Escribir un comentario

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Partly

The topic of this review is introduced well. However, there are some inconsistencies between the concluding review questions and the introductory sentences of the Materials & Methods section. The author seeks to understand 'what are the origin of NCS as an alternative to DI', then later states 'Because the concept of NCS as an alternative to DI was first described by Amin in 2001...'. If this information is already available, the related review question may not be necessary or may need to be better clarified.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat inappropriate

The author has followed PRISMA guidelines in their reporting. However, as these guidelines are for the reporting rather than the conduct of reviews, it would be beneficial to also indicate which methodological guidelines were followed (e.g., JBI). The inclusion of a second reviewer would greatly enhance the rigour of this study. The author points to predatory journals as a source of relevant studies for this review. Information could be provided which confirms that such journals are indexed by the databases chosen, as otherwise they may be missed when searching. The search strategy is dependent on the 2001 Amin paper being cited. While the author includes rationale for this at the end of their paper, a robust scoping search strategy is needed to better capture the extent of literature relevant to this topic and to convince the reader that the search was exhaustive. Should a paper have failed to cite this work, it may not have been included. A lack of appropriate referencing may be particularly prevalent in non-peer reviewed works which the author is interested in capturing.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

I don’t know

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

I don’t know

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

No, it’s of low quality or is majorly flawed

Better methodological rigour, particularly in relation to the search strategy and screening, would improve the preprint.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.