Sustainable Business Models Innovation and Design Thinking: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Due to the fact that it contains not only SLR but also bibliometric analysis, the phrase "bibliometric analysis" should also be included in the title.

 

In the Introduction section, the author should reveal other previous SLRs that have been carried out by other researchers for similar topics. For example, SLR for Sustainable Business Models, SLR for Design Thinking, and other similar SLRs. Then the author explains what are the shortcomings of all those SLRs. Why your SLR is better and different from the previous SLRs. What are the advantages of your SLR compared to the previous SLRs?

 

In the Methodology section, the author should mention the SLR method used. Considering that there are currently many choices of SLR methods, such as the Kitchenham method, PRISMA, etc.

 

Figure 1 should be adjusted to the SLR method used. Therefore, the author must first explain what SLR method he uses. Because every SLR method has different steps.

 

The author must explain why in the second assessment only electing articles that are focused exclusively on frameworks, conceptual models, methods, or tools. Give clear reasons accompanied by various valid academic references.

 

The author must explain what is the difference between “frameworks”, “models”, and “methods”. Give the definitions of each, and explain the differences in detail, so that the reader can understand the meaning of each terminology used. Definitions and explanations must be supported by various valid academic references, so they are not just authors' personal opinions.

 

Add a table explaining why the 33 papers were selected and included in the SLR. The table must consist of at least 3 columns, No, Title, and Reason To Be Included.

 

The author must explain why all identified papers were classified using 4 categories A, B, C, and D? What is the reason behind the formation of each category? Where are those categories come from?

 

It should be noted that one of the advantages of SLR is that it is transparent and replicable. Therefore, each step must be described in detail in the methodology section, so that it can be clearly traced to the results obtained.

 

In bibliometric analysis, the author should explore how the topics are related. Explain which topics precede other topics. Why certain topics are discussed more? Which topics are still hot for research, and why.

 

The answers to each of the existing RQs are mostly descriptive. It does not make a meaningful contribution. Authors should explore reviewed papers in more depth. RQs in the form of "why" questions should be added to contribute more. For example, why certain frameworks are often used? Why are certain methodologies (Workshops, Brainstorming, Co-creation, and Prototyping) often used over others?

 

Add the Limitations section which explains what are the shortcomings of the bibliometric analysis and SLR performed.

 

Add an explanation of what the contributions of this study are from an academic point of view and from a practical point of view.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the paper is innovative though the methodology used is rather simplistic. I've mentioned directly in the content of the paper (in red colour) what the authors should revise in order to give more relevance to their research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Please add the reason for using this methodology. In other words, there are many ways to solve your research problem, why choose this one?

2. Please add practical implications and academic implications.

3. What are the research limitations and future recommendations？

4. Did you draw the figures and tables in the article by yourself? If not, please cite the source to avoid plagiarism.

5. Tables make the article too lengthy and it is suggested that some tables could be included as appendices.

6. The format of the article needs to be adjusted. In addition, the references does not meet the requirements of MDPI.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author failed to accommodate my suggestion: “In the Introduction section, the author should reveal other previous SLRs that have been carried out by other researchers for similar topics. For example, SLR for Sustainable Business Models, SLR for Design Thinking, and other similar SLRs. Then the author explains what are the drawbacks of all those SLRs. Why your SLR is better and different from the previous SLRs. What are the advantages of your SLR compared to the previous SLRs?”

 

The author failed to follow the PRISMA in Figure 1. Please read thoroughly how to describe PRISMA steps correctly.

 

The definition of "method" has not been supported by valid academic references.

 

Please quote the definition of a framework, method, and model from the references. Copy exactly phrase by phrase, and put quotation marks.

 

There is no explanation for the difference between Framework and Model. And also there is no explanation what is the difference between Framework and Method. All explanations must be supported by valid academic references. An illustration that illustrates the difference would be better.

 

I haven't seen a specific column describing the rationale for selection in Table 3.

 

The author must explain why all identified papers were classified using 4 categories A, B, C, and D? What is the reason behind the formation of each category? Where are those categories come from? The author's answer to my suggestion is not correct. I see Table 4 doesn't explain any reasoning.

 

Very strange, Step (iv) in Table 2 already uses 4 categories as criteria for selection. Even though those 4 categories have not been explained at all before. It is advisable that before appearing as one of the criteria in Table 2, it is better to explain where the 4 categories came from. Why only 4?

 

“In bibliometric analysis, the author should explore how the topics are related. Explain which topics precede other topics. Why certain topics are discussed more? Which topics are still hot for research, and why.” The authors failed to accommodate this suggestion. I suggest you can use several software, for example, VOS Viewer or Others that can be used to accommodate my suggestion.

 

“The answers to each of the existing RQs are mostly descriptive. It does not make a meaningful contribution. Authors should explore reviewed papers in more depth. RQs in the form of "why" questions should be added to contribute more. For example, why certain frameworks are often used? Why are certain methodologies (Workshops, Brainstorming, Co-creation, and Prototyping) often used over others?” The author failed to accommodate this suggestion.

 

The contribution from the academic point of view and from the practical point of view are still not clear

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

lots of grammatical errors

Author Response

Thanks for the observation. We carried out a new revision to ensure the text is proofread.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The author did not accommodate my following suggestions: "The answers to each of the existing RQs are mostly descriptive. It does not make a meaningful contribution. Authors should explore reviewed papers in more depth. RQs in the form of "why" questions should be added to contribute more. For example, why are certain frameworks are often used? Why are certain methodologies (Workshops, Brainstorming, Co-creation, and Prototyping) often used over others?” I also can't find section 4.4 which is said to be an answer from the author. So please add an RQ in the form of a "Why" question to provide a meaningful contribution

 

The author has written down the definitions of models, frameworks, methods, and tools. But the author has not conveyed clearly what is the difference between all of them. As an example, what is the difference between a method and a framework, because if you look at the definitions, they are both related to the set of steps. Therefore the author must explain the differences between each of them, not only including the definition but also what the differences are. What are the characteristics of each of them?

 

The author has not answered some parts of my previous comment: "Why are certain topics discussed more? Which topics are still hot for research, and why?"

 

 

The contribution from the academic point of view and from the practical point of view is still not clear. Explain in detail what you are adding to the academic world, and to practice.

Figure 1 is still very blurry

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx