You report that the most frequently researched titles are League of Legends (LoL; 42.7%, n = 53) and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO; 37.1%, n = 46), followed by Valorant (11.3%, n = 14) and Rainbow Six Siege (9.7%, n = 12). The sum of these frequencies is 53 + 46 + 14 + 12 = 125, which equals your total number of empirical studies. However, you also state that 12.1% (n = 15) of studies did not explicitly mention the esports title and 6.5% (n = 8) did not specify the title. These 23 studies cannot simultaneously be part of the 125 studies and also be excluded from the title-specific counts. Can you explain this mathematical discrepancy and clarify how the percentages and raw counts were actually derived?
You repeatedly claim that the field has seen notable methodological advancement and a shift toward robust experimental designs (e.g., Section 3.2.1, 3.2.2). Yet in the limitations (Section 5), you acknowledge that observational studies still dominate (44.4%, n = 55) and that longitudinal, experimental, and mixed-methods studies remain “relatively few.” Moreover, 17.6% of studies reported no gender information, and female-only studies represent only 1.6% (n = 2). How do you reconcile the assertion of substantial methodological progress with these persistent, fundamental weaknesses in design and representation? Is it possible that the field has not advanced as much as claimed, and that your conclusion risks overstating the evidence base?