between the theoretical definition of indicators and their practical application provides policymakers and educational managers with an overview of research in the field of performance management in public education”.

These changes ensure that the tone remains professional and academic throughout the manuscript, as recommended.

Reviewer Comment 2 The reference to the journal in lines 17–20 is unnecessary and should be removed. Since the sample is neither derived from this specific journal nor representative of it, such a mention adds no value to the scientific validity of the work. Including it may be perceived as an attempt to appeal to the editorial scope rather than a justified methodological decision

Authors' Response Comment 2 By modifying the abstract, we have also removed the mention. Thank you for your suggestion.

Reviewer Comment 3:  The introduction currently includes several definitions and discussions of key concepts (e.g., BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E) which, although relevant, would be better suited to a dedicated literature review section. Transferring this content to a new section would enhance the manuscript's structure and bring it in line with the conventional division between contextualization and theoretical grounding

Authors' Response Comment 3 By modifying the abstract, we have also removed the reference to ment

Thank you for this useful suggestion. We have restructured the Introduction to present the problem and the research questions more clearly.

We have introduced section 2, where we have dealt with the Literature Review separately, and in the Introduction we have left only the comments on the discussion of the five performance frameworks, the research problem, the gap, the research questions, and the structure of the article.

In the revised Introduction (lines 52-58), we have now succinctly identified the gap in the literature (the need for an integrative bibliometric analysis of performance measurement in public education). We have also added a short roadmap sentence at the end of the introduction to present the structure of the paper. These changes make the purpose and organization of the study clearer to the reader.

Thank you for your suggestion.

 

Reviewer Comment 4. The introduction lacks a compelling opening that would serve as a hook to engage readers and highlight the importance of the study. It is advisable to begin the introduction with a strong statement or context that frames the problem or gap addressed by the paper. This would enhance the readability and encourage further interest from the academic audience.

Authors' Response Comment 4: Thank you for this useful suggestion. We have restructured the Introduction, which will now have the following content at the beginning:

“An analysis of the literature on performance measurement in public education reveals that certain issues have not been adequately addressed. One major omission is the lack of integration between various frameworks, such as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Strategic Performance Management (SPM), Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and the European Public Sector Award (EPSA), in the context of public education. To date, academic studies have mainly examined these frameworks in isolation, focusing on single-model applications or case studies. For instance, numerous papers have examined the implementation of the BSC or KPI-based accountability in schools as standalone topics. Mendes Junior and Alves (2022) observe that, despite the abundance of studies on BSC in education, obtaining an overview of its use remains challenging, underscoring the fragmented nature of the research. Similarly, individual case studies, such as the application of the BSC to fifteen performance indicators in Romanian schools (Enache et al., 2021), explicitly acknowledge their limited scope and lack of generalisability. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that academic discourse is fragmented across frameworks, with few interconnections between BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E and EPSA research streams. What has been overlooked is a coherent perspective: a comprehensive synthesis of how these performance models contribute to, or differ in their contribution to, shaping public education outcomes is currently lacking. This gap is both practical and academic. Without integrating these correlations, the literature provides an incomplete picture of performance management in education and leaves fundamental questions about the connections between these models and their combined impact unanswered.”

Reviewer Comment 5:  The research questions posed at the end of the introduction are central to the article, yet they are not clearly labeled as such. It is strongly recommended to use the explicit term “research questions” and to enumerate them (e.g., RQ1, RQ2, etc.). This would clarify the objectives of the article and allow readers to more easily follow the logical thread of the analysis.

Authors' Response Comment 5 At the end of the introductory section, we highlighted the three research questions. We also highlighted the answers to these questions in the article.

Reviewer Comment 6. A final paragraph should be added to the introduction outlining the structure of the article. This paragraph should briefly state what each section of the manuscript covers (e.g., methodology, results, discussion, conclusions), providing the reader with a clear roadmap of the text.

Authors' Response Comment 6 At the end of the introductory paragraph, we introduced the future structure of the article. Thank you for your suggestion.

 Reviewer Comment 7 The manuscript does not provide any justification for the decision to include publications from the year 2020 onwards as the sample starting point. This choice should be explained, either by reference to significant contextual events (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) or other methodological reasons. Without this clarification, the delimitation of the study period appears arbitrary

Authors' Response Comment 7 In the Data collection subsection, we have entered the following text „We focused on the recent five-year period (2020-2025) to capture the latest research and trends in the field. The analysis period spanned the year preceding the COVID-19 pandemic and continued into the current year, enabling the capture of the latest trends as expressed in scientific articles.”

Reviewer Comment 8. The exclusion of Scopus as a data source for the bibliometric analysis is not justified, despite its prominence in bibliometric research. A brief explanation should be provided, indicating either limitations, redundancy with WoS, or reasons of methodological consistency for preferring WoS exclusively.

Authors' Response Comment 8  In the Data collection subsection, we have entered the following text „The Web of Science platform was chosen over other databases (such as Scopus) due to its rigorous coverage of high-impact literature and its robust categorisation tools, which were essential for refining our dataset according to the purpose of the study.”

Reviewer Comment 9: In lines 188 and 189, the manuscript refers to the use of "similar tools" without specifying what these tools are. To ensure transparency and replicability, the authors should explicitly name the tools

Authors' Response Comment 9: We have removed "similar instruments" because we have no basis for this expression. Lines 238-239

 

Reviewer Comment 10: Section 2.3 presents the limitations of the study, but placing them within the methodology section is not ideal. Limitations should be discussed either at the end of the results or in the conclusions section. This would follow standard academic conventions and allow the limitations to be interpreted in light of the findings.

Authors' Response Comment 10: We have moved this section to the end of the results section, section 4.4.

 

Reviewer Comment 11. Table 2 lacks quantification that would allow for a more precise interpretation of the categories listed. The authors should consider including numerical values (e.g., frequency counts, percentages) to describe the weight or significance of each category within the dataset.

Authors' Response Comment 11: We filled in the data in Table 2 and thus supported the statement below it:As shown in Table 2, a significant portion of the literature is classified under Environmental Sciences, Management and Business (57,55%), which is not surprising given that frameworks such as BSC and KPI originated in the business world and much of the theoretical development took place in management science. Lines 286

 

Reviewaer Comment 12. When discussing the thematic content of the clusters, the article refers to “many studies” without citing any specific works. It is advisable to include references to significant or representative studies within each cluster. This should be applied throughout the cluster analysis, to enhance the scholarly rigor of the findings.

 

Authors' Response Comment 12 We removed the phrase "many studies" from the analysis of cluster 1. In the revised article, we also referred to several studies included in the articles in the references and added another reference in the introduction. Enache et al., 2021

 

Reviewaer Comment 13. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a research agenda in the conclusions section. Based on the results obtained, the authors could outline suggestions for future research directions. This would increase the academic value of the article and provide guidance to other researchers in the field.

 

Authors' Response Comment13  In the conclusions section, we have added the following last paragraph “Going forward, the challenge for both researchers and practitioners is to refine these models to be more educator-friendly, equity-conscious, and learning-oriented. This could involve developing new indicators for skills and competencies that are not easily tested, ethically leveraging large-scale data (e.g., learning analytics driven by AI) to personalize education, and ensuring that accountability frameworks focus on im-provement rather than mere compliance. Future research should further examine the limitations of current performance measurement models in educational settings and explore how context-specific factors (such as institutional culture, stakeholder en-gagement, and resource constraints) influence their implementation and outcomes. Comparative studies across different education systems (or levels of education) could provide insight into how these frameworks can be optimally adapted to diverse gov-ernance structures and cultural contexts. In addition, as data analytics and technology advance, new metrics and methods (for example, AI-driven analytics or qualitative measures of student well-being) can be investigated to complement traditional quanti-tative indicators. Finally, longitudinal research is needed to assess the long-term im-pacts of performance management initiatives in education, helping distinguish short-term gains from sustainable improvements.

 

Once again, we sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions. We believe that these revisions have improved the clarity and quality of our manuscript. We are grateful for the opportunity to address the reviewer's feedback and hope that the revised manuscript meets the expectations for publication in Businesses.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

Author Team

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a well-structured bibliometric analysis of performance measurement frameworks (BSC, KPIs, SPM, M&E, EPSA) in public education: it's timely, the dataset is robust, and the discussion provides useful insights into international practices. The contribution remains largely descriptive and a stronger theoretical framing and clearer practical implications would enhance the value of the work.

Some passages sound repetitive, and the language could be streamlined for concision. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our manuscript and the insightful suggestions. We have revised the paper accordingly to address the reviewer's concerns about theoretical framing, practical implications, and writing style.

Reviewer Comment 1 The contribution remains largely descriptive and a stronger theoretical framing and clearer practical implications would enhance the value of the work. Some passages sound repetitive, and the language could be streamlined for concision. 

Authors' Response Comment 1: The changes for this review (2) in the article are highlighted in green and if we have removed something in this answer and will be replaced with yellow.

The changes from revision 2 had 3 directions:

1. Strengthening the Theoretical Framework

The reviewer noted that our contribution was largely descriptive and required stronger theoretical framing and some passages seemed repetitive:

 We have therefore removed the following paragraph from the introduction and inserted the material highlighted in green

>As part of our literature review of key performance models, we first examine the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). The BSC is a strategic management framework introduced by Kaplan & Norton (1992) to translate an organisation’s vision into a balanced set of performance indicators. It expands traditional financial measures with additional perspectives (customer, internal process, learning and growth) to provide a comprehensive view of organisational performance. In the education sector, the BSC has been adopted by ministries, school districts, and universities as a tool for aligning educational goals with strategic objectives and for holistically tracking progress. Research indicates that educational institutions implement BSC to improve accountability and strategic focus; for example, Taylor and Baines (2012) documented how four UK universities integrated departmental objectives with institutional strategy using a BSC, which improved the monitoring of policy implementation. This illustrates BSC’s role as a strategy-based performance assessment approach in education (Al Jardali et al. 2020; Camilleri 2020). Reviewing the existing literature in the Web of Science database, we did not find any comprehensive bibliometric analysis synthesising the perspectives of all five frameworks (BSC, KPI, SPM, M&E;, and EPSA) specifically for public school systems. The authors of this article believe that this is a notable gap in the scientific literature, which our study aims to fill by introducing a comprehensive bibliometric analysis so that our article can have an academic contribution in addition to its practical significance

 

The adoption of BSC- and KPI-based governance in education is framed by the logic of New Public Management, which diffuses practices from the private sector to the public sector, emphasizing results, accountability and performance. In addition, we interpret the coexistence of BSC, KPIs, SPM and M&E through the prism of performance regimes in complex governance frameworks, where measures, routines and incentives interact to shape organizational behavior. This framework clarifies why these patterns have spread and helps interpret bibliometric clusters beyond description, linking observed patterns to accountability theory and strategy execution in public organizations.

We now frame the adoption of frameworks such as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and KPIs within the new public management paradigm. Using BSC and KPI in education against the backdrop of NPM theory, emphasizing accountability and results-oriented management as the theoretical foundation for their adoption.

The authors have ensured that works cited are still in the paper so no references have been removed.

2. Clearer Practical Implications for Policymakers and Managers

We agree with the reviewer that our discussion needed more explicit practical implications. In the revised manuscript we added point 4.5 Practical Implications

3. Improved Concision

In order to improve the conciseness of the article and to increase the clarity of the conclusions, the last paragraph has been reworded, the yellow underlined one is the form from review 1 and the green one from review 2

 

 

Going forward, the challenge for both researchers and practitioners is to refine these models to be more educator-friendly, equity-conscious, and learning-oriented. This could involve developing new indicators for skills and competencies that are not easily tested, ethically leveraging large-scale data (e.g., learning analytics driven by AI) to personalize education, and ensuring that accountability frameworks focus on improvement rather than mere compliance. Future research should further examine the limitations of current performance measurement models in educational settings and explore how context-specific factors (such as institutional culture, stakeholder engagement, and resource constraints) influence their implementation and outcomes. Comparative studies across different education systems (or levels of education) could provide insight into how these frameworks can be optimally adapted to diverse governance structures and cultural contexts. In addition, as data analytics and technology advance, new metrics and methods (for example, AI-driven analytics or qualitative measures of student well-being) can be investigated to complement traditional quantitative indicators. Finally, longitudinal research is needed to assess the long-term impacts of performance management initiatives in education, helping distinguish short-term gains from sustainable improvements.

With the help of AI-driven learning, personalization of educational models, and ensuring that accountability frameworks focus on improvement rather than mere compliance with theoretical models, future research should further examine the limitations of current performance measurement models being optimally adapted to the diversity of governance structures and myriad cultural contexts

 

We are grateful for the guidance of the reviewers, which undoubtedly helped us to improve the paper. All these changes are marked with underlined text in the document to facilitate the review process (yellow revision 1 and green revision 2). We hope that the revisions satisfactorily address the concerns raised and improve the overall quality and impact of our work.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Author Team