diff --git a/pages/JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01931.md b/pages/JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01931.md
index c7e4a404..541cbd81 100644
--- a/pages/JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01931.md
+++ b/pages/JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01931.md
@@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/app/task/jssoftware-d-25-01840-6fP8pRMvc4XPq97
 		- COMMENTS: The paper is indeed about a relevant and fast evolving topic. However, as testified by the long list of related and analyzed papers considered by the authors, over the last years, many works have been done to analyze low-code technologies and tools, and their employment in different application domains. As a such it is important to stress the strong contribution of this paper that should go beyond the updated list of papers ranging from 2021 and 2025. The work mentions existing surveys but does not detail theor limitations, which would justify and support this paper. For instance, early in the paper, the authors can discuss that existng works lack the evidence-based strenghts assessment or neglect social/organizational strcutres.
 		- 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
\ No newline at end of file
+		- 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.
\ No newline at end of file