A Bibliometric Analysis of Collective Bargaining: The Future of Labour Relations after the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this research, the authors use the technique of bibliometric analysis.

The article requires substantial improvements regarding the wording of the paragraphs. E.g: line 101 - But is scientific research on collective bargaining really making progress in addressing this renewal?

The authors treat the two databases differently (WOS and Scopus), but there are substantial overlaps of selected works between them. Therefore, the research is irrelevant, as the same information is used in a large proportion.

I recommend that authors use only one database to develop the topic assumed in the title.

The quality of some sentences is interpretable. See the observation in the review.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions, which we took in the sense of providing the document with greater quality and scientific rigor. In the attached documents you can find the answers to your suggestions one by one.

Thank you so much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article suggests a current and attractive topic for academia. The effort made is evident, but it requires profound adjustments, both in the theory presented and in the results. Some comments are attached:

Introduction

1) In general terms, the introduction needs to be revised. It provides little information on "labour relations" and "collective bargaining". The authors should indicate why this topic of study is important. What is the academic interest in the subject?

2) You should state the general aim present in the study. Use the word "aim".

3) You must indicate the importance for the academy of this bibliometric study. What is the contribution to the academy?; I want to be more precise. What is so interesting about this topic that other readers (around the world) would want to read it? and even cite it?

4) The authors mention some bibliometric works in the "industrial relations" field. Now, the question a reader would ask. If there are so many papers, what is so special about this one?

Materials and methods

5) It is necessary to explain with references why carrying out a bibliometric study is important. In other words, what does this type of study provide when the classic thing is to carry out a literature review? In addition, the authors should explain what bibliometrics is.

6) It is necessary to point this out. Why a separate analysis between Web of Science and Scopus if most research is found in these databases? Wouldn't it be better to unify them and understand what is happening in this field of study? Working the combined databases has been possible since 2017 using Bibliometrix. For more information, see the document "Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. "Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis." Journal of informetrics 11.4 (2017): 959-975."

7) He does not expose the search equations used for both databases. Therefore, your study cannot be reproduced causing confusion to the reader. This is mandatory in bibliometric studies.

8) It should indicate the type of document, time period and language on downloaded documents. There is no information showing which is the work base obtained.

9) It mentions that the methodology follows the proposal of Zupic and Cater (2014), but the manuscript needs to show the development of these five steps.

Results

10) It is clear that there are errors in not stating the search equation. It is mentioned that there are more than 1,600 documents in WOS, but when checking the term "collective bargaining" in the Wos Core Collection using "Topic", there are documents since 1920, in a total of 5,722. If you refine the search mentioned by the authors since 2012, there are 2,137. Furthermore, it leaves many questions: Why the selection since 2012? What kind of documents did they work on; what other words did they use for the search (I don't think the authors only used one term), etc.

11) The analyses are weak and do not reflect the analysis that a bibliometric study combined with a literature review should present. Check similar examples that you even cite in this paper. In the manuscript, beyond repeating the information in the figures and tables, you should provide useful information for the reader.

12) Remove "source" from all tables. This is not a thesis, it is a scientific article.

13) The results could be more balanced. A bibliometric study should consider two approaches. Performance analysis and scientific mapping. See in this regard: "Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of informetrics, 5(1), 146-166."

15) The discussion section lives up to its name, because it discusses the results found. Here, you should cross-check the figures and tables presented as generalizations of your study against the theory to determine whether there are aspects that can be used to affirm existing theory or to present new findings. Unfortunately, you present much information not found in the analyses presented.

16) Conclusions should be brief and highlight important findings, limitations or future lines of research. References should not be displayed unless it is an extraordinary case.

17) Author Contributions is poorly developed.

Abstract

18) Must sell the idea of the manuscript. It is very simple and does not attract the reader's attention. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions, which we took in the sense of providing the document with greater quality and scientific rigor. In the attached documents you can find the answers to your suggestions one by one.

Thank you so much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations to the authors for their work!

The paper addresses the evolution of research in the field of collective bargaining, the geographical repartition of researchers, the thematic changes in the respective research. Also, of major importance and actuality are the challenges related to the global transformations of labour markets and industrial relations. The importance of the equilibrium between the needs of employees and employers is highlighted, as well as the influence of economic, social and technological changes on all aspects.

  An important factor that created major changes on the labour market and was accentuated during and post Covid -19 pandemic, was digital transformation of the businesses, with impact in labour relations and in the approach to collective bargaining. Similar with the issue of transporters in Spania, which is mention by authors, it could be develop the subject of the impact of the digitalization. How are the tendency in the case of working on digital platforms or for mobile worker situation and how will be the evolution of the labour relations?  There are many works that address this issue as well as other disruptions of the labour market, but the search words in the database would be different.

The authors revealed the risk of including inconclusive and irrelevant papers. My suggestion is to highlight the risk of excluding valuable works and impactful authors (with the identification of the causes related to the non-indexing of works in databases or the inappropriate choice of keywords, etc.).

Regarding the editing, page, 1  line 30, I suggest that the name of the author Kim, is not mandatory to be mentioned in capital letters.

Success in the future work!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions, which we took in the sense of providing the document with greater quality and scientific rigor. In the attached documents you can find the answers to your suggestions one by one.

Thank you so much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authorsm

The article proposes an engaging topic for academia. However, it requires some adjustments to the proposed theory and results.

Introduction

1)    The revised introduction is now more informative and compelling. Specifically, it delves deeper into the subjects of "labour relations" and "collective bargaining", providing a wealth of valuable insights that are sure to captivate and engage readers from start to finish. Still, at some point, it is stated that authors assess this research qualitatively and quantitatively. According to the NOAA Central Library "Bibliometrics is the quantitative analysis of academic publications”. Using academic publications as a data source, bibliometric analysis provides a better understanding of how research is produced, organized, and interrelated. My question is “How do you asses it quantitatively?”

2)    It is crucial to explain the significance of the bibliometric study for the academic community. What unique insights does it offer that makes it compelling for readers worldwide to read and even cite it? In other words, what makes this topic so interesting and valuable that it deserves attention and recognition in the academic world?

Materials and methods. It is crucial to bring attention to the fact that there is a separate analysis conducted between Web of Science and Scopus despite the majority of research being found in these databases. There is a need to consider unifying these databases to gain a comprehensive understanding of the developments in this particular field of study.

Results. The analyses need to be stronger and reflect the analysis that a bibliometric study combined with a literature review should present. Check similar examples that you even cite in this paper. In the manuscript, beyond repeating the information in the figures and tables, you should provide helpful information for the reader.

Conclusions should be more concise and highlight key findings, more limitations, and future research directions. References should only be included in exceptional cases.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, once again, on behalf of the research team, I would like to thank you for your comments, which undoubtedly improve the paper. In the attached file you will find a response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is interesting and attractive to academia. It requires some adjustments to make it publishable. I have attached some comments:

1) Table 1 is a substantial copy of table 1.1 on pages 5 and 6 of the document "Collective Bargaining. A policy guide by International Labour Office (2015). This is an error. Authors can paraphrase ideas and reorder them but not copy all the table.

2) The mistake of not presenting the search equations remains. What I mean by this: for example, when using Scopus TS (topic search)= (TITLE-ABS-KEY("Collective Bargaining"). Was the search in title, abstract and keywords? Or only in titles? Did you use other terms related to "Collective Bargaining"? In WOS, you use topic? OR title? You must indicate the complete equation; this allows the study to be reproducible.

3) There are errors in the use of the database. If you use the WoS Core Collection, the databases included are 10, you chose 5. This is unusual. Normally, bibliometric studies indicate using the total Core Collection or WoS with all databases, but not a selection of the Core. Also, there is no "Scimago Journal (Scopus)". It is Scopus database. Scimago is a product of Elsevier connected to Scopus and has a different utility than the mentioned database.

4) It mentions that the methodology follows the proposal of Zupic and Cater (2014), but the manuscript needs to show the development of these five steps.

5) The analyses are strictly descriptive, repeating, at best, the existing information in the tables or figures shown throughout the results section. The idea of bibliometric studies is to show relevant information to the author that is not otherwise visible. I have attached some examples that may be useful:

5.1. Table 3 and table 9. It would be interesting to see a figure combining both data. However, beyond the aesthetic part, it is the information that should be displayed in this time period (2012 - 2021): In this time what topics have been developed? Are there any outstanding documents? Was there an abrupt change in scientific production due to some phenomenon? What topics were developed after COVID?

5.2. In Tables 4 and 10, there is an error. There are no Bibliographic reviews; they are article reviews—the same for scientific papers. Use the classification provided by both Scopus and WoS.

5.3. Tables 8 and 14. The information shows that "Business Economics" (table 8) is a representative area in Wos. In contrast, in table 14 it is "Social Science" and very close to "Business, Management and Accounting". Why does this happen? Why is there a difference between these areas? Can you explain?

5.4. Tables 7 and 13. Why are there some journals that differ between these tables? First is "Revista General de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social" (Table 7). However, it is a journal that does not have IF or Q; how reliable can its results be? Now, in these tables, which journals are repeated and which are not? Explaining why they differ from one base to the other would be interesting. What thematic contributions do these journals provide, and even what advances exist in the topic of study that are relevant to observe in these journals that do not share the same base? Which journal is important in terms of the IF? Now, Scopus (table 13) should indicate why SJR and not Citescore, which is a more commonly used measure.

5.5. Tables 6 and 12. It does not matter the sex of each individual. What should be important is affiliation, H-Index, papers published in this area and papers published in his or her career. it is not a gender study. Doing this, allows to observe whether he/she is a recent researcher or already has a track record as a researcher. Even the differences between papers (global and study area) allow us to see if he is a multidisciplinary researcher or specific to the study area. Do these tables include researchers from the same university or country? Do they share research? What topics do they address related to "Collective Bargaining"? Are these authors young researchers (H-index less than 10) or established researchers (H-index greater than 10)? Are there any authors among the most cited?

Tables 5 and 11. It is crucial to mention which sub-themes are discussed in "Collective Bargaining". Are some authors from the same country or the same university? Have they written together before? Now, all topics are related to "Collective Bargaining",? for example, Economic causes of the Eurozone crisis: The analytical contribution of Comparative Capitalism (table 5) does not seem to be related to the central topic of this study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, once again, on behalf of the research team, I would like to thank you for your comments, which undoubtedly improve the paper. In the attached file you will find a response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting manuscript that suggests a current and attractive topic for the academy. The effort made by presenting an interesting document that has undergone some modifications due to the evaluators' recommendations has allowed us to have a novel and rich document on a complex subject.

I appreciate the authors patience when considering the vast majority of the recommendations made with quality and professionalism. The methodology and the data set as its analyzes are solid. The conclusions are relevant.

My sincere congratulations to the authors for this important contribution to academia. I consider the article to be publishable.