In Figure 2, you mention that 2009 had a “sharp peak of 95 citations” from 1 publication. But in Table 3, 2009 shows only 4 total citations (TC = 4). Which one is correct? This kind of mismatch raises questions about the reliability of your bibliometric data.
In Table 2, the percentages add up to way more than 100% (e.g., Social Sciences 58.70%, Business 54.35%, Arts 30.43%, etc.). Does this mean articles were counted in multiple categories? If so, how does that affect your interpretation of research focus? It makes the distribution hard to interpret.
You say 40 articles were selected for the scoping review, but Table 1 says there were 46 total publications from 2001–2024. Which set of articles was used for the bibliometric analysis? Were the 40 a subset of the 46? The methods section isn’t clear on this overlap.
You talk about AR/VR enhancing experiences, but only briefly note unequal access to technology. Isn’t that a huge barrier to sustainability? Why wasn’t this explored more, especially since your own data shows minimal publications from low-tech regions?
