This manuscript ambitiously endeavors to illuminate the current state of meme research in selected domains, exploring implications for future meme marketing research. The integration of content analysis and thematic mapping as methodological approaches is promising. However, the manuscript encounters notable challenges in terms of validity, reliability, and the cohesiveness of its analytical framework. Enhancements in these areas, alongside more rigorous formulation of research questions and a critical examination of the concepts employed, are necessary for the manuscript’s advancement. I hope this review helps the author(s) in improving the manuscript.

Introduction

• The initial assertion that digital marketers predominantly use internet memes for product promotion could be broadened to include their role in shaping corporate image and reputation. This expansion would provide a more holistic view of the application contexts of memes in marketing communications.
• The claim regarding the effectiveness of meme-based promotion requires further empirical substantiation. References such as Jain (2022) offer limited evidence. The cited source is kind of a news article discussing one specific case. I don’t think that memes are key for all marketers to be successful in promoting their content. It is rather a complex interplay between prior image, reputation, popularity, trust, credibility, target groups, etc. A more nuanced examination, incorporating diverse perspectives such as memetic branding (Caliandro & Anselmi, 2021) and meme marketing (Razzaq et al., 2023), alongside empirical studies like Teng et al. (2022) and Yang (2022), would provide a more balanced and comprehensive view.
• The previous point relates to a core dilemma in Internet meme communication: the genuine bottom-up nature of memes (Shifman, 2014) vs. the attempt to apply them in top-down contexts such as marketing. The article should critically address the inherent tension between the organic, bottom-up nature of internet memes and their utilization in structured marketing strategies.
• Assertions about memes’ inherent characteristics, such as “memes are natives of social media with a higher engagement rate than other posts” need to be substantiated with appropriate references.
• The findings by de Silva (2021) on the use of memes by brand managers in developing countries should be contextualized carefully to avoid perpetuating cultural stereotypes.
• In examining the construction of RQ1, the study ambitiously aims to explore the theoretical underpinnings within the existing body of meme literature. This approach presents a broad and comprehensive endeavor. However, the current search criteria primarily encompass literature within marketing realms, extending to a broader range of social sciences. To enhance the clarity and focus of the paper, two key improvements are suggested: (1) The paper would benefit from an expanded explanation of the chosen approach for literature selection. Specifically, it would be helpful to include a justification for focusing primarily on marketing and social science contexts. This additional background would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the scope and limitations of the literature review. (2) A revision of RQ1 is recommended to more accurately reflect the thematic scope of the literature review. This refinement should also extend to all related sections of the text where the thematic context of the review is discussed. Ensuring that RQ1 and the corresponding narrative are in alignment with the actual focus of the literature search will improve the coherence and effectiveness of the study.
• In its current form, RQ2 is framed as an interpretative question, primarily addressed within the discussion section. For a more structured and analytically robust approach, I recommend reformulating RQ2 into a question that can be directly analyzed and answered within the results section. This restructured research question should be designed to closely align with the data and findings presented. By doing so, the paper can more effectively leverage its results to draw meaningful conclusions and implications, particularly regarding the integration of marketing theories into meme research. Such an adjustment would not only enhance the clarity and flow of the paper but also strengthen the link between the empirical findings and the theoretical insights it seeks to offer.
  Methodology
• The selection of only 239 out of 518 available articles, representing less than half of the potential literature, poses a significant limitation. This constraint, likely influenced by institutional access to journals, raises concerns about the completeness and validity of the review. It’s crucial for the author(s) to acknowledge and discuss the impact of this limitation on the study's findings. How do(es) the author(s) perceive and address the issue of limited access affecting the comprehensiveness of their literature review?
• As mentioned before, the manuscript currently traverses multiple disciplines, including marketing, management, and social sciences, without firmly anchoring itself in a specific field. To strengthen its academic rigor, it is advisable to focus the review within a particular discipline, such as marketing. This approach would provide clarity and depth. As it stands, the paper promises a general overview of meme-related theories but conducts a literature review across diverse domains, leading to implications primarily in marketing. Such a discrepancy results in a lack of coherence in the paper’s rationale and structure. A more aligned and stringent approach, synchronizing the theoretical foundation, methodological choices, and empirical focus, is essential for a robust and credible review.
  Results
• The literature profile presented in the article appears limited, primarily highlighting only the top two papers. It would be beneficial to expand this profile to provide a more comprehensive view of the state of the art in meme research. A broader analysis could offer deeper insights into the prevailing themes and methodologies within the field, enhancing the paper’s contribution to meme literature.
• The use of science mapping as a methodology is intriguing and holds potential for this kind of research. However, the paper would benefit from a more detailed explanation of this approach, particularly for readers who may not be familiar with it. Additionally, discussing the reliability and validity measures of science mapping would strengthen the methodological rigor of the study.
• The observation that there are no emerging or declining themes in meme research is notable. A more thorough exploration of this finding could be enlightening. Delving into why certain themes remain static and others do not emerge would offer valuable insights and possibly guide future research directions in the field of meme studies. This could also be incorporated in the discussion section.
• The section reviewing theories in meme literature is commendable for introducing various theoretical perspectives. However, the current approach primarily summarizes existing literature without in-depth analysis. The paper could be significantly enriched by a more detailed discussion of these theories, particularly considering the diverse and sometimes contested interpretations of them. Such a discussion would not only deepen the understanding of meme research but also provide a solid foundation for the theoretical implications discussed later in the manuscript.
• Building on the previous point, a deeper and more critical examination of the theoretical frameworks discussed would better prepare the ground for exploring their implications in marketing. This could involve analyzing the applicability of these theories in marketing contexts, their strengths and limitations, and how they might inform future meme marketing research.
  Discussion
• The paper’s focus on the audience’s perspective in memetic communication is noteworthy. However, to fully capture the dynamics of meme marketing, a more pronounced emphasis on the perspective of communicators (meme marketers) is recommended. This shift would offer a more balanced view of the interactive process of meme communication, considering both the creators and receivers of the memes.
• While the paper introduces a range of theories potentially applicable to meme marketing studies, the rationale behind the selection of these specific theories over others is not entirely clear. This selection process appears somewhat arbitrary. To strengthen the paper, a more systematic and transparent methodology for identifying, classifying, and applying these theories would be beneficial. Such an approach would enhance the academic rigor of the study and provide a clearer framework for future research in this area.
• The discussion of the selected theoretical approaches would benefit from a more critical and balanced analysis. Currently, the paper tends to focus on the potential applications of these theories without adequately addressing their limitations or challenges. A comprehensive discussion that explores both the strengths and weaknesses of each theoretical framework would provide a more nuanced understanding and contribute to a more robust theoretical foundation for the study.
  Conclusion
• The statement in the conclusion section that there is limited literature on Internet memes seems to overlook the dynamic and rapidly expanding nature of this research field. The diverse formats, genres, modalities, and platforms of memes, along with the evolving concept of the meme itself, suggest a vibrant and growing body of research. Acknowledging this burgeoning interest would provide a more accurate and contemporary perspective on the state of meme research.
• The conclusion currently includes details on growth rates in the examined body of literature, which are more suitably placed in the results section. The conclusion should ideally synthesize the key findings and their broader implications, offering a comprehensive overview of the study’s contributions and significance. Reframing the conclusion to provide this holistic perspective would enhance its effectiveness in summarizing the research.
• A notable omission in the article is the lack of detail on the quality criteria for the content analysis and other methodological elements. Providing this information is crucial for establishing the study’s objectivity and allowing readers to assess the rigor of the research process. Additionally, the paper would benefit from including a discussion on the limitations of the research, as this would offer a more balanced view and indicate areas for potential future inquiry.

Overall remarks
- The manuscript would benefit significantly from thorough copyediting with attention to grammatical, syntactical, and stylistic aspects.
- The abstract should accurately represent the revised content and key emphases of the paper, serving as a concise and clear summary of the (revised) study.

I would like to reiterate that this manuscript makes a significant and interesting contribution to the field. Its most commendable aspect is the innovative combination of bibliometric analysis and content analysis, which provides a unique approach to the study of memes. By integrating the suggested revisions, I am confident that this paper will not only address its current limitations but also emerge as a valuable and impactful addition to meme research. The potential for this study to contribute meaningful insights and knowledge in this area is substantial, and I look forward to seeing its development.

References
Caliandro, A., & Anselmi, G. (2021). Affordances-based brand relations: An inquire on memetic brands on Instagram. Social Media + Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211021367
Razzaq, A., Shao, W., & Quach, S. (2023). Towards an understanding of meme marketing: conceptualisation and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(7–8), 670–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2022.2158906
Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9429.001.0001
Teng, H., Lo, C.F. and Lee, H.H. (2022). How do internet memes affect brand image? Online Information Review, 46(2), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2020-0192
Yang, G. (2022). Using funny memes for social media marketing: The moderating role of bandwagon cues. Journal of Promotion Management, 28(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2022.2054904

First of all, I congratulate the authors for this extensive revision tackling all previous remarks. Thank you for the extensive revisions and for thoroughly documenting the changes made to the manuscript. In my opinion, the efforts have significantly improved the overall quality, structure, and rationale of the paper. The addressing of limitations has greatly enhanced the transparency of the study.

I only have some minor remarks which are rooted in the fact that the text has further developed. In this regard, there are still some aspects that could be refined to further enhance the manuscript:

• While the reformulations of RQ1 and RQ2 have clarified the study’s goals, especially RQ2 could be better prepared in the introduction. RQ1 is grounded in the literature review findings, whereas RQ2 extends beyond, highlighting avenues for future research. A more transparent reflection on the background of these two research questions in the introduction would greatly benefit the readers.

• The method section still lacks transparency, particularly regarding the content analysis. Although it is mentioned that a “content analysis (manually) was performed to identify the various theories used to study memes” (p. 8), details on the exact procedures are missing. Was the content analysis quantitative or qualitative? How many coders were involved? What measures were taken to ensure the reliability of the analysis? Providing this information is crucial for the robustness of the methodology.

• There is still a need for thorough copyediting, which might be due to the extensive revisions. Attention to grammar, syntax, and overall readability will further improve the manuscript.

I encourage the authors to address these points in the next revision. With these additional refinements, I am confident that the manuscript will be significantly enhanced and will make a valuable contribution to the field of meme research.

Thank you for your revisions. Based on the review, I recommend the acceptance of this paper.