Reviewing COVID-19 Literature on Business Management: What It Portends for Future Research?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although useful, more synthesis is suggested in order to reduce the several repetitions of the aims of the paper.  

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in red within the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is relevant and appropriate in the current situation. It is also rigorous in its application of the methodology and uses current tools to address a systematic review of the business and COVID pandemic relationship.

However, I find it necessary to revise some significant areas, which I will detail below. In this sense, I provide some suggestions that could improve it on the basis of some revision of the manuscript.

1. Revise abstract. The last sentence might be removed.
2. Some references are too old (review especially 12-19) to talk about previous research about the crisis in this sense it would be advisable to better situate the gap in relation to the "Organisational crises and crisis management, and the associated constructs" that the authors mention in line 63. It is not clear whether you are doing a systematic literature review or a bibliometric study (line 95). You should explain better as a systematic review is not the same as a literature review or a narrative review or a bibliometric analysis. In this sense, I suggest you review some recent papers for example (Suriyankietkaew & Petison, 2020). In this sense, it would be desirable for the research question to be more specific.

3. Sections 3 and 4. The authors claim a content summary linked holistically but the common ideas or conclusions between the papers revised are missed. It is insufficiently detailed where these categories come from: Unemployment, Impact on companies, Government support, Family businesses, Entrepreneurship, Employment, Organizational response, Economic impact, Crisis and COVID-19 (line 409-410). And figure 3 is not enough explained so readers need to figure out why "Crisis, Economic impact, Impact on business, and Organizational response, which present a relevant correlation with each other." And the thicknesses of the arrows are insufficient to understand the correlation relationships (the origin and destination of the arrows are also important). Sections 3 and 4 correspond to the analyses with Mixed Methods and MAXQDA, so, for explanatory clarity, they should be subheadings (3. Is the first analysis with MAXQDA and 4 is the second analysis) of the same heading. Figure 1 is enough clear so paragraphs, from 173 to 186, should be summarized.

5. Section 5. There is no clear relationship between the model presented in the figure and the conclusions of the content analysis. It is necessary to provide more coherence to the model presented so that it is consistent with the conclusions obtained from the analysis. The relationships established with a content analysis do not evidence causality. The gaps identified in table 4 must be part of the results of the systematic literature review and not included in this section. In any case, a brief reference could be made as a contribution in the final section. Review limitations. The use of another SW cannot be a future line, it should be explained what is intended to be achieved with the use of another SW. The use of bibliometric SW is complementary to a systematic literature review and has different objectives than the latter, so it cannot be considered as a substitute for a methodology such as PRISMA. (Fabregat-Aibar  et al, 2019)
6. Be careful, some conclusions do not seem to emerge from the analysis performed (line 627)
7. Finally, It would be advisable to revise the English and some tips to check spelling and writing aspects.

I thank the authors for the opportunity to review their work.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in red within the revised manuscript.

Many thanks for your great effort and time.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is an interesting and relevant paper but the authors need to improve formatting for the whole paper,

to present tables and figures clearer and following formatting requirements, and also to focus more on insights by presenting them in clear way for the reader. The paper could be shorter as well.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you very much for acknowledging the merit and value of our paper. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions and made further improvements to the manuscript. The Response to each individual comment/suggestion is contained in the table below. In line with each of your comments/suggestions, there are some specific revisions to the text as highlighted in red within the revised manuscript.

Many thanks for your great effort and time.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper was improved and can be published