Several areas need improvement:
1. Methodological transparency – Provide a PRISMA flow diagram, a table of the 20 included studies with context/methods/findings, and details on coding procedures and quality appraisal criteria. Clarify how pre-2020 citations fit the inclusion parameters.
2. Conceptual framework clarity – Resolve the inconsistency between Hofstede’s four dimensions and the Minkov–Kaasa two-dimension revision. Decide which framework anchors your analysis, or clearly explain how both are applied. Include a visual conceptual model to show relationships between CSP, CR, and cultural moderators.
3. Deeper synthesis of contested findings – Particularly for uncertainty avoidance, go beyond summarizing divergence to explain possible causes (e.g., methodological differences, sectoral context) and propose interpretive pathways.
4. Tighten thematic focus – Remove or reposition tangential material (e.g., consumer platforms, tourism behavior) unless directly tied to the CSP–CR mechanism.
5. Strengthen practical recommendations – Provide more actionable, context-specific guidance (e.g., diagnostic tools, CSR adaptation examples by cultural profile) to enhance applicability for practitioners.
6. Language refinement – Apply light professional editing to correct minor typos, improve sentence conciseness, and ensure consistent terminology.
With these revisions, your paper will have a stronger conceptual foundation, clearer methodological rigor, and more actionable implications, increasing both its scholarly contribution and real-world utility.
7.Abstract: Needs to be more concise, avoid duplication, focus on objectives, methods, main results and academic contributions. Currently the abstract is quite long, has many discussion details (e.g. explanation of power distance, femininity…), so it should be moved to the Findings section.
Introduction: Lack of clear presentation of research gap and original contribution. Should emphasize what previous research has done (on CSP–CR), What gaps have not been addressed (the role of culture), What new contributions this research makes in theory and practice. Some passages are repetitive (e.g. CSP always leads to positive CR). Need to streamline and avoid duplication in Literature Review and Findings.
8.Theoretical basis: The article has mentioned Stakeholder theory & Institutional theory but only at the descriptive level. It is necessary to clarify how these two theories complement each other to explain the CSP–CR relationship in the cultural context. Cultural dimensions Currently mainly based on Hofstede and Minkov–Kaasa. Should explain why Hofstede is chosen as the main framework, while there are GLOBE and Trompenaars. Suggest directions for comparison or integration of other frameworks to increase comprehensiveness.
9.Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method: There is a description of the PRISMA process, but visual representation (e.g. PRISMA flow diagram) is needed. A summary table should be prepared for the last 20 papers: information about authors, year, setting, methods, main findings. This helps increase transparency and credibility.Results & Discussion: Findings are quite lengthy, need to be systematized with comparative tables/summaries (e.g., the impact of each cultural dimension on CSP–CR). 10. 10Discussion needs to more closely link the synthesis results to the two theoretical foundations (stakeholder + institutional theory). Discussion needs to clearly show how this study resolves the contradictions in previous studies.
Theoretical implications need to be written in more depth about contributions to reputation theory and cross-cultural CSR research. Managerial implications: Existing but still general, need to be more specific by culture type (e.g., which type of CSR should be prioritized by businesses operating in the collectivist market)
Limitations & Research Directions: Limitations and Future Research sections are provided, but data limitations should be emphasized. Future empirical research is clearly proposed (surveys, interviews, cross-national comparison). Integrated models of CSP–CR with other factors are proposed (e.g. corporate governance, ESG ratings, digital reputation platforms).
Presentation & Academics:
Citation: Need to standardize
Language: there are still long, hard-to-read sentences. Need to streamline to be clearer and more coherent.
Figures/Tables: No figures available. Suggested additions: PRISMA diagram; Integrated theoretical framework (CSP–CR + cultural moderation + stakeholder/institutional theory); Summary table of results of 20 studies.