Transformative Resilience: An Overview of Its Structure, Evolution, and Trends

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors review literature related to 'Transformative Resilience' starting 1996. The study is rigorous in its approach and summary of the identified manuscripts. While the science behind the review is rigorous, I believe its impact is not comprehensively presented. The impact on such reviews can lead to change or growth in the 'resiliency' paradigm is under-discussed. The authors need to provide more substantiation on how and where  transformative resilience is foreseen or predicted to make impact on organizations, countries, and the existing knowledge. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
we fully appreciate all your constructive comments, which we have attempted to address as much as possible.
Please see the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to revise the paper: “Transformative resilience: An overview of its structure, evolution, and trends”

 

First of all, I think the paper deal with an important topic and it is generally well written. I have, however, a few suggestions that I hope the author finds useful:

 

First of all, probably not the authors´ fault, but I am unable to see an abstract in the submission, only in the journal´s platform.

 

I understand your point in the first paragraph of the introduction, but perhaps “messy” is not a very academic word and you could be more precise in what you mean.

 

It would be useful if you could clearly state in the introduction the specific research question(s) you attempt to address in the paper (if possible in the form of a question mark).

 

The blibliometric analysis seems to be well conducted, but the paper would be of much more use to readers if you could add as well some insights (ie. Section) about the specific future directions or areas that interested researchers could undertake to expand the field, as well as how different theories could be applied to expand the field.

 

It would also be convenient to include a section with the limitations of the paper. For example, the kind of documents that are included or not in your sample (research is also conducted in other “formats” other than papers, also in other languages, etc).

As a minor thing, please revise your referencing style. At this moment some references include the initials in the text when it should not be the case.

 

I hope the authors find my comments constructive. Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
we fully appreciate all your constructive comments, which we have attempted to address as much as possible.
Please see the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Missing abstract. The article should be turned into the standard Journal format.

Clear research framework and adequate methodology.

Interesting, relevant and systematic analyses. 

Conclusions lack of appealing. They only summarise the results without emphasising any practical or theoretical spillover. This part should be better supported by adequate discussion to demonstrate how the research findings will be useful and what is the target audience potentially interested in this research. Limitations of the study are not identified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,
we fully appreciate all your constructive comments, which we have attempted to address as much as possible.
Please see the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments for the authors