Scientometric Analysis of Brand Personality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for your effort for providing the current piece of research. It was interesting to read. After reading the manuscript, some concerns came to my mind, which I hope that thinking about them increases the quality of your job.
1. In the 'Introduction' section, the proposed research gap and the stated objectives do not meet the criteria of proper synergy. Please make the research gap and the research objectives consistent with each other.
2. I think that the “Material and Methods” section can be improved by highlighting the importance of bibliometric analysis, which become widely use recently in different fields such as neuromarketing, online-learning, healthcare research, I suggest some references which can be beneficial for this, as follows:(doi.org/10.26441/rc21.1-2022-a1; doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i18.24519; doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1978620; doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i10.25243)
3. It might be appropriate for the authors to explain why they have chosen the years 1995-2020 as the period of analysis.
4. Why should you exclude the papers from 2021?
5. Why have you chosen these specific keywords?
6. Could the authors explain why they only focused on the English articles?
7. Although the development of search criteria does not justify why the decisions are made (for example, why it is searched in WOS and not in Scopus or both altogether).
8. Could the authors explain why they have used VOSviewer rather than other tools or combine them to get more accurate maps?
9. All figures are not readable, so the authors need to increase the quality of figures.
10. It would be nice to focus on the contribution of this study in the discussion section. Here you are not supposed to quote other's findings, but you are expected to explain what your research adds to the literature.
11. The authors need to clearly articulate the implications of the research results for theory and practice are not included in the article. A detailed explanations of the author’s recommendations should be included. I would suggest writing a paragraph in the conclusion section for the implications. Also, state a few of the key implications at the end of the 'Introduction' section.
12. The authors need to clearly articulate the limitations and future works should be proposed.
13. For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them in a clearer way in the abstract and introduction.
If these revisions can be made in the manuscript, I believe that this study can be accepted for publication.
I wish the authors all the very best with this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors for their intention and the work with importance for academics, students and professionals.
However, in order to improve the quality of the work I suggest:
- I would like to see a more in-depth literature review on the topic of the article. The concept deserves to be further explored with various analyses before the scientometric analysis;
- In figure 2, remove the title in Spanish or change to English the title "Citas por año";
- In the text in general, when referring to a number of articles smaller than 10, this number should be written out in full. For example...and only 3 papers have more than 500 citations (0.56% of the studies performed). ..... and only three papers have more than 500 citations (0.56% of the studies performed).
The development is correct and allows us to see the reality that they set out to achieve.
The conclusion I feel is short and does not objectively refer to the findings and results presented in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There remain a few issues that ought to be addressed before this paper can be accepted, as follow:
1. The authors should check the comments on Figure 2 [ should be in English language].
2. The authors should check the citation style which is numbering not APA for example, 2nd paragraph in Material and Methods section.
3. I think to show the importance of bibliometric or scientometric analysis, the authors should highlight/add some references in 2nd paragraph from Materials and Methods section from different fields such as Online learning (see doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i13.30605), Mobile Healthcare (see doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i10.25243), and neuromarketing and EEG (see doi.org/10.47743/saeb-2022-0020).
I wish the authors all the very best with this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
