Mapping Emotional Intelligence and Psychological Capital Research: A Bibliometric Analysis and Future Research Agenda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Your paper is good, my comments are minor:

Note 1: Fig. 2 please change the form of the graph, use bars and above them numbers.

Note 2. In my opinion there should still be a strong discussion, after the results, in which you also refer to other areas of emotional intelligence, such as its importance in leadership 4.0, in the field in creativity.

Note 3. more items in the references because your paper is based on bibliometrics, if there is a strong discussion, the number of papers will be more.

Note 4: Important: add the new section after results and before conclusion: Discussion

Best wishes

Review

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Dear Authors,

Your paper is good, my comments are minor:

Note 1: Fig. 2 please change the form of the graph, use bars and above them numbers.

Feedback: Thank you for the valuable feedback regarding Figure 2. We have duly revised the figure according to the suggestions made. The updated version of Figure 2 now utilizes bar charts with numerical values displayed above each bar, aiming to enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of the data presented.

Note 2. In my opinion there should still be a strong discussion, after the results, in which you also refer to other areas of emotional intelligence, such as its importance in leadership 4.0, in the field in creativity.

Feedback: Thank you very much for the valuable feedback you provided. While the reviewer’s suggestion to include a discussion on the importance of emotional intelligence in leadership and creativity is valid and insightful, we won’t be able to incorporate it into the manuscript for several reasons. Firstly, the primary objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to map the research landscape on emotional intelligence and psychological capital and propose future directions within this specific domain. While we acknowledge the broader relevance of EI in other areas such as leadership and creativity, expanding the scope of our discussion to include these topics would significantly deviate from the focus of our study and potentially dilute the clarity and coherence of our findings. Additionally, given the vast literature on EI and its applications across diverse domains, a comprehensive discussion on its role in leadership and creativity would require a separate dedicated analysis beyond the scope of this manuscript. Therefore, while we appreciate the importance of these topics, we believe that maintaining a focused discussion on the results of our bibliometric analysis, as well as integrating insights from studies on EI and PsyCap (see heading 4.9) as presented in the additional paragraph, aligns more closely with the objectives and contribution of our study.

Note 3. more items in the references because your paper is based on bibliometrics, if there is a strong discussion, the number of papers will be more.

Feedback: We appreciate your observation regarding the potential for expanding the number of references in our manuscript, particularly in the context of a comprehensive discussion. As our study is primarily based on a bibliometric analysis aimed at mapping the research landscape on emotional intelligence and psychological capital, the number of references included was determined by the scope of the analysis and the relevance of the identified studies to our research objectives or questions. While a more extensive discussion may indeed necessitate referencing additional literature, it is important to note that the focus of our study was on synthesizing and analysing existing scholarly output rather than conducting a traditional literature review. Furthermore, the authors did incorporate some of the studies that were included in the bibliometric analysis and were relevant literature to enhance the depth and breadth of insights from EI and PsyCap literature.

Note 4: Important: add the new section after results and before conclusion: Discussion

Feedback: Thank you so much for your recommendation to include a new discussion section following the results and before the conclusion. We are pleased to confirm that we have implemented this suggestion, however titled it “insights from studies on EI and PsyCap”, (see heading 4.9) and the manuscript now includes a dedicated section positioned as advised. This section provides a thorough analysis of authors insights, contextualizes them within the existing literature, and outlines potential avenues for future research in the field of emotional intelligence and psychological capital. We believe that this addition strengthens the structure of the manuscript and enhances the clarity of our presentation. We thank the reviewer for their valuable input, which has contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study that adopts a bibliometric analysis to explore six broad research questions. The study adopts the bibliometric analysis approach consistent with PRISMA and utilized VosViewer to help visualize the results. The authors summarize the results of the analysis with a discussion of their findings, limitations, and future research possibilities.

I have a few recommendations for revising the manuscript:

1.        The authors need to provide more details on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, how did they determine whether a paper was not relevant (this resulted in 20 papers being excluded). Were there any other exclusion criteria, such as a minimum number of citations?  The exact details of the search procedure outlined in Figure 1 needs to be more clearly detailed.

2.        The resulting sample size of 39 is relatively low for such level of analysis; could the authors support or reference any other studies of this nature that have a sample size below 50 articles over such a long period of time? Alternatively, could the authors revisit the inclusion / exclusion criteria (see above) to create a broader scope of literature?

3.        Based on the two points above, I am still unsure how these keyword strings would result in so few papers being included in the analysis. A cursory review of Google Scholar reveals thousands of articles with these keywords.

4.        The authors could add in some discussion around the VOSViewer methodology so help the reader understand the approach. This could be in a footnote with additional references for the reader.

5.        Table 4 – could the authors suggest an overarching theme that represents the keywords? If so, maybe the authors can then use these broad themes to discuss the future research agenda around each theme?

a.        Is there anyway to view the evolution of the keywords over time to better understand how the literature is evolving in terms of topics of interest.

b.       If the paper gets too long, I would downplay the focus on authors and journals, which is less insightful, to build up more focus on the keywords and themes in the literature.

6.        Future research section – building on my previous comment, I think that bibliometric analyses suffer from lack of contribution in many cases because a detailed analysis of the articles content is not undertaken. However, it has been argued that developing a robust future research agenda based on the findings could help increase the contribution of bibliometric analyses. Along these lines, I would recommend the authors to focus less on the limitations and more on the suggestion of future research avenues based on the findings. The authors will need to ensure that they integrate their findings into the future research agenda.

7.        References – minor point but it would be helpful to the readers if the 39 articles that form basis of the bibliometric analysis are either broken out from the other articles references, or identified in some way.

8.        The authors can more clearly identify the contributions of their study that extend the prior literature.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study that adopts a bibliometric analysis to explore six broad research questions. The study adopts the bibliometric analysis approach consistent with PRISMA and utilized VosViewer to help visualize the results. The authors summarize the results of the analysis with a discussion of their findings, limitations, and future research possibilities.

I have a few recommendations for revising the manuscript:

1. The authors need to provide more details on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, how did they determine whether a paper was not relevant (this resulted in 20 papers being excluded). Were there any other exclusion criteria, such as a minimum number of citations? The exact details of the search procedure outlined in Figure 1 needs to be more clearly detailed.

Feedback: We appreciate your feedback regarding the need for more detailed information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in our study. To clarify, the initial search was conducted using keywords and titles without additional exclusion criteria applied. A total of 60 articles were retrieved through this search process. Subsequently, these articles underwent screening, during which 20 were deemed non-relevant as they focused solely on emotional intelligence or psychological capital in conjunction with other constructs. Additionally, one article in Spanish language was excluded due to language restrictions. The remaining 39 articles, all in English, were included in our analysis. We acknowledge the importance of providing explicit details on the criteria used for inclusion and exclusion. In response to this feedback, we enhanced the clarity of the search procedure outlined in Figure 1 by explicitly stating the search terms used and describing the screening process, including criteria for exclusion. This revision aimed to improve the reproducibility and transparency of our study methodology. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this aspect, which will contribute to the overall rigor of our manuscript.

2. The resulting sample size of 39 is relatively low for such level of analysis; could the authors support or reference any other studies of this nature that have a sample size below 50 articles over such a long period of time? Alternatively, could the authors revisit the inclusion / exclusion criteria (see above) to create a broader scope of literature?

The authors included more paragraphs and sections on the reviewed studies and therefore included more references. We now have 97 documents cited in the manuscript; please see the reference list. On the contrary, there are limited studies that have investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological capital. We acknowledged the fact that many studies have emotional intelligence or psychological capital in isolation, which is not the focus of our study. The focus of this research is mapping emotional intelligence and psychological capital using a bibliometric analysis. This is evident in our search queries: “Emotional Intelligence” OR “EI” OR “EQ” AND “Psychological Capital” OR "PsyCap.”

3. Based on the two points above, I am still unsure how these keyword strings would result in so few papers being included in the analysis. A cursory review of Google Scholar reveals thousands of articles with these keywords.

Feedback: We acknowledge your observation regarding the relatively low sample size of 39 articles resulting from our search conducted solely on the Scopus database. While the sample size may appear modest for a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, it is important to note that the selection of Scopus as the sole database for our study was based on considerations of comprehensiveness and accessibility of quality scholarly literature in the field of emotional intelligence and psychological capital. You will get more publications on Google Scholar because not all articles or journals enlisted on Google Scholar are good quality or indexed on Scopus. Scopus is widely recognized as a reputable and comprehensive database covering a broad range of academic disciplines, making it a suitable choice for our bibliometric analysis. However, we understand the reviewer’s concern and appreciate the suggestion to explore alternative databases or broaden the scope of literature through revisiting the inclusion/exclusion criteria. To address this, for future publications, we will consider conducting a thorough review of relevant literature from other databases such as google scholar, web of science, PubMed etc, to identify and reference any studies of similar nature and to potentially widen the scope of our literature search, ensuring a more comprehensive coverage of relevant studies in the field.  

4. The authors could add in some discussion around the VOSViewer methodology so help the reader understand the approach. This could be in a footnote with additional references for the reader.

Feedback: Thank you so much, we are grateful for the reviewer’s suggestion to provide additional discussion around the VOSviewer methodology to aid reader comprehension. In response to this feedback, we have expanded upon the explanation of the VOSviewer methodology in the manuscript, providing more context and clarity regarding our approach. Furthermore, we have included additional references to support the discussions, offering readers further resources for understanding the methodology in detail. We believe that these revisions enhance the accessibility and transparency of our methodology, allowing readers to better comprehend the analytical techniques employed in our study. We appreciate the reviewer’s input, which has contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

5. Table 4 – could the authors suggest an overarching theme that represents the keywords? If so, maybe the authors can then use these broad themes to discuss the future research agenda around each theme?

Thank you for the insightful suggestion regarding Table 4. We have considered your recommendation and incorporated it into the manuscript by providing an overarching theme that represents the keywords. This thematic evolution highlights shifting research interests and emerging trends within organizational psychology (see heading 4.5). We believe that these broad themes will serve as a useful framework for discussing future research agendas around each theme, as suggested. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped enhance the clarity and relevance of our study.

a. Is there anyway to view the evolution of the keywords over time to better understand how the literature is evolving in terms of topics of interest.

In response to the reviewer’s recommendations, the authors have included a paragraph discussing the thematic evolution of keywords in organizational psychology. This addition highlights the shifting research interests and emerging trends within the field, demonstrating a growing emphasis on factors influencing employee well-being, performance, and organizational outcomes across diverse cultural and situational contexts. By incorporating this analysis, the authors have addressed the reviewer's suggestion to explore the evolution of topics of interest in the literature.

b. If the paper gets too long, I would downplay the focus on authors and journals, which is less insightful, to build up more focus on the keywords and themes in the literature.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your suggestion to potentially downplay the focus on authors and journals if the paper becomes too lengthy. However, after careful consideration, we believe that maintaining a balanced focus on both authors/journals and keywords/themes is essential for providing a comprehensive analysis of the research landscape on emotional intelligence and psychological capital. Each aspect offers unique insights into the evolution of the field and contributes to a holistic understanding of the literature. We have also taken your recommendation into account and decided to add a few more paragraphs to further elaborate on the thematic evolution of keywords and themes in the literature. By doing so, we aimed to ensure a nuanced discussion while addressing potential concerns about the paper's length. Thank you again for your thoughtful suggestions, which have contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

6. Future research section – building on my previous comment, I think that bibliometric analyses suffer from lack of contribution in many cases because a detailed analysis of the articles content is not undertaken. However, it has been argued that developing a robust future research agenda based on the findings could help increase the contribution of bibliometric analyses. Along these lines, I would recommend the authors to focus less on the limitations and more on the suggestion of future research avenues based on the findings. The authors will need to ensure that they integrate their findings into the future research agenda.

Feedback: We appreciate your insightful comment regarding the potential contribution of bibliometric analyses through the development of a robust future research agenda. In response to this feedback, we have revised the Future Research section to place greater emphasis on suggesting future research avenues based on our findings, in alignment with the reviewer’s suggestion. By integrating our findings into the discussion of future research directions, we aimed to highlight the potential implications of our study and stimulate further inquiry in the field of emotional intelligence and psychological capital. We believe that this approach enhanced the utility of our study by providing actionable insights for researchers. We thank the reviewer for their valuable input, which has helped refine the presentation of our research agenda.

7. References – minor point but it would be helpful to the readers if the 39 articles that form basis of the bibliometric analysis are either broken out from the other articles references, or identified in some way.

Feedback: We appreciate your suggestion to differentiate the 39 articles that form the basis of our bibliometric analysis from the other references included in the manuscript. It is important to clarify that not all 39 articles were necessarily cited in the reference list, as our bibliometric analysis may have focused on specific data such as journal names, highest citations, keyword co-occurrences, among others, rather than the content of each individual article. Therefore, while the full list of all 39 articles may not be explicitly cited in the reference list, the data extracted from them have informed the analysis presented in the manuscript. We thank the reviewer for bringing up this point, which has prompted us to improve the presentation of our methodology.

8. The authors can more clearly identify the contributions of their study that extend the prior literature.

Feedback: We appreciate your feedback regarding the need for clearer identification of the contributions of our study that extend the prior literature. Our study builds upon existing research in several keyways. Firstly, by conducting a comprehensive bibliometric analysis focused on emotional intelligence and psychological capital, we offer a systematic synthesis of the scholarly landscape in these domains, providing insights into the most influential journals, prolific authors, and emerging research trends. Furthermore, our analysis identifies gaps and areas for future research, thereby guiding researchers and practitioners towards fruitful avenues of inquiry. Additionally, by integrating our findings into a discussion of future research directions, we aim to stimulate further scholarly discourse and contribute to the ongoing advancement of knowledge in the field. Overall, our study contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive overview, identifying gaps, and suggesting future directions, thus enriching the understanding and application of EI and PsyCap concepts. These contributions are now more explicitly articulated in the revised manuscript. We thank the reviewer for their valuable input, which has prompted us to clarify and enhance the presentation of our study's contributions.