Associations between Grand Challenges and Multinational Enterprises: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReference 29 on justification for the choice of WOS is not solidly expressed as expressed in line 201.
In the first paragraph of point 3.1 it is necessary to clarify the use of Plus Keywords and/or Authors.
In PRISMA (fig. 1) it is convenient to include the search equation. Furthermore, I do not understand why the documentary typology “Book” has not been included. The PRISMA methodology is not well implemented.
I don't understand the phrase on line 313.
Although this reviewer is not qualified to evaluate the quality of the English in this article there are expressions that make me think the writing should be revised.
The production graph (Fig. 2) can clearly be improved.
On line 333 the initials of the names of the journals must be capitalized.
There is no reference to the use of VOSviewer.
On line 370 there is a typographical error: “Tablo”
In lines 374 to 384 the terms must be differentiated enough to identify them.
It is necessary to review almost all DOIs since they are misspelled or missing.
It is necessary to rewrite point 4.2 explaining the co-words map and the relationship with the clusters. Phrases like on line 366-367 are not understood. In this sense, a general review of bibliometric terminology should be carried out (for example: “co-occurrence” analysis is not used; in this case it should be “co-words” analysis).
The article is very similar to the article by Pereira et al. (2023) “How do grand challenges determine, drive, and influence the innovation efforts of for-profit companies? A multidimensional analysis” although the object of study is similar. Even this is a relatively current reference and it would be convenient to citation it, for example in the methodology.
Author Response
Comments 1: Reference 29 on justification for the choice of WOS is not solidly expressed as expressed in line 201.
Response 1: The justification for choosing WOS is clearly stated in line 201 of the document. Additionally, a reference (reference 56) has been added to support the rationale for the selection.
Comments 2: In the first paragraph of point 3.1, it is necessary to clarify the use of Plus Keywords and/or Authors.
Response 2: the use of Plus Keywords and/or Authors has been clarified in line 246.
Comments 3: In PRISMA (fig. 1) it is convenient to include the search equation. Furthermore, I do not understand why the documentary typology “Book” has not been included. The PRISMA methodology is not well implemented.
Response 3: The documentary typology was also included “book”. Fig 1 now includes books. The number of book chapters is specified in the main data information table. Data information is obtained as a result of R programming analysis. In this analysis, many studies in the literature were included in the research as book chapters. We included the books within the scope of this study, but since they were in the database as book chapters, we included them by examining them as book chapters. The implementation of the PRISMA methodology have received considerable attention.
Comments 4: I don't understand the phrase on line 313.
Response 4: The phase has been corrected for clarity in line 313.
Comments 5: Although this reviewer is not qualified to evaluate the quality of the English in this article there are expressions that make me think the writing should be revised.
Response 5: The manuscript has been carefully examined in the English language. All identified errors and omissions have been duly addressed and rectified.
Comments 6: The production graph (Fig. 2) can clearly be improved.
Response 6: A chronological summary of the literature is shown in Figure 2, where each year is represented by a separate piece. The graph of annual scientific production is discussed in greater detail and with greater clarity for a deeper understanding.
Comments 7: On line 333 the initials of the names of the journals must be capitalized.
Response 7: It is done.
Comments 8: There is no reference to the use of VOSviewer.
Response 8: The related reference is added in line 223
Comments 9: On line 370 there is a typographical error: “Tablo”
Response 9: It is done
Comments 10: In lines 374 to 384 the terms must be differentiated enough to identify them.
Response 10: It is done
Comments 11: It is necessary to review almost all DOIs since they are misspelled or missing.
Response 11: All Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) have been properly referenced in the manuscript
Comments 12: It is necessary to rewrite point 4.2 explaining the co-words map and the relationship with the clusters. Phrases like on line 366-367 are not understood. In this sense, a general review of bibliometric terminology should be carried out (for example: “co-occurrence” analysis is not used; in this case it should be “co-words” analysis).
Response 12: 4.2. rewritten and revised. The confusion with the co-word analysis has been corrected and the reason for the correct use of co-words analysis is added. Relationships between clusters are mentioned in 4.2, and detailed explanations are also described in the discussion section.
Comments 13: The article is very similar to the article by Pereira et al. (2023) “How do grand challenges determine, drive, and influence the innovation efforts of for-profit companies? A multidimensional analysis” although the object of study is similar. Even this is a relatively current reference and it would be convenient to citation it, for example in the methodology.
Response 13: In accordance with the referee's proposal, the article by Pereira et al. (2023) has been referenced in the manuscript and added to the references.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe text under consideration for publication is of interest. The authors address a topic of interest to various sectors of the academic environment. The subject is a relevant and current object of study in a world facing a number of pressing issues. It is evident that the authors have taken care to address each of the variables that are supported or backed up by current studies.
The introduction provides an overview of the subject matter, delineates the scope of inquiry, and offers guidance on how to approach the study. The research questions are clearly defined and align with the existing literature on the subject. The methodology employed in the study is clearly delineated, the sample under analysis is justified, and the categories of analysis are explicitly defined.
The presentation of the results adheres to the methodology, developing each of the elements that were previously determined. The graphs facilitate the establishment of a coherent and direct discursive trajectory. It is evident to the reader that the results are derived from the study and not from the independent perceptions of the authors.
The discussion and conclusions address the initial statements and are contrasted with the findings of this research project. It is this reviewer's recommendation that the responses to the research questions be addressed directly, while also leaving open new avenues for future studies. It would be beneficial to provide indications for extrapolating the findings of this study to other ecosystems.
Author Response
Comments 1: The text under consideration for publication is of interest. The authors address a topic of interest to various sectors of the academic environment. The subject is a relevant and current object of study in a world facing a number of pressing issues. It is evident that the authors have taken care to address each of the variables that are supported or backed up by current studies.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your recommendations and valuable contribution
Comments 2: The introduction provides an overview of the subject matter, delineates the scope of inquiry, and offers guidance on how to approach the study. The research questions are clearly defined and align with the existing literature on the subject. The methodology employed in the study is clearly delineated, the sample under analysis is justified, and the categories of analysis are explicitly defined.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your recommendations and valuable contribution
Comments 3: The presentation of the results adheres to the methodology, developing each of the elements that were previously determined. The graphs facilitate the establishment of a coherent and direct discursive trajectory. It is evident to the reader that the results are derived from the study and not from the independent perceptions of the authors.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your feedback and valuable contribution.
Comments 4: The discussion and conclusions address the initial statements and are contrasted with the findings of this research project. It is this reviewer's recommendation that the responses to the research questions be addressed directly, while also leaving open new avenues for future studies. It would be beneficial to provide indications for extrapolating the findings of this study to other ecosystems.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your feedback and valuable contribution.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe suggested changes have been made adequately, although not with the thoroughness that this humble reviewer suggested. I don't understand the phrase "The long-term evolution of the graphene was observed, spanning from 2013 to 31 August 2023.", I would remove it.
