A Bibliometric Analysis of Creativity Studies Within Giftedness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled A Bibliometric Analysis of Creativity Studies Within Giftedness is written in 19 pages, and contains 75 references (17 published in the last 5 years). The topic is interesting, and important for theory and practice. Abstract is clear and informative. Introduction is systematic, sound, logical and informative and relevant authors in the field are cited. Research aim and questions are clear and appropriate. The used method is fully explained, as well as data analysis, with both being appropriate. Results are presented in a transparent and diverse manner (in text, figures, and table). Discussion and conclusion are sound. The paper also contains implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research where all three elements are reasonable and clear. Overall, the paper is interesting and valuable, as well as used research method and obtained results.

I have just few suggestions for the author(s):

• Put different words in keywords than those in the title, if possible.
• Check the first sentence in Problem statement about Guilford's famous speech (p. 4). If I'm not mistaken, it was in 1950, not in 1966, but maybe this reference (Guilford, 1966) also refers to that speech, so, maybe this sentence just need to be rephrased. If it needs correction, then I suggest you to correct it also later in text (p. 15).

Author Response

The paper entitled A Bibliometric Analysis of Creativity Studies Within Giftedness is written in 19 pages, and contains 75 references (17 published in the last 5 years). The topic is interesting, and important for theory and practice. Abstract is clear and informative. Introduction is systematic, sound, logical and informative and relevant authors in the field are cited. Research aim and questions are clear and appropriate. The used method is fully explained, as well as data analysis, with both being appropriate. Results are presented in a transparent and diverse manner (in text, figures, and table). Discussion and conclusion are sound. The paper also contains implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research where all three elements are reasonable and clear. Overall, the paper is interesting and valuable, as well as used research method and obtained results.

Response 1. Sorry, yes you are right. It has rewrited as 1950. 

Question 2. Put different words in keywords than those in the title, if possible.

Response 2. Yes, you are certainly right. But the topic can best be represented by the keywords provided in the text. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A Bibliometric Analysis of Creativity Studies Within Giftedness

 

1. 2

“For example, In Gagne”s (2005) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, creativity is one out of the natural capacity that is effective in the emergence of giftedness.”

 

What is creativity one out of? Reword for clarity or add descriptor.

 

1. 3

“nd Furnham and Bachtiar”s (2008) studies have parallel results with Richmond”s (1966), as they also didn”t find correlation.”

 

A correlation between what? Be clear.

 

1. 8

“According to the researcher, the reason for this may be that a large part of the studies planned to be published in 2025 have not yet been published. Because this study was conducted on May 15.”

 

Fragment- please revise.

 

1. 11

“Word three is limited to the top 10 (most frequently used) keywords.”

Three or tree?

 

 

Well written manuscript on interesting topic!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review 1: “For example, In Gagne”s (2005) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, creativity is one out of the natural capacity that is effective in the emergence of giftedness.” 
What is creativity one out of? Reword for clarity or add descriptor. 

Comment 1: It has been rewritten as "...one of the natural capacity...."

Review 2: nd Furnham and Bachtiar”s (2008) studies have parallel results with Richmond”s (1966), as they also didn”t find correlation.” A correlation between what? Be clear.

Comment 2: It has been corrected "....didn't find correlation between intelligence and creativity."

Review 3: “According to the researcher, the reason for this may be that a large part of the studies planned to be published in 2025 have not yet been published. Because this study was conducted on May 15.”  Fragment- please revise.

Comment 3: It may be thought that a significant portion of the studies intended for publication in 2025 have not yet been released. This could be a contributing factor to the findings presented

Review 4: “Word three is limited to the top 10 (most frequently used) keywords.”

Three or tree?

Comment 4: So sorry, tree

Thanks for your comments

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the topic both concisely and in depth, positioning the study effectively within prior and current scholarship. The research design and methodological exposition are transparent and easy to follow, and the reasoning is logically organised: bibliometric evidence – including publication counts, citation metrics, institutional and national outputs, and keyword analyses – consistently supports the conclusions. The discussion offers a balanced view of the United States’ prominence alongside the contributions of other nations and thematic clusters; nonetheless, divergent or alternative perspectives receive less attention, and research gaps such as artificial intelligence and technology are mentioned more as lists than explored in depth. While the empirical data are robust, the account remains primarily descriptive rather than interpretive, and therefore only moderately persuasive: quantitative findings predominate, whereas critical reflection, comparison, and interpretation are less developed. Even so, the results are presented with clarity and structure, the referencing is thorough and extensive, and the conclusions are sound and well balanced, drawing on the trend analyses to underline the central importance of creativity, clearly acknowledging the study’s limitations, and identifying future directions emerging from the gaps observed.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would recommend having a Native speaker go over your manuscript. 

The first sentence of the abstract is a bit odd. It is too generic to be meaningful. In addition, that something is often studied doesn't make a compelling argument. 

"In this context..were identified" = Redundant. 

I would avoid constructions with "One of the most striking". Share the finding and let the reader decide for themselves if it is striking. Moreover, with a more compelling story you do not need these subjective labels. 

"That is why," = The comma is redundant. 

Refrain from starting with a question as the first sentence of your introduction. Technically, you are here to answer questions; not to ask more. 

"one of the hot topics" = Refrain from using this construction. Apply this to the remainder of your work as well.

Your rationale--the reason why you conduct this research--isn't clear enough. 

"The same pattern" = It is unclear to what this refers to. 

"certain main theories" = Vague. 

"within mathematical possibilities" = Comes as a surpise. 

"multi-layered and multi-faceted" = multi-layered and -faceted. 

"for the intersection set" = When? How? 

"It is seen" = Odd. Please rephrase. 

Check the structure of "Alfred Binet...intelligence". The sentence is odd, but I cannot figure out what is wrong with it. 

I would start using signal words to guide the reader through your text. It will help clarify links. 

You use quotation marks when an apostrophe should be used. Revise accordingly (throughour your manuscript). 

The headers with the en dashes do not really work. The reader needs to interpet the en dash. Please revise. 

"supprting the theory (Cho..." = Do you mean the nonlinear relationship? Clarify. 

Three or more authors can be listed as: author et al. (xxxx). Apply this throughout your work. 

On page three you write "thme". What does this mean? 

The sentence "There can be found" = odd. Please revise. 

"In this study, the study..."= Does not follow logically. 

What is the relevance of the information about Guildford's seminal speech? 

"rich literature" = Trivial term, as you haven't provided a complete overview of the literature. 

The sentence "Whether there are saturated topics.." = Odd. Please revise. 

"Bibliometric analysis is a..." = Does not follow logically. 

"It evaluates" = Do not assign animate verbs to inanimate objects. You evaluate; not the study. 

"it is a relatively new method..." = Incorrect. In addition, what is the relevance of the information after this sentence? 

"When the archives..." = I do not understand this sentence. 

"on the subject of the failure of..." = Where is this coming from? You are discussing giftedness and all of a sudden mention that they fail? I would be careful with phrasing things like this. 

"239 publications prepared..." = I do not understand this sentence. 

Please check the spelling of VosViewer. It has been spelled differently at least two times. 

What is the reason you aren't following Prisma guidelines? 

One of the arrows in figure 1 is not formatted properly. 

The information under section "analysis for publication...": Please place this in a table. Also check this for the remainder of your work. 

Please check formatting on page 9. 

Table 1 contains inconsistencies regarding the reporting on references/sources. Please revise. 

Figure 6 is pixelated. 

On page 15 you introduce implications but these aren't discussed. 

A statement such as "These results will help" does not convince me as a reader.

On page 16, you use the word "However," twice relatively close to one another. Please revise. 

Avoid "etc.". This is one of the basic things of academic writing. Exhaust your options, or pick a construction that allows openness. 

This first paragraph on the top of page 16 is a weak paragraph. Consider rewriting this. 

"Each program has its own strengths..." = Correct but you choose to use a specific program. Therefore, the aforementioned statement doesn't not apply. Please rewrite. 

What is your take-home message on page 16? 

The reference list is presented in a different font. Please change this. Also check your ref. list for inconsistencies. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The first sentence of the abstract is a bit odd. It is too generic to be meaningful. In addition, 
that something is often studied doesn't make a compelling argument.  

Respond 1: It has rewritten as "The relationship between intelligence and creativity has remained a focus of the research for nearly 60 years."

Comments2: ""In this context..were identified" = Redundant.. 

Respond 2: It deleted: "In this context"

Comments3: I would avoid constructions with "One of the most striking". Share the finding and let the reader decide for themselves if it is striking. Moreover, with a more compelling story you do not need these subjective labels. 

Respond 3: In my opinion, it can remain as it is. Because it was chosen from among many findings, and the researcher wanted to emphasize that it was a prominent finding.

Comments 4: "That is why," = The comma is redundant. 

Respond 4: So sorry, it has been corrected.

Comments 5: Refrain from starting with a question as the first sentence of your introduction. Technically, you are here to answer questions, not to ask more. 

Respond 5: The sentences of "Is creativity a characteristic specific to gifted children? The answer to this question is hidden in the relationship between creativity and intelligence" has been deleted.

Comments 6: "one of the hot topics" = Refrain from using this construction. Apply this to the remainder of your work as well. 

Respond 6: It has been corrected as "hot topic"

Comments 7: Your rationale--the reason why you conduct this research--isn't clear enough. 

Respond 7: The sentence of "This study will contribute to a general perspective on research conducted on creativity in gifted students" has been added.

Comments 8: "The same pattern" = It is unclear to what this refers to. 

Respond 8: The sentence of "The lack of a single, universally accepted definition of creativity is a common problem in the field, stemming from different theoretical perspectives, the same giftedness term" has been added.

Comments 9: "certain main theories" = Vague. 

Respond 9: It has been added of the explanation of "... such as Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent" (DMGT) 

Comments 10: "within mathematical possibilities" = Comes as a surpise. 

Respond  10: So sorry, It's big mistake. the word of  mathematical has been deleted.

Comments 11: "multi-layered and multi-faceted" = multi-layered and -faceted. 

Respond 11: Thanks, it has been corrected as multi-layered and -faceted

Comments 12: "for the intersection set" = When? How? 

Respond 12: It has been deleted, and added skills.

Comments 13:"It is seen" = Odd. Please rephrase. 

Respond 13: Sorry, translation error. It has been corrected as It's implied

Comments 14: Check the structure of "Alfred Binet...intelligence". The sentence is odd, but I cannot figure out what is wrong with it. 

Respond 14:  It has been reorganized: "Alfred Binet, who was highly influenced by Spearman, used tasks involving divergent thinking tasks closely related to creative thinking (Runco, 2007) in his early studies on intelligence measurement.

Comments 15: I would start using signal words to guide the reader through your text. It will help clarify links.

Respond 15: Thanks for your recommadation

Comments 16: You use quotation marks when an apostrophe should be used. Revise accordingly (throughour your manuscript). 

Respond 16: Thanks, I have corrected it. 

Comments 17: The headers with the en dashes do not really work. The reader needs to interpet the en dash. Please revise. 

Respond 17: Since the headers imply a comparison, the current en dash format is maintained for conciseness, as it does not introduce any semantic ambiguity

Comments 18: "supprting the theory (Cho..." = Do you mean the nonlinear relationship? Clarify. 

Respond 18: The sentence of "The other word, there is a non-linear relationship between the two variables." is added.

Comments 19: Three or more authors can be listed as: author et al. (xxxx). Apply this throughout your work. 

Respond 19: Thanks for your recommendation, I have corrected all the manuscript due to APA7 style reference.

Comments 20: On page three you write "thme". What does this mean? 

Respond 20: So sorry, it has been corrected "Another group of studies examined the relationship using factor analysis." thme was deleted.

Comments 21: The sentence "There can be found" = odd. Please revise.

Respond 21: The sentence has been corrected: "Two studies have been found in the literature on this issue"

Comments 22: "In this study, the study..."= Does not follow logically. 

Respond 22: It has been corrected "In this study, the research ..."

Comments 23: What is the relevance of the information about Guildford's seminal speech?

Respond 23: The explanation of "..in which think skills was firstly categorized as divergent and convergent thinking,.." has been added in the sentence.

Comments 24:"rich literature" = Trivial term, as you haven't provided a complete overview of the literature. 

Respond 24: The sentence has been corrected: The general search results indicate that there may be extensive literature on the subject.

Comments 25:The sentence "Whether there are saturated topics.." = Odd. Please revise.

Respond 25: The sentence has been revised as "There is an ongoing discussion about whether these concepts have been exhaustively studied, or if significant conceptual gaps persist, necessitating further research"

Comments 26: "Bibliometric analysis is a..." = Does not follow logically. 

Respond 26: the sentence has been revised "Bibliometric analysis, which is a kind of quantitative analysis by nature, allows for the easy classification and analysis of a large number of publications according to specific parameters"

Comments 27: "It evaluates" = Do not assign animate verbs to inanimate objects. You evaluate; not the study. 

Respond 27: So sorry, it has been revised: It can be evaluated 

Comments 28: "it is a relatively new method..." = Incorrect. In addition, what is the relevance of the information after this sentence? 

Respond 28: It has been deleted. 

Comments 29: "When the archives..." = I do not understand this sentence. 

Respond 29: The sentence has been revised "Upon reviewing the records of journals with a rigorous peer-review system, it can be argued .."

Comments 30: "on the subject of the failure of..." = Where is this coming from? You are discussing giftedness and all of a sudden mention that they fail? I would be careful with phrasing things like this. 

Respond 30: failure term has been changed to underachievement.  The previous paragraph discusses bibliometric studies conducted on the subject. The studies conducted are then summarized.

Comments 31: "239 publications prepared..." = I do not understand this sentence. 

Respond 31: The sentence has been revised "In the selection phase, according to exclusion criteria, publications prepared other than articles and in languages English were eliminated (n=913)."

Comments 32: Please check the spelling of VosViewer. It has been spelled differently at least two times.

Respond 32:  It has been corrected.

Comments 33: What is the reason you aren't following Prisma guidelines?

Respond 33: I'm not sure about these comments. The study is not only a review study. This study was prepared using bibliometric methodology. If you write more clearly, I could check it.

Comments 34: One of the arrows in figure 1 is not formatted properly.

Respond 34: The editorial teams were arranged in the shape, arrows, table, figure.... The file i uploaded were modified by the editorial teams.

Comments 35: The information under section "analysis for publication...": Please place this in a table. Also check this for the remainder of your work.

Respond 35:The study contains 8 figures and 1 table. In my opinion, creating more tables and figures could disrupt the flow of the study.

Comments 36: Please check formatting on page 9. 

Respond 36: The editorial teams arranged the file formatting. The editorial teams changed my original files.

Comments 37: Table 1 contains inconsistencies regarding the reporting on references/sources. Please revise.

Respond 37: I'm not sure about it. Because, Kaufman and Beghetto was evaluated by using NGC, GC and NLC values.

Kaufman and Beghetto’s (2009) study titled “Beyond big and little: the four c model of creativity” is the study with the highest NGC, GC, and NLC values.

Comments 38: Figure 6 is pixelated

Respond 38: It has been updated.

Comments 39: On page 15 you introduce implications but these aren't discussed. 

Respond 39: The discussion was written under Keyword network analysis, can be followed: 

Keyword analysis studies reveal hot topics. In this analysis, the keyword(s) that are associated are assumed to be connected. A clustering formation, along with a set of keywords, forms a network structure that represents the conceptual structure of a scientific field (Choi et al., 2011). The importance attributed to a term is directly proportional to node, density, diameter average and centrality (Atenstaedt, 2012). When viewed through this lens, it is concluded that creativity is an prioritize term (occurrence value: 260). This is followed by giftedness (72), gifted (48) and intelligence (41) at a lower level. According to Mulay et al. (2020), keywords that are written in smaller letters and are further from the centre reflect potential study directions. For example, creativity and problem-solving or giftedness and art can be considered as related topics and potential study areas. Terms may have a direct relationship from the centre to the periphery, or an indirect effect may occur through another term acting as a bridge (Choi et al., 2011). That is, while there is a direct relationship between creativity and collaboration, it also acts as a bridge in the relationship between creativity and creative problem-solving.

Comments 40: A statement such as "These results will help" does not convince me as a reader.

Respond 40: The sentence has been partial changed.

Comments 41: On page 16, you use the word "However," twice relatively close to one another. Please revise

Respond 41: It has been changed to therefore.

Comments 42: Avoid "etc.". This is one of the basic things of academic writing. Exhaust your options, or pick a construction that allows openness. 

Respond 42: Ok.

Comments 43: This first paragraph on the top of page 16 is a weak paragraph. Consider rewriting this. 

Respond 43: The pragraf has been supported the sentences of "Additionally, creativity theories developed based on empirical knowledge accumulated since 2000, such as the Minimal Creativity Ability Theory (Evenson et al., 2021) and the 5A Creativity Framework (Glăveanu, 2013), can be considered another compelling piece of evidence, albeit indirect, demonstrating the development of the field. "

Comments 44: "Each program has its own strengths..." = Correct but you choose to use a specific program. Therefore, the aforementioned statement doesn't not apply. Please rewrite. 

Respond 44: It has been added "For instance, while Bibliyoshine stands out for its user-friendliness, such as offering open-source access, and for its strengths in information-structure-based analyses like co-word or co-citation analyses, or performance analyses; VOSviewer boasts a rich variety in the graphical presentation of data. Crucially, a current limitation of both tools is the absence of integrated machine learning features for enhanced user guidance and experience."

Comments 45: What is your take-home message on page 16? 

Respond 45: The paragraph of "In summary, this study concludes by providing a much-needed, holistic perspective on the intersection of creativity and giftedness. To further expand this viewpoint, future research should incorporate diverse metrics beyond those considered and alternative bibliometric programs. This methodological diversification supports to systematically addressing the existing theoretical and practical gaps, as well as the methodological, gifted population-specific, and historical." has been added in the text.

Comments 46: The reference list is presented in a different font. Please change this. Also check your ref. list for inconsistencies.

Respond 46: Thanks for the detailed comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

1) The final version of the paper still contains some of the same keywords as those in the title. My suggestion was to change it, if possible. But, it is all right to keep it like that, if editors agree.

2) You did correct the year when Guilford's speech was held (1950), thank you, but you wrote: Almost 70 years after Guilford’s seminal speech (May 15, 2025) (...). 

Maybe it is a detail, but, it would be more appropriate to be precise: 75 years.

The same thing is in the abstract: (...) for nearly 70 years...

Kind regards.

Author Response

Q1. The final version of the paper still contains some of the same keywords as those in the title. My suggestion was to change it, if possible. But, it is all right to keep it like that, if editors agree.

R1. Dear reviewer, The keywords have been retained in their original form because they are specifically selected to capture the core thematic essence and high-level conceptual framework of the study. I believe any alteration would diminish their precision in reflecting the text's primary contribution

Q2. You did correct the year when Guilford's speech was held (1950), thank you, but you wrote: Almost 70 years after Guilford’s seminal speech (May 15, 2025) (...)

R2. It has been revised 75. Thanks for your recommendation. 

Best regard

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revisions are acceptable.

Author Response

The manuscript has been checked. 

Thanks for the reviewer's offer and contribution.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Added/revised text on the first page resulted in an incorrect sentence (i.e., "...stemming from different theoretical perspectives, the same giftedness term"). The construction you are going for doesn't work. Please revise. 

Mentioning the DMGT model requires a reference/source. 

On page 3: "the other word" = What does this mean? 

"didn't" = did not. 

Page 4: "think skills" = thinking skills?

I notice that the amount of detail hasn't changed much from the previous to this version of your manuscript.

"on the underachievement of gifted students" = on underachieving gifted students. This is a more common way of addressing this. 

p. 8: It may be thought that... = Oddly phrased. In a similar vein, a sentence like "Because this study was conducted on May 15" as a stand-alone sentence isn't informative enough. 

The statistics on the bottom of page 7 can be presented in a table for more readability. 

Page 17: it is Biblioshiny (not Bibliyoshiny). Please revise.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. The added/revised text is grammatically not always correct. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thanks for the improved feedback on the manuscript. You can see the revisions made based on your suggestions below:

Q1. Added/revised text on the first page resulted in an incorrect sentence (i.e., "...stemming from different theoretical perspectives, the same giftedness term"). The construction you are going for doesn't work. Please revise. 

R1. It has been revised.

 

Q2. Mentioning the DMGT model requires a reference/source. 

R2. It has been added a reference.

 

Q3. On page 3: "the other word" = What does this mean? 

"didn't" = did not. 

R3. It has been revised.

 

Q4. Page 4: "think skills" = thinking skills?

R4. It has been revised.

 

Q5. I notice that the amount of detail hasn't changed much from the previous to this version of your manuscript.

R5. I don't completely understand. The reviewer's recommendation has almost been done.

 

Q6. "on the underachievement of gifted students" = on underachieving gifted students. This is a more common way of addressing this. 

R6. It can be preferred in both uses. For example, the underachievement of gifted students is preferred in the Unpacking the underachievement of gifted students: A systematic review of internal and external factors - ScienceDirect. I would like to choose of the underachievement of gifted students chose 

 

Q7. p. 8: It may be thought that... = Oddly phrased. In a similar vein, a sentence like "Because this study was conducted on May 15" as a stand-alone sentence isn't informative enough. 

R7. The sentences has been rewritten "The observed downward trend for 2025 is likely due to the timing of this study (May 15). A significant number of publications intended for the latter half of the year have likely not yet been released and, consequently, are not reflected in the graph."

 

Q8.The statistics on the bottom of page 7 can be presented in a table for more readability. 

R8. You are certainly right. But the text includes a lot of tables and a figure. In my opinion, it would be more fitting to leave it as it is.

Q9. Page 17: it is Biblioshiny (not Bibliyoshiny). Please revise.

R9. It has been corrected.

Sincerly

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The label “hot topic” is still subjective. This statement isn’t justified without, for example, statistics of published material with specific search terms. You have this information available, why don't you use it as an argument? Later I read: "Recent review studies reveal that publications on the subject of giftedness have in-creased significantly (Baccassino & Pinnelli, 2023; Şakar & Tan, 2025)." This means you have other work to support your claim as well. 

The revised text on page 3: I would suggest to add the variable names (instead of "the two variables). You list a lot of references and, as a result, the reader might lose their train of thought. 

"Two studies have been found in the literature on this issue" = Odd sentence. I would suggest to rephrase this. 

I am still unsure about the correlations ib oage 3, the number itself isn't relevant if you are discussing its relation/link. Please consider to revise this. 

Moreover, I would suggest to have a Native English speaker look at your text. Some sentences are very unusual (e.g., "publications prepared other than articles and in languages English were eliminated (n=913)"). 

In the overview of the different phases, you list "1040 article". What type of article is this? Furthermore, 1040 articleS is the correct way of phrasing this. 

Please insert complete sentences: "Word tree is limited to the top 10 (most frequently used) keywords" = The word tree is...

Please check how you spell "Bibliyoshiny" (p. 16). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. 

Author Response

Q1. The label “hot topic” is still subjective. This statement isn’t justified without, for example, statistics of published material with specific search terms. You have this information available, why don't you use it as an argument? Later I read: "Recent review studies reveal that publications on the subject of giftedness have in-creased significantly (Baccassino & Pinnelli, 2023; Şakar & Tan, 2025)." This means you have other work to support your claim as well. 

R1. Added the sentences of "The number of publications on the subject is increasing day by day."

Q2.The revised text on page 3: I would suggest to add the variable names (instead of "the two variables). You list a lot of references and, as a result, the reader might lose their train of thought. 

R2. "We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. However, we have opted to maintain the existing structure in this section. Readers wishing to explore the related studies in depth can easily access them through the comprehensive in-text citations and the reference list provided.

Q3."Two studies have been found in the literature on this issue" = Odd sentence. I would suggest to rephrase this. 

R3.The sentences have been rewritten: The relationship has also been explored using factor analysis. In this context, the literature search yielded only two studies addressing this specific methodological line of inquiry

Q4. I am still unsure about the correlations ib oage 3, the number itself isn't relevant if you are discussing its relation/link. Please consider to revise this. 

R4. It has been deleted.

Q5. Moreover, I would suggest to have a Native English speaker look at your text. Some sentences are very unusual (e.g., "publications prepared other than articles and in languages English were eliminated (n=913)"). 

R5. It has been revised: Only peer-reviewed journal articles written in English were retained for final review; all other publication types and languages were eliminated.

Q6.In the overview of the different phases, you list "1040 article". What type of article is this? Furthermore, 1040 articleS is the correct way of phrasing this.

R6. It has been revised.

Q7.Please insert complete sentences: "Word tree is limited to the top 10 (most frequently used) keywords" = The word tree is...

R7. It has been revised: Word tree is limited to the top ten most frequent keywords.

Q7.Please check how you spell "Bibliyoshiny" (p. 16). 

R7. It has been checked.

Thanks for your feedback.