A Bibliometric Analysis of International Competitiveness (1983–2017)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a review of article about competitiveness from the Scopus database. It is relatively well prepared, but I have several serious comments:

1) The level of language is not good, there are mistakes (sistematic instead of systematic, etc.) and some wrong formulations (competitive competitiveness theory, etc.); moreover, the article contains parts from the official template (beginning of Introduction).

2) Figures are mostly useless. They are either too small (Fig. 7, 8 and others) or completely chaotic, without any information value (for example Fig. 11 or 13).

3) Some tables are too large (for example Tab. 7).

Although the idea of the article is relatively good, serious improvements need to be done before publishing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We firmly believe that they are worthy of heed. Following the editor’s advise we respond to each suggestion hereafter.

1.     We sorry for our spelling mistakes and wrong formulations. We have proceeded to modify them. Besides, a redaction style review has been realized thoroughly.

2.     The reviewer states that some figures are not useful due to the lack of visibility or two much information that may seem chaotic. In order to solve this problem, we have eliminated the figures 7, 10 and 12 for the previous version. What’s more, all figures have been modified in order to gain clarity and value. Previous 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 have been renumbered. We are convinced that the new figures show information in a more useful way. We think that this change improves considerably our work.

3.     We wholly agree with your comment that table 7 is too long. We have shortened the table to show information regarding only top 15.

We sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am not sure what the authors meant including in the title the word ‘global’.The perspectives included in the defining the competitiveness in the introduction are not clear. Moreover, the definitions included in the table 1 (rather not a scheme) do not correspond with those perspectives. The definitions seem to relate more to  international, national and organizational dimensions.The introduction is too long, the theoretical part should be separated. It does not include the clear research aim and the conclusions do not correspond to the aim.Discussion should take into account reference of results obtained in a given study to other research occurring in the literature. In this case the authors at least should relate their findings to the research carried out by Olczyk and Acevedo et al..Moreover, the article is edited carelessly in terms of e.g. lines 33-40 - the fragment of the introduction from the template was not removed

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments. We firmly believe that they are worthy of heed. We are going to explain our changes based on your recommendations.

1.     First, regarding the inclusion of global in the title, we wholly agree with you and we have proceeded to eliminate the word global from the tittle. The new title is “A bibliometric analysis of International competitiveness (1983-2017)”.

2.     Second, with regard to the perspectives of the concept, we have decided to eliminate Scheme 1. We see your point and the evolution and perspectives of the concept have been included in the Introduction section, namely in lines 50-66.

3.     Third, according to the length of Introduction section. We agree with you and we have divided the introduction into a shorter Introduction and a second section named Theoretical background.

4.     Regarding the reviewer’s comment on the aim and conclusions, we apologise for the ambiguity. In order to clarify our aim, we have proceeded to rewrite two introduction paragraphs (lines 83 to 101), in which we state our research objective. Moreover, the Conclusion section has been changed so as to be connected in a clearer way to the aim.

5.     The reviewer suggests including references to previous studies (Olacyzk, 2016 and Acevedo et al., 2017) in the Discussion section. We have proceeded to modify the Discussion section, taking into consideration this recommendation.

6.     We apologise for lines of the template at the beginning of the Introduction section.

Finally, we would like to thank you all your comments and suggestion. We hope that our modifications will be suitable for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There are still some typing errors (sistemic in the Figure 1), and some figures are still difficult for reading, but the overall impression is significantly better compared to previous version. I suggest another proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very mucho for your suggestion.

We apologize for the typing errors and we have proceeded to revise the text by a professional translator.

The changes can be seen through the "track changes" of Word.

Again, thank you for all your comments.

Yours sincerely,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the implemented changes.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much for your comment.

The text has been revised by a professional translator. The changes can be seen by the "Track changes".

Yours sincerely,

The athors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx