Next Article in Journal
Technology Transfer Offices and Their Role with Information Mechanisms for Innovation Performance in Firms: The Case of Ghana
Next Article in Special Issue
Managing Knowledge in Romanian KIBS during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Level Decision Support System in Production and Safety Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Knowledge
Volume 2
Issue 4
10.3390/knowledge2040040
Review Report
knowledge-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Bibliometric Analysis of Knowledge Dynamics in Managerial Decision Making

Knowledge 2022, 2(4), 702-718; https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge2040040
by Constantin Bratianu *,† and Dan Paiuc †
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Kashif Ali
Knowledge 2022, 2(4), 702-718; https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge2040040
Submission received: 12 November 2022 / Revised: 4 December 2022 / Accepted: 7 December 2022 / Published: 9 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Knowledge Management in the Post-pandemic Business Environment)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

II appreciate the extensive work the authors put into investigating the relationship between knowledge dynamics and managerial decision-making. It is a relevant and interesting read. The connection with related concepts is very well developed. I have just a few minor remarks.

 

The introduction needs to be strengthened. Please refer to more recent publications linking knowledge dynamics (or its components) and managerial decision-making and highlight the gap better. Leave the description of the origins of knowledge for the Literature review. In Methodology, it would be useful to describe the co-occurrence analysis and its strength (see Zupic and Čater 2015).

Regarding the analysis, I would suggest focusing on one KD co-occurrence map (as currently, you have two), as you did with MD. In the Results/Discussion section, it would be fruitful to link the themes you investigate and connect them with existing publications, so the reader could understand how similar topics are approached in both fields, KD and MD.

 

Author Response

The cover letter with our answers is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     Abstract: This section should rewrite in proper format like Purpose, Design/methodology, Findings/outcomes, and contributions.

2.     Introduction: This section has lack of study motivation and gaps. This section only focuses on various terms definition. But why we need another review study, what is missing in previous review studies in current study context.

3.     Methodology: There are missing elements in this section like study protocols etc. Although few things are there but you need to arrange in a way that may be helpful for the new readers. The data is retrieved from WOS, please justify your WOS section and why you do not select Scopus database. Next, please justify the time frame 1974/75 – 2022, why you select 1974/75 as base year? In table 2, under the type of documents, what is mean by “other”, please justify it. In Table 3 under Subject areas, what is your exact time span mid-feb2022 or end Aug-2022?

4.     Results: The descriptive analysis and results are missing like, publication trends in a give timeframe, most influential journal, authors, publications, and country. Please include before presenting science mapping results (clusters, co-occurrence etc.).

 

5.     The study contributions are missing. 

Author Response

The cover letter with our answers is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop