Mapping the Literature on Social Responsibility and Stakeholders’ Pressures in the Mining Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the article is interesting, however, the article data used is only until 2018 so it is less updated and relevant in 2022. It is better to optimize it until 2021.
The purpose of the study has not been explained, it is hoped that it will be explained again.
In the abstract, it explains the number of 131 documents extracted from the Web of Science and 18.
Scopus databases. but the sample data according to the table is only 28. It is better if the data in the abstract is adjusted to the sample data used.
The title Mapping the literature on social responsibility and stakeholders' pressures in the mining industry need to be linked to the theme of Risk and Financial Management.
Data of 28 eligible publications, it was found that 2014, 2017 and 2018 were the years with the most publications.
in Table 2 - Citations per article (N=28) should be sorted by alphabetical order by letter or year or by a certain order.
Figure 1 displays the protocol and the steps 163
followed, whose search in the databases was performed on June 18, 2020. It's best to update it because it's July 2020, the date difference is very far.
it is necessary to re-explain the Screening (96) and Eligibility (7) processes. 96 data is very much, please explain why this is so?
keywords: Keywords:`("social responsibility*" and "stakeholders" and "mining industry*")` .
Table 3 - Conceptual framework (N=28) is numbered 1-28 preferably.
In the discussion, it is still necessary to explain the development associated with the existing problems.
Author Response
Dear Ms. Yuki Qi,
Prof. Dr. Tracie Woidtke
Guest Editor
Journal of Risk and Financial Management
We are grateful to be allowed to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Mapping the literature on social responsibility and stakeholders’ pressures in the mining industry.
We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have devoted to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We were able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted these changes in yellow within our manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the referees’ comments and concerns.
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract:
Authors should briefly outline the research problem, methodology (theoretical and empirical part, research methods and techniques), added value of the research, and added value of the article from the professional/scientific point of view.
Chapter 1:
Authors should start by clearly stating the research problem and explaining why the research problem is worth exploring. In this chapter, it should be made clear what is the added value of the research and what is the added value of the article.
Chapter 2:
The list of literature and references currently lack scientific (review) articles/papers/studies from the educational field of research. Authors should add recent scientific references from this field in the list of literature and references. This is particularly important as this is a rapidly evolving area of research post-2014.
Chapter 3:
The authors should present which of the research paradigms are going to be used (qualitative paradigm, quantitative paradigm, mixed). The authors should also present which of the mentioned research methods belongs to an individual paradigm and which of these research methods are going to be used in the theoretical and which in the empirical part of his research. Authors should also outline stages/steps which were used in the empirical part from data collection to data analysis.
The quality of graphical representations should be improved (eg. black & white technique for graphs, quality of the print etc.)
Author Response
Dear Ms. Yuki Qi,
Prof. Dr. Tracie Woidtke
Guest Editor
Journal of Risk and Financial Management
We are grateful to be allowed to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Mapping the literature on social responsibility and stakeholders’ pressures in the mining industry.
We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have devoted to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We were able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted these changes in yellow within our manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the referees’ comments and concerns.
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the paper is important for international debate on conditions which may influence stakeholder engagement in mining industry. It is still worth investigation.
In lines 335- 336, I suggest explaining the terms" Bolerian linking of keywords only with And" in detail.
Author Response
Dear Ms. Yuki Qi,
Prof. Dr. Tracie Woidtke
Guest Editor
Journal of Risk and Financial Management
We are grateful to be allowed to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Mapping the literature on social responsibility and stakeholders’ pressures in the mining industry.
We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have devoted to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We were able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted these changes in yellow within our manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the referees’ comments and concerns.
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The introduction section introduced the term “sustainability” which is in line with the CSR of mining companies in terms of ensuring quality of the environment, and well as the sustainability of their operations. However, not much was said on how to achieve this sustainability to show its importance to the discussion of mining companies and their CSR in the communities of operations. It will be interesting if the authors consider this
Given that the authors relied on the Stakeholder theory as their theoretical basis, I will expect that a paragraph, or sub-section is dedicated to explain this theory and why it is the most suitable for this topic at hand.
The PRISMA. Records after duplicates removed is unclear i.e does the figure 10 represent the duplicates, or the records retained after discarding all the duplicates?
Figures 1 & 2 are not legible and 1 has some crooked lines
There are the shortcomings to every methodology to a certain extent. You applied the systematic review but failed to tell what its shortcomings are, and how these had been addressed. This is what will justify the methodology used for the studies.
In line141, the description does not correspond to the figure i.e the use of (n=131). It appears to mean n represent the word clusters which must not be so. So clarify that n represent the number of documents from which the cluster of words were identified.
In lines 163 & 164, you noted that “Figure 1 displays the protocol and the steps followed, whose search in the databases was performed on June 18, 2020”. This is however confusing as the figure does not show any steps but rather the output of your search in terms of the frequency of your keywords in the 131 documents. Therefore, it is necessary that show how the steps as enumerated in lines 161-163 were performed/ conducted. This is very important for replication of study methodologies.
In the conclusions, the authors give some limitations as well as suggestions. “it is suggested that the scope of databases (e.g., Pubmed, Google scholar) be widened, as well as the search terms (e.g., CSR or social responsibility)”. Now, my question is why did the current study not widen the search scope to the suggested databases but only limited it to WOS, and Scopus when the authors actually know there exist some studies in these other databases that are equally useful for the study. Besides, the justification of the use of the two databases alone isn’t strong enough to warrant scientific acceptance. Also, they indicated, “and that a bibliometric review be conducted using RStudio software other appropriate software”. The same question applies here as to why they are suggesting the use of a different software for the analysis, and if those other software are much better suited for the analysis in such a study, then why did they not opt for any of those. The point is, there has to be a justification for whatever the authors did with respect to the methodology especially where they are suggesting some other ways or additions to the approach in a future research.
Tabke 3, and 4 are very useful and the core of the study. However, being the basis for the content analysis, it is expected that the authors will explain how the content analysis was performed that resulted in the two tables
Author Response
Dear Ms. Yuki Qi,
Prof. Dr. Tracie Woidtke
Guest Editor
Journal of Risk and Financial Management
We are grateful to be allowed to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Mapping the literature on social responsibility and stakeholders’ pressures in the mining industry.
We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have devoted to providing valuable feedback on our manuscript. We were able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted these changes in yellow within our manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the referees’ comments and concerns.
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision has been done well, Accepted for Publication
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The comments have actually not been responded to convincingly although some of the rebuttals have been accepted. However, until the other comments are properly responded to, I am sorry I can not accept this paper for publication. Find in the attachment my comments as indicated against your submitted response.
Also, in your response attachment, do indicate the line(s) in which responses have been provided and not just indicate that the comment has been responded to in the manuscript, or a section of it.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the effort to address the comments raised this time around. I will however like you to address this comment
"There are the shortcomings to every methodology to a certain extent. You applied the systematic review but failed to tell what its shortcomings are, and how these had been addressed. This is what will justify the methodology used for the studies"
You will need to incorporate the explanation to the selection of the documents which you indicated in your response attachment but not in the manuscript. In addition however, you must as well address the above comment.
Also include the other explanation, ie the last response in the comment response attachment, in the main manuscript.
Thank you
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
