Title & Introduction
The title is strong — it’s clear who/what the paper is about and where the argument is going.
Introduction is well done: I understand the importance of the paper and believe the literature search was thorough.
Abstract / Early Section
Line 8: Please list the databases in alphabetical order for improved flow.
Line 9: “Were included” → suggest changing to “were included in this review.”
Line 15: Please specify time frames rather than “most.” If there was a study from a different year, please state that here.
Body of the Paper
Lines 27–30: Needs rewording for clarity.
Lines 45–52: Excellent — clearly shows what this paper adds to the existing literature.
Line 79: Not sure why this line is highlighted — please review.
Lines 189–200: Also highlighted, but the content should remain in the article.
Data section: Solid and well organized.
Results / Subsections
Section 3.3.1, Lines 289–294: Please expand on what the “technical domain” entails. It’s less clear here compared to Section 3.3.2, which did a better job of explaining.
Lines 295–304: Strong section.
Discussion
Discussion section overall was good — well structured and insightful.