Knowledge Mapping to Understand Corporate Value: Literature Review and Bibliometrics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Knowledge Mapping to Understand Corporate Value: Literature Review and Bibliometrics

Comments and Suggestions for Editor and Authors

This article aims to summarize the results of the

research on corporate value published from 2000 to 2022. The summary, introduction, and literature review are meticulously crafted and feature a high level of academic rigor.

It is recommended that the research objective, in addition to being explicitly stated in the abstract, is reiterated in the final part of the introduction and reintroduced at the beginning of the conclusion to provide a continuous narrative and improve the reader's understanding. This adjustment is crucial to guide the reader cohesively throughout the article.

The methodology used and the analysis of results are presented in a clear and objective manner, reflecting a standard of academic excellence. Although some conclusions are presented, it is necessary to explicitly emphasize the impact that this research intends to have on society.

In summary, although the article demonstrates strong academic skills in constructing the summary, introduction and literature review, there is opportunity for improvement in the delineation and emphasis of the research objective, as well as in expanding the conclusions and contextualizing the expected social impact. This refinement will significantly contribute to a more accessible and comprehensive interpretation of the text.

In a scientific text, its quality is very important. The English in your writing seems fine to me, but I admit I'm not a native English speaker.

Author Response

Dear teacher,
    Thank you very much for your modification suggestions. I have carefully studied your suggestions and made modifications according to your guidance and suggestions. Firstly, I have rewritten the Abstract and Introduction, emphasizing the research purposes in the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections of the paper. Secondly, research contributions have been added to the Abstract, which provides a new perspective for researchers to study corporate value and new ideas for enterprise managers to manage corporate value, thereby achieving sustainable development of corporate value. At the same time, the scientific knowledge graph method has been applied in corporate value research, and a new research path for corporate value has been added. Thirdly, in the first section (Introduction), an introduction to the research background, the value of this study (2 points), and limitations of the research have been added. Through the background introduction, it is explained that enterprise value is a key content of corporate finance and is relevant to the theme of Fintech and Green Finance in my current submission. Fourthly, in 2. Literature Review, I added 2.3 Factors influencing Corporate value to facilitate readers' understanding of the research background, using the views of authors recognized by the Financial Times (FT) as authoritative journals (Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) to enhance the authority of the literature. Fifthly, add 2.4 The application of CiteSpace and analyze the reasons and feasibility of adopting CiteSpace. In Figure 1 The Research Framework presents the entire idea of this study. Sixth, in 4.4 Document Co citation, provide a brief summary of the research findings on The Top 10 Most Cited Articles and establish connections between these findings. Seventh, in order to enhance the persuasiveness of research conclusions, in 5.1 Discussion, I added the views of authors of authoritative journals recognized by the Financial Times (Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) to discuss the Knowledge Domains of Corporate Value and validate the research results. Eighth, add papers from authoritative journals recognized by the Financial Times (FT), such as Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, to the References section. The purple font is the content I modified and added. This submission is very important to me as it relates to whether I can apply for doctoral degree. If any modifications are needed, please contact me and give me another chance. Thank you very much!

Best regards,

                                                                                              Baochan Li

                                                                                                2024.1.6

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The topic proposed in the paper is o high interest, especially in the current research context, described by high economic volatility and highly dynamic economic environment, leading to drastic changes on the conceptual frameworks, research methods, metrics analyzed, or constructs defined. However, the paper seems to me rather a chapter of a book that illustrate the CiteSpace tool as a research tool, not as a scientific paper. However interesting from a statistical robustness perspective, the steps provided through the CiteSpace tool cannot replace a research protocol in terms of capturing a conceptual framework concerning the concept/construct of corporate value. Below I provide you several key issues of the paper:

- there is no clear protocol of literature review, especially when discussing about: database selection, articles filtering criteria (including narrowing research only on a single keyword), screening procedure of remaining articles, eligibility criteria etc. 

- the introduction does not emphasize the research problem formulation, the context of research, limitations of the research etc.

- it is not explained sufficiently the reasoning behind the choice for methodology used, only how each step consist of and what are the objectives of each step;  

- there is no theoretical or practical implications drawn-up on the articles, therefore no value add to the literature; do we talk on this article only about concepts, or other topics as well? on a first sight, the article adresses a lot of topics, which reduces the relevance of the paper, as there is not clear direction and objectives set-up from the begining; for instance, when talking about knowledge mapping concerning the concept of corporate value, I would have expected a synthesis of the main theories formulated along the time in the literature;

- related to the top cited articles, I would have expected at least a short summary of the findings of these articles and a clear association between those findings in order to capture an overall conceptual framework about corporate value; keep in mind the direction you want to follow, do we talk about concepts/constructs, or about valuation metrics, factors, or emerging research topics? in the research, for me is not clear the set of emerging topics, as I believe the filtering of the articles and the screening are biased when seeing that most part of the articles refer mainly to Chinese universities.

Additionally, the article does not respect the requirements of the journal related to: purpose of each section (e.g.: the Introduction seem to include some content that is rather suitable for Abstract, as per other journals requirements; the citation way is not in line with the journal requirements). 

Good luck on revising the paper.

Author Response

Dear teacher,
    Thank you very much for your modification suggestions. I have carefully studied your suggestions and made modifications according to your guidance and suggestions. Firstly, I have rewritten the Abstract and Introduction, emphasizing the research purposes in the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections of the paper. Secondly, research contributions have been added to the Abstract, which provides a new perspective for researchers to study corporate value and new ideas for enterprise managers to manage corporate value, thereby achieving sustainable development of corporate value. At the same time, the scientific knowledge graph method has been applied in corporate value research, and a new research path for corporate value has been added. Thirdly, in the first section (Introduction), an introduction to the research background, the value of this study (2 points), and limitations of the research have been added. Through the background introduction, it is explained that enterprise value is a key content of corporate finance and is relevant to the theme of Fintech and Green Finance in my current submission. Fourthly, in 2. Literature Review, I added 2.3 Factors influencing Corporate value to facilitate readers' understanding of the research background, using the views of authors recognized by the Financial Times (FT) as authoritative journals (Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) to enhance the authority of the literature. Fifthly, add 2.4 The application of CiteSpace and analyze the reasons and feasibility of adopting CiteSpace. In Figure 1 The Research Framework presents the entire idea of this study. Sixth, in 4.4 Document Co citation, provide a brief summary of the research findings on The Top 10 Most Cited Articles and establish connections between these findings. Seventh, in order to enhance the persuasiveness of research conclusions, in 5.1 Discussion, I added the views of authors of authoritative journals recognized by the Financial Times (Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) to discuss the Knowledge Domains of Corporate Value and validate the research results. Eighth, add papers from authoritative journals recognized by the Financial Times (FT), such as Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, to the References section. The purple font is the content I modified and added. This submission is very important to me as it relates to whether I can apply for doctoral degree. If any modifications are needed, please contact me and give me another chance. Thank you very much!

Best regards,

                                                                                              Baochan Li

                                                                                                2024.1.6

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I find the work interesting, but have a few significant concerns. First, this is a special issue on fintech and green finance. I do not see how this article fits the description for this issue, and I recommend consideration in another issue.

With regard to the analysis, the authors are vague as to how the data are pulled. I do not see any reference to Financial Times 50 journals or related rankings, but rather a summative analysis. For the conclusions to hold, the authors would need to analyze the FT 50 or a similar ranking of high-quality journals. Another source would be the NYU List Top-Ranked Finance Journals - Finance and Financial Data - Research Guides at New York University (nyu.edu).   

Without looking at the top cited journals, it is difficult to accept the conclusions as rankings are not a factor in the analysis.

Thus, I the authors need to reconcile their work with top and mid-tier finance and business journal papers in order to draw conclusions as the conclusions may be biased based on the origin of the journal. That is, if the source pulled journals from a particular country, the results would likely skew in that direction.

Author Response

Dear teacher,
    Thank you very much for your modification suggestions. I have carefully studied your suggestions and made modifications according to your guidance and suggestions. Firstly, I have rewritten the Abstract and Introduction, emphasizing the research purposes in the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusion sections of the paper. Secondly, research contributions have been added to the Abstract, which provides a new perspective for researchers to study corporate value and new ideas for enterprise managers to manage corporate value, thereby achieving sustainable development of corporate value. At the same time, the scientific knowledge graph method has been applied in corporate value research, and a new research path for corporate value has been added. Thirdly, in the first section (Introduction), an introduction to the research background, the value of this study (2 points), and limitations of the research have been added. Through the background introduction, it is explained that enterprise value is a key content of corporate finance and is relevant to the theme of Fintech and Green Finance in my current submission. Fourthly, in 2. Literature Review, I added 2.3 Factors influencing Corporate value to facilitate readers' understanding of the research background, using the views of authors recognized by the Financial Times (FT) as authoritative journals (Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) to enhance the authority of the literature. Fifthly, add 2.4 The application of CiteSpace and analyze the reasons and feasibility of adopting CiteSpace. In Figure 1 The Research Framework presents the entire idea of this study. Sixth, in 4.4 Document Co citation, provide a brief summary of the research findings on The Top 10 Most Cited Articles and establish connections between these findings. Seventh, in order to enhance the persuasiveness of research conclusions, in 5.1 Discussion, I added the views of authors of authoritative journals recognized by the Financial Times (Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis) to discuss the Knowledge Domains of Corporate Value and validate the research results. Eighth, add papers from authoritative journals recognized by the Financial Times (FT), such as Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Finance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, to the References section. The purple font is the content I modified and added. This submission is very important to me as it relates to whether I can apply for doctoral degree. If any modifications are needed, please contact me and give me another chance. Thank you very much!

Best regards,

                                                                                              Baochan Li

                                                                                                2024.1.6

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I see visible improvement of the paper.

The only open point, which I insist should be visible in the manuscript, is the literature review protocol, as a separate subsection where clear criteria for articles selection is mentioned. Also, please decide if the "corporate value" is the search keyword or really a theme. The essence of bibliometric analysis and literature reviews stands on the choice for keywords, as a first step.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear teacher，

Thank you very much for your modification suggestions. I have carefully studied your suggestions and made modifications according to your guidance and suggestions. Firstly, in 2. Literature Review, I added 2.5 Source of Literature Collection, which explains the use of Web of Science (WoS) as the basis for collecting literature for this study (in blue font). Secondly, in 3.1 Data Sources, I added a literature search description using theme search (in blue font). Thirdly, in combination with the newly added content, additional references have been added. Fourthly, a grammar check was conducted on the entire text, and some sentences and words were modified. This submission is very important to me as it relates to whether I can apply for a doctoral degree. If any modifications are needed, please contact me and give me another chance. Thank you very much!

Best wish,

                                                         Yours sincerely

                                                           Baochan Li

                                                            2024.1.15

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This version is much improved, and I thank the authors for addressing review comments. At this juncture, I believe the authors need to address the implications that specific Universities are not as well addressed in the WoS, defining WoS in the initial use. Recognizing this bias is important, right up front in the abstract. Please indicate why Webv of Science is used and not Google Scholar scraping, ResearchGate or more importantly SSRN.

Additionally, minor editing of English is necessary, cross-checking fonts and references carefully. Author names in tables should not be in all CAPS, but rather capitalize first letter only. 

Beyond this, I find the paper much improved and recommend acceptance pending these changes.

Please edit carefully for English and reference materials.

Author Response

Dear teacher，

       Thank you very much for your modification suggestions. I have carefully studied your suggestions and made modifications according to your guidance and suggestions. Firstly, in 2. Literature Review, I added 2.5 Source of Literature Collection, which explains the use of Web of Science (WoS) as the basis for collecting literature for this study (in blue font). Secondly, in 3.1 Data Sources, I added a literature search description using theme search (in blue font). Thirdly, in combination with the newly added content, additional references have been added. Fourthly, a grammar check was conducted on the entire text, and some sentences and words were modified. This submission is very important to me as it relates to whether I can apply for a doctoral degree. If any modifications are needed, please contact me and give me another chance. Thank you very much!

Best wish,

                                                         Yours sincerely

                                                           Baochan Li

                                                            2024.1.15

Author Response File: Author Response.docx