You excluded Energy, Social Sciences, Engineering, etc., from analysis because they “lack integration of SSCM” ; but isn’t that a huge assumption? Couldn’t that just bias your review toward fields that already talk about SSCM, missing interdisciplinary insights that are actually valuable for implementation?
You used VOSviewer to map keywords, but your interpretation in Figure 6 sounds descriptive and vague ; did you actually run any statistical analysis on keyword co-occurrence or are you just eyeballing clusters? How do we know the “green” cluster is really about “human resources and financial development” and not something else?
Your whole framework is built on six drivers, but in Section 2.4 you list four pillars. Then later you mention six again. Which is it? And how were these chosen ; by frequency in the literature or by your own judgment? Feels like the paper can’t decide on its own core model.
You claim a “burgeoning trend” in SSCM research in developing countries, but your final sample is only 92 articles over 12 years ; that’s less than 8 articles per year. Is that really “burgeoning”? Or is it still a niche topic?
You talk about “inclusive growth” throughout, but your framework doesn’t really show how SSCM leads to inclusivity ; it’s just listed as a driver. Where’s the causal link or even the empirical evidence from your review that SSCM in Africa actually promotes inclusion and not just greenwashing?
Figure 5 shows Citescore shooting up in 2022–2024, but isn’t that just because newer articles haven’t had time to accumulate citations yet? Using Citescore for trend analysis in recent years seems methodologically shaky ; did you normalize for time?
You stress the importance of stakeholder theory, but your review method doesn’t seem to specifically code for stakeholder engagement or power dynamics ; so how can you claim to build a “holistic” framework around it if your data extraction wasn’t designed to capture it systematically?
