Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Overall the subject chosen is well thought of and require to be addressed. Manuscript is quite elaborated and covered many relatable  research articles, however there are certain points I would like authors to cover-

1. Research paper by David Tranfield in 2003 is an important research to be cited in SLR
2.  Exclusion criteria is not specified in the manuscript clearly, how  838 papers being excluded is not being reflected in the manuscript
3. Major classification is being done one the basis of Analytical and Empirical research, what dimensions differentiates them and how authors have chosen the category of paper into  Analytical and Empirical research.
4. In table 6- Gender is separately mention from personal characteristics, the rationale behind this is not clear.
5. In table 8-CSR is involved in innovation, how authors have related CSR to innovation, requires explanation
6. Further, the different risk related factors that are being mentioned in the manuscript , how these are related to mortality and it will be interesting to see the extent of relationship between the factors and   mortality.
7. Literature might have factors in two category one that support the increase in rate of mortality and factors that helps in reducing the risk of mortality, can this kind of analysis be done?
8. Lastly conceptual model is very generalistic, how it is showing factors contributing towards mortality of firms is not clear from the diagram
9. Further, can this model be validated, as it is multidimensional, but not indication how mortality rate of firms can be assessed out of this.
10. Again my question is can COVID 19  be a topic of research now as it is an uncertain event and event of similar nature can occur in future too, so why author is restricting themselves to COVID only, 
11. Further, if impact of COVID is seen then what about other crisis that happened in past eg how GFC has impacted SMEs has not been mentioned anywhere in the manuscript
12. Overall, manuscript has a potential , but I would like to see these changes in revised version of this manuscript. All the best with your work

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review on Mortality risk factors in micro and small businesses: systematic literature review, conceptual framework, and research agenda

1. The Statement of Research Problem should reflect in the abstract.
2. There are no managerial implications in the abstract
3. The Authors should state the issues surrounding micro and small businesses before talking about the mortality risk factors
4. The research objectives should be well stated
5. In the introduction, the authors should ensure that there is a link between micro and small businesses and business mortality rate.
6. The author should also ensure there is a flow in the work in the introduction and discussions.
7. The names of authors in intext citation should be in full first before using “et al.,”
8. Your figure 1 should be bold enough
9. In page 5, last paragraph, the authors should talk note of this sentence. Should the statement be “there are no study” or “there are limited study”. Please check.
10. The discussion of findings should be more elaborate.
11. The authors should state if the conceptual model was adopted or adapted.
12. The authors should also elaborate more of the explanation of the conceptual model.
13. The authors should state the managerial implications of the study
14. In the reference section, the names of authors should be written in full and not using “et al.,”. For example, Vorkapić, M. et al.; Walter, C. E. et al.; Zager, K. et al. among others

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Corrections were highlighted in red in the paper

The paper is focused on Mortality risk factors in micro and small businesses, which is a germane topic. However, the authors need to pay attention to the following.

1. The title of the article “Mortality risk factors in micro and small businesses: systematic literature review, conceptual framework, and research agenda” should be reframed because it looks as if the author is playing with words. Note that conceptual framework is part of the literature review so there is no need for repetition.
2. On page 2 line 45, the authors should avoid the use of “defined” because it is the background of the study, where the researcher is supposed to create a research space, not a definition.
3.   In line 79, the R in the research question of Q1a is missing
4.  The authors should state the research philosophy guiding this study
5. The use of numbers in the in-text citations made it difficult for the reviewer to identify the authors that are cited but were not referenced and those referenced but not cited.
6. For me, the word cloud created in this article is innovative, which stands as part of a major contribution to the work. However, the implication of it was not discussed
7. The implication of the study wasn’t deep enough. The authors need to add more information to the conclusion. 
8. The authors should state the ethical guidelines appropriate for this study. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, I congratulate Authors for putting up the efforts and addressed all the major points being raised.

I recommend the publication in the present form.

Just one minor observation- Correct the Name of Database in Figure 1 as Taylor and Francis, presently it is Taylor e Francis