[logseq-plugin-git:commit] 2026-01-17T11:52:34.973Z

2026-01-17 12:52:35 +01:00
parent a9be014763
commit 371ae49d5c
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
@@ -19,4 +19,4 @@ todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/app/task/jssoftware-d-25-01840-6fP8pRMvc4XPq97
 		- The analysis of empirical evidence yields a significant insight: the most cited advantages (speed, complexity, and quality) are backed by strong empirical evidence, whereas security and compatibility remain under-supported. This critical finding, which validates the "viability" mentioned in the title, is currently buried deep in the results. It should be stressed early in the paper (introduction or even abstract)
 		- The paper provides diverse insights ranging from technical platform comparisons to organizational governance strategies. It is not entirely clear who the primary intended reader is (academic researchers, organizational IT managers, or platform providers).
 		- The manuscript claims that its findings enable "replication and advancing the field." It is unclear what specific elements are intended for replication. Clarify this statement. If the authors refer to the coding framework or the evidence assessment methodology, they should specify how other researchers can use these tools to maintain a "living" review of the rapidly changing LCD landscape.
-		- The current structure of the paper relies on five distinct Research Questions (RQs). However, the first two (RQ1: Publication trends and RQ2: Definitions/Target users) cover ground that has been extensively mapped in previous SLRs.
+		- The current structure of the paper relies on five distinct Research Questions (RQs). However, the first two (RQ1: Publication trends and RQ2: Definitions/Target users) cover ground that has been extensively mapped in previous SLRs. Devoting full sections to RQ1 and RQ2 may dilute the paper’s primary contributions and novelty.