Mapping the Landscape of Environmental Health Literacy: Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is on a relevant topic (EHL) and looks at it in an unusual way. The introduction does a good job of introducing EHL and related topics. It introduces bibliometric indicators by name and defines the term and the software used to do the analysis. The methods include the search term and databases used, as well as the selection process. It names the data visualizations from the software but says little of how the software was used to create them...what the analysis was based on. Having never read such a paper, this reviewer would appreciate more details on the approach and the indicators produced. What would be expected for these measures? At one point, the field of health literacy was mentioned as a comparison, which was helpful. There were many indicators summarized in the results - many fairly interesting. I am not sure Figure 5 is helpful given the low numbers. H, G an M indices mentioned though not explained well. Indices for both journals and authors presented though separately. Might explanations of these indicators be included in the methods - possibly a table? Section 3.5 includes a lengthy list of article summaries. In some ways, this was appreciated but then again, this was lengthy and I wanted to stop reading before reaching the end. Might a table be used to describe the lot of these? Might themes be derived? Its hard to get a good grasp of the work in totality. The Thematic map focused on keywords and failed to tell the whole story. Section 3.7.2 is titled Intellectual....the paragraph starts with Intellectual structure. The title seems cut off, and because the indicators were not really described and there are no references to explain these terms and how they are used in comparison to other topics, it's a lot to take in. This paper has a lot of good information... but it's too much, and the story gets muddled. Might the authors prioritize and focus it more on key indicators that support their story? The discussion has many sound conclusions, but doesn't necessarily use the data to reach them. Here, cross-cutting themes are mentioned. The discussion highlights policymaking, but the introduction did not. The purpose of this study isn't clearly stated, nor is how it directly connects to policy. These should be easy fixes for the authors if they can streamline their work. This reviewer's advice is to prioritize analysis and focus on the priority ones.
Author Response
Comment:
The article is on a relevant topic (EHL) and looks at it in an unusual way. The introduction does a good job of introducing EHL and related topics. It introduces bibliometric indicators by name and defines the term and the software used to do the analysis.
Answer:
We thank the reviewer for their comments and for the opportunity to improve our work. We understand that the comments are pertinent and we have sought to adapt the manuscript in line with each of the critics and recommendations.
Comment:
The methods include the search term and databases used, as well as the selection process. It names the data visualizations from the software but says little of how the software was used to create them...what the analysis was based on. Having never read such a paper, this reviewer would appreciate more details on the approach and the indicators produced. What would be expected for these measures?
Answer:
We thank the reviewer for their recommendation, and inform that we added a table presenting the bibliometric indicators and their analytical purposes in the method section.
Comment:
At one point, the field of health literacy was mentioned as a comparison, which was helpful. There were many indicators summarized in the results - many fairly interesting. I am not sure Figure 5 is helpful given the low numbers.
Answer:
To address this comment, we excluded Figure 5 - Source production over time.
Comment:
H, G an M indices mentioned though not explained well. Indices for both journals and authors presented though separately. Might explanations of these indicators be included in the methods - possibly a table?
Answer:
We added a table presenting the bibliometric indicators and their analytical purposes in the method section. In fact, this modification made the text more cohesive.
Comment:
Section 3.5 includes a lengthy list of article summaries. In some ways, this was appreciated but then again, this was lengthy and I wanted to stop reading before reaching the end. Might a table be used to describe the lot of these? Might themes be derived? Its hard to get a good grasp of the work in totality.
Answer:
We have placed the information contained in section 3.5 in a table to facilitate description. As the table is long, we have chosen not to include a column containing the themes, but we have highlighted the main excerpts from each description in bold to immediately highlight the central points of each work.
Comment:
The Thematic map focused on keywords and failed to tell the whole story.
Answer:
In addition to the table included in the method section, which presents what to expect from each analysis, we added a brief explanatory excerpt in the paragraph that begins the excerpt on thematic maps.
Comment:
Section 3.7.2 is titled Intellectual....the paragraph starts with Intellectual structure. The title seems cut off, and because the indicators were not really described and there are no references to explain these terms and how they are used in comparison to other topics, it's a lot to take in.
Answer:
We adjusted the title of that subsection and included a table in the method section presenting the analyses performed.
Comment:
This paper has a lot of good information... but it's too much, and the story gets muddled. Might the authors prioritize and focus it more on key indicators that support their story? […] The discussion highlights policymaking, but the introduction did not. The purpose of this study isn't clearly stated, nor is how it directly connects to policy. These should be easy fixes for the authors if they can streamline their work. This reviewer's advice is to prioritize analysis and focus on the priority ones.
Answer:
We recognize that the manuscript is dense and presents a lot of information. To mitigate this, we adjusted section 3.5, converting the information on the main articles into a concise table. Additionally, we inserted two additional excerpts in the final paragraphs of the introduction, as well as another excerpt in the discussion, tracing is the evolution of EHL from a theoretical concept to an applied tool for environmental justice and public policy. We have also added a table in the methodology section describing the indicators to help readers find and focus on the indicators that are of most interest to them.
Comment:
The discussion has many sound conclusions, but doesn't necessarily use the data to reach them. Here, cross-cutting themes are mentioned.
Answer:
Regarding the cross-cutting themes, we have revised the Discussion section to directly reference the co-occurrence networks (Figure 18), the thematic map (Figure 19), and the dendrogram (Figure 21).
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article has a benefit to the environmental heath academic to develop other researches according to the environmental health literacy (EHL). However, some of area improvement should address to improve the quality of this article as list belows;
- Introduction: 1) Please explain the relative definition of environmental health including the meaning, the different term between the environmental health and the other field (i.e. public health, environmental science, environmental engineering). 2) Can you give some of the case study (geographical area) according to the problem of EHL deficiency ?
- Results: 1) In my opinion, the topic of 3.3 may has some of repetition. Please revise on this topic.
- Discussion: You should try to describe why some topic of environmental health is not provide on the study of EHL such as food sanitation and safety, water supply and management, environmental health impact assessment , rodent and vector control, and so on.
Author Response
Comment:
This article has a benefit to the environmental heath academic to develop other researches according to the environmental health literacy (EHL). However, some of area improvement should address to improve the quality of this article as list belows;
- Introduction: 1) Please explain the relative definition of environmental health including the meaning, the different term between the environmental health and the other field (i.e. public health, environmental science, environmental engineering). 2) Can you give some of the case study (geographical area) according to the problem of EHL deficiency ?
Answer:
We thank the reviewer for their comments. We understand the importance of defining the field of research. In this regard, we have added a functional definition of environmental health in the second and third paragraphs of the introduction.
Comment:
- Results: 1) In my opinion, the topic of 3.3 may has some of repetition. Please revise on this topic.
Answer:
We thank the reviewer for identifying this redundancy. To eliminate this redundancy, we excluded the repetitive information regarding the citation counts from the introductory paragraph on section 3.3.
Comment:
- Discussion: You should try to describe why some topic of environmental health is not provide on the study of EHL such as food sanitation and safety, water supply and management, environmental health impact assessment , rodent and vector control, and so on.
Answer:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. To address it, we have added a section to the discussion addressing the underrepresentation of these EH topics in the literature on EHL.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the revision is addressed in this version.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNice article! Below are my very minor comments.
Intro - might you include some literature on citizen science in this section? might the bibliometrix technique be explained as a method and why it was specifically used here?
Figure 1. Number of articles published per year - This label needs to be revised as the figure does NOT display per year articles - rather it is the flow diagram for the literature review. It replicates the Figure 2 label.
The word cloud is Figure 10 - in the text the word Figure was omitted and should be added.
3.7.2 Intelectual (spelled incorrectly)
Was there an analysis done by country / location of research? The discussion indicates that studies should be replicated in other countries but there doesn't seem to be an analysis by country.
The discussion brings up policy but has any of the articles or authors directly impacted public policy?
Example reference list from the template still remains in the article and should be removed.
Author Response
Firstly, we would like to thank the reviewer for his/her thoughtful comments. In response, we present point by point below how we address each of the comments.
Comment: Intro - might you include some literature on citizen science in this section?
Answer: To address this comment, we inserted the following paragraph into the introduction section:
There is an important interface between the literature on environmental health literacy and citizen science. Report-back practices and the active involvement of the community in the processes of diagnosing environmental health risks and mitigating problems tend to increase self-efficacy and adapt their health behaviors. Citizen science addresses issues of equity by giving a voice to disadvantaged communities \cite{Mansour2025, Villa2025, Stanifer2022, Sandhaus2018}. This is key to solving complex public problems. In fact, involving the community in the search for solutions and acting in cooperative networks tends to generate more effective and legitimate public policies \cite{Mayntz2001}.
Comment: might the bibliometrix technique be explained as a method and why it was specifically used here?
Answer: We inserted the following paragraph into the introduction section:
Bibliometric studies involve literature reviews conducted through quantitative analysis, based on the statistical measurement of scientific activity. While numerous software programs are available for such analyses, this study used the R statistical software and its packages bibliometrix, dplyr, tidyr and ggplot2. Bibliometrix package offers not only statistical tools but also a comprehensive workflow for scientific mapping \cite{aria2017a}.
Comment: Figure 1. Number of articles published per year - This label needs to be revised as the figure does NOT display per year articles - rather it is the flow diagram for the literature review. It replicates the Figure 2 label.
Answer: We corrected the label in Figure one to: “Flow diagram for the literature review”.
Comment: The word cloud is Figure 10 - in the text the word Figure was omitted and should be added.
Answer: We have added the word “Figure”, which was missing from the text, in subsection “3.5.1. Most relevant words”.
Comment: 3.7.2 Intelectual (spelled incorrectly)
Answer: We have corrected the spelling.
Comment: Was there an analysis done by country / location of research? The discussion indicates that studies should be replicated in other countries but there doesn't seem to be an analysis by country.
Answer: The subsection 3.4.1 brings the Scientific Production by Country. It shows that most of the literature is produced by researchers based on the USA.
Comment: The discussion brings up policy but has any of the articles or authors directly impacted public policy?
Answer: I appreciate the point raised by the reviewer. Indeed, the goal of EHL research is to change people's behavior, including self-care, by generating information and knowledge about environmental health risks. This is why report-back strategies and mechanisms for social participation are so important. In this sense, informing and designing public policies based on accurate diagnoses of people's and communities' health literacy is a logical consequence of the growth in EHL research. While detecting a direct impact of specific articles on public policy can be challenging in bibliometric studies, our review identified examples of articles that aim to inform public policy, such as Ohayon et al. (2017a) and Buta et al. 2025.
Comment: Example reference list from the template still remains in the article and should be removed.
Answer: It was removed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Please find my response in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment: 1.The article addresses a topic of significant relevance and interest. This is appropriately conveyed in the introduction, although the literature cited therein is relatively limited. However, this is justifiable, given that the primary objective of this bibliometric study is to identify and analyze the key focal points and the evolution of the subject matter.
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her careful reading and comments. This review undoubtedly enhances the quality of the work. We thank him/her for generously dedicating his/her time to the review, and for the opportunity to review the manuscript.
Comment: 2.The chapter on research findings reveals a general issue: the results are frequently mixed with interpretation. In my view, a clear separation between results and interpretations is necessary.
Answer: We thank he reviewer for his comment. We have reviewed the entire results section and have tried to remove from the text all passages that are merely the authors' interpretation.
Comment: 3.Figures 12 through 15 are all blurry and need to be replaced with higher-quality versions.
Answer: In fact, the figures were not very clear. As they are pictures with a lot of information, they end up being reduced to fit the space on the page, which impairs sharpness. In any case, we've drawn up new pictures taking care that they don't lose too much visual acuity.
Comment: 4.The numerous figures in the result section present individual results, but it remains unclear how these disparate findings from the various analyses are synthesized into a few coherent key statements. This synthesis of findings is currently missing, as is an explicit methodological approach outlining how such an integration of results was performed. While there are some repetitions in the interpretations of the individual analyses within the results section, it would be beneficial to have an overarching summary that consolidates these insights (in the discussion).
Comment: 5.The discussion section appears somewhat detached from the preceding results. It introduces broader themes-such as the issue of lack of funding (line 542)-that were not addressed in the analyses. Furthermore, the discussion is formulated at a very general level, without explicit reference to the individual analysis results or a clear demonstration of how these findings are integrated.
Comment: 6. My suggestion would be to extract the interpretations from the results section and instead incorporate them into the discussion, where they can be critically examined and reflected upon. I would recommend removing the current discussion section, as it does not effectively tie together the results.
Answer to comments 4 to 6: We revised the entire article, especially the results and discussion sections, in an attempt to take on board the reviewer's constructive comments. We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful analysis, the recommendations of which we believe we have complied with. It is also important to note that we have prepared a new database in view of comments 8 and 9, which, in any case, implied significant changes in the presentation of the results.
Comment: 7. Line 31: This approach - to what exactly does this refer? Is the approach referring to the promotion of environmental health literacy (EHL)? Or is it meant to indicate that EHL is a comprehensive concept that integrates various areas of competence? Please clarify.
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer for his careful proofreading. We have adjusted the text to: “The promotion of EHL has proven…”
Comment: 8. Line 54: It is stated here that only academic articles were included in the analysis. However, the following line mentions that conference papers and notes were also taken into account. This appears contradictory and should be clarified.
Comment: 9. From line 60 onward: Why were different types of publications considered depending on the database used? In other words: Why were the different document types not searched for in all databases?
Answer to comments 8 and 9: In order to avoid any problems related to the types of documents, as well as to update the database of this research with more recent articles, we carried out a new search. This time, we took care to include only articles and review articles. As a result, we had to adjust throughout the text, since the database now has 152 documents.
Now, the first paragraph of the subsection Data Sources and Extraction reads as follows:
“The data for this study was extracted from the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, with the aim of carrying out a bibliometric analysis on the subject of Environmental Health Literacy. The search query was "Environmental Health Literacy". The search was conducted on July 7, 2025. Only academic articles and reviews published in English were considered. Publications in other languages or that did not correspond to the specified types of documents were excluded. The specific searches used in each database are described below:”
Comment: 10. Line 86: Among the variables analyzed is "the production of the main authors over time". It remains unclear how the main authors are defined: does this refer to first authors, or to senior authors typically listed at the end of the author list? This should be specified.
Answer: We have changed the expression “main authors” to “most prolific authors”. In this way, we believe it is clear that we are looking at the most productive authors, regardless of the position of their names in the article's authorship.
Comment: 11. Line 97: The following statement is unclear: "The annual growth rate of publications... [has] an average age of 3.57 years per document." What exactly does this mean? Please explain more precisely.
Answer: We have added the following passage to the text: “The average age of 3.93 years per document indicates the average time elapsed since a document's publication date until the present.”
Comment: 12. Lines 100/101: Are the following pieces of information truly relevant to the scientific discourse? Namely, that the analyzed articles were authored by 607 individuals, how many documents had a single author, or the average number of co-authors. From my perspective, these details do not significantly advance the field of environmental health literacy.
Answer: We have taken this information from the text. We agree that more detailed and precise information is presented throughout the results.
Comment: 13. The chapter on research findings reveals a general issue: the results are frequently mixed with interpretation. For instance, in line 108, the low number of publications is interpreted as a lack of interest in the topic - this goes beyond presenting data. In line 113, assumptions are made about how the number of articles might develop in the second half of 2024. This is speculative and does not constitute a result. Similarly, in line 188, assumptions are made regarding a potential pause in an author's academic productivity as an explanation for the decline in their publication count. However, is purely speculative the author's research focus may simply have shifted. In general, results and interpretations should be clearly separated throughout the manuscript.
Answer: The following excerpts have been removed, keeping the text leaner and without going beyond the simple presentation of results: “suggesting that interest in the topic was still maturing or that research was in the early stages of development”; “which suggests that the number of articles may continue to grow until the end of the year, following the upward trend seen in recent years”; and “suggesting a possible reduction or pause in his academic production”.
Comment: 14. Figure 3: It is unclear for me how the value of "average annual citations per article" is calculated and how it is positioned on the time scale in Figure 3. In addition, the term "average annual citations" seems misleading to me, because one thinks that the number of citations was divided by the number of years (from publication date to 2024), but "average" probably refers to the number of articles published in the respective year. Furthermore, it should be explained, why the value for 2013 is missing (probably because no article on EHL was published that year.
Answer: We've adjusted the text and figure for clarity. Now, the text reads as follows: “The Figure 3 shows the evolution of average annual citations per article between 2012 and 2025. It was calculated for each year by summing the total citations of all articles published in that year, then divided by the number of articles published in the same year. It is possible to observe a significant peak in 2014, which is a year with few publications that have made a large impact, considerably raising the average…”
Comment: 15. Line 145 and following: If section 3.2 is intended to focus on the relevant journals in which environmental health literacy (EHL) research has been published, then the main thematic content areas (such as environmental justice, risk communication, etc.) are not the appropriate focus here. This paragraph appears to mix thematic content with journal relevance, leading to confusion between topics and publication venues.
Answer: We removed the following excerpt, keeping the text more cohesive and concise. “The significant increase in these publications over the years reflects the growing interest and relevance of EHL, with more journals focusing on crucial themes such as environmental justice, risk communication, and participatory research.”
Comment: 16. Figure 5: Some data points for the year 2024 appear to be missing, as only one journal is represented here out of five. (Unless the remaining articles published in 2024 were not distributed across the other four journals.)
Answer: We thank for the careful reading and inform you that we have adjusted Figure 5.
Comment: 17. Line 149: The table number should be added here for clarity.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for his/her attentive observation. We inserted a reference to Table 1 in the text.
Comment: 18. Line 155 and following: The index values mentioned here do not correspond to those in Table 1. For example, the H-index for the journal IJERPH is given as 9 in the text but appears as 3 in the table.
Answer: Thanks to the reviewer for noticing this error. In fact, the data in the table had been miscalculated. We have adjusted the data presented in the table, which now matches the text.
Comment: 19. Figure 6: A number at the right margin is not fully legible and should be made clearer.
Answer: We have adjusted Figure 6 so that it now fits perfectly on the page.
Comment: 20. Figure 7: It is unclear how the number of articles can take on fractional values (e.g., 1.5; 2.5) as shown in the legend. Additionally, the abbreviation "TC" is not explained and should be defined.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for his comments. We have adjusted the figure legends to make them clearer.
Comment: 21. Table 2: Why is the M-index presented with six decimal places? This level of precision seems unnecessary.
Answer: We rounded the index to three decimal places.
Comment: 22. Line 232: It is stated that articles are partially counted multiple times because they have multiple authors. Shouldn't it be clarified here that these authors are from different institutions or countries? In addition, multiple counting applies not only to section 3.4.1 / Table 3 but also to Figure 8.
Answer: We added the following excerpt for more clarification: “In other words, multiple counting occurs when there is co-authorship from multiple institutions or countries.”
Comment: 23. The section 3.5 on the most frequently cited articles, which are then described in terms of content, is truly interesting.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for his/her encouraging comment.
Comment: 24. Line 315: The word Figure is missing here - it should read "Figure 10."
Answer: We have added the word “Figure”, which was missing from the text.
Comment: 25. Lines 322/323: It is unclear how the statement (I am referring to the underlined part) "that the interaction between public health and the environment have been widely investigated, especially in relation to education populations about environmental risks and empowering communities to make more informed decisions."- can be derived from the word cloud. Please clarify the basis for this interpretation.
Comment: 26. Line 325: Relevant, but less frequent terms are identified as "growth areas". What is the rationale for saying these terms present really areas of development. Isn't it merely an assumption which needs supporting evidence?
Answer to comments 25 and 26: In fact, these excerpts were not well placed. We have therefore removed them from the text.
Comment: 27. Figure 11: This figure is not referenced in the main text, although it likely belongs to section 3.5.2 a corresponding note should be added. The legend includes decimal values such as 2.5 and 7.5, but a topic cannot be mentioned, for example, 2.5 times in a journal. Therefore, the numbers should be whole (natural) numbers, not decimals. Alternatively, using a range might be more appropriate.
Answer: We have referenced the figure in the text and adjusted the legend. Regarding the point in the text where the figure is located, we understand that this is a question that can be resolved during the text layout process.
Comment: 28. Furthermore, it is unclear why Air-Pollution and Air Pollution are listed as separate topics - they are semantically identical. It would also be helpful to organize the topics thematically for instance, by grouping country names together. Another option would be to use color coding to distinguish between different thematic categories (i.e., the labels and their associated circles).
Answer: We have adjusted figure 11, as well as all the other figures in the text. Regarding the order of appearance of the topics, we tried to adjust it to demonstrate temporality.
Comment: 29. Line 372: The connection between obesity prevention or the promotion of physical activity, and environmental factors such as pollutants and chemicals is unclear to me. Obesity is primarily caused by lifestyle-related factors for example, excessive caloric intake and insufficient energy expenditure due to sedentary behavior at work and during leisure time (e.g., screen time), as well as modes of transportation. These are environmental influences of a technical and social nature, rather than issues of environmental pollution. - The references cited in line 375 do not, in my view, provide sufficient evidence that pollutants are a major driver of rising obesity rates. A more plausible explanation might be that high levels of air pollution or extreme heat in urban areas discourage outdoor physical activity. Overall, this explanation should be reconsidered.
Answer: In view of the changes to the databases and alterations to some figures, this excerpt has been removed from the text as it has lost its purpose.
Comment: 30. Lines 417/418: The terms "attitudes" and "behavior" do not appear to be particularly prominent in the blue cluster of Figure 13. So why are these terms particularly emphasized? Gender-related terms seem to have at least equal significance.
Comment: 31. Line 420: It is unclear to me how Bloom's Taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation) is linked to health literacy and how this relates to the interaction between humans and the environment. Please clarify this connection.
Answer to comments 30 and 31: This excerpt was removed from the text during the process of revising the presentation of the results.
Comment: 32. Line 408: I would appreciate an explanation as to why the connection between different concepts/terms is interpreted as indicating areas of future research. Wouldn't these rather represent areas of existing research?
Answer: This excerpt was removed from the text during the process of revising the presentation of the results.
Comment: 33. Line 447: Is it correct that there is no figure corresponding to the topic dendrogram?
Answer: We have added the Figure 15: Dendrogram of Keyword Co-occurrence based on the 30 most frequent words.
Comment: 34. Figures 13 and 14: These figures include the term "article," which, in my view, is irrelevant for the content analysis. Would it be possible to exclude such generic terms from the analysis?
Answer: Words like article and humans are common when using “keywords plus” for analysis. These keywords are automatically assigned to the documents metadata by the journals. When drawing up the new graphs, we used the keywords indicated by the authors, which solves this problem.
Comment: 35. Line 484 and following as well as line 490 and following: It is unclear how concrete research content can be derived from the co-citation network (Figure 15), since the network only shows first authors and their respective publications. How was the interpretation of these network relationships carried out? Was there a separate output from R or another method used to support this interpretation?
Answer: This is an analysis by the authors, carried out by reading the main articles on each network.
Comment: 36. A reference to Figure 16 should also be included in the text.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for his/her attentive observation. We inserted a reference to Figure 16 in the text.
Comment: 37. The organizational details at the end of the manuscript (authors, contributions, etc.) require careful review, as the generic template information has not yet been removed. Additionally, the funding section contains an abbreviation of a name that does not appear among the listed authors: W. S.C S. M.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for his/her comment. The abbreviation of the name has been modified, and the other details have been carefully revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well written paper. I would only advise the authors to consider presenting Figure 3 and Figure 5 as bar graph if possible. The line graph shows a good trend but may not be appropriate. Also some Figures have faint and small font, if possible, make them readable.
Author Response
Comment: This is a well written paper. I would only advise the authors to consider presenting Figure 3 and Figure 5 as bar graph if possible. The line graph shows a good trend but may not be appropriate. Also some Figures have faint and small font, if possible, make them readable.
Answer: While we thank the reviewer for his constructive comment, we would like to inform you that we have adjusted all the figures in the text, which are now clearer and more legible.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the article very thoroughly. However, it would have been desirable for these changes to be visually highlighted in the manuscript as well. Despite the extensive revisions, here are a few comments:
Line 68: The date of the new literature search is after the article's first submission. That seems somewhat inappropriate. Perhaps the dates of the literature searches—both the original and the update July this year—should be indicated.
Lines 134–137: This aspect belongs less in the results section and would be more appropriate in the discussion.
Line 156: Figure 5 is not mentioned in the text (and should be added).
Lines 166–168: This seems to be a repetition of what is already stated above (line 162 and following).
Lines 189 and 192: The authors Hoover and Grinstein are mentioned in the text, but they do not appear in Figure 7. This discrepancy needs to be clarified.
Line 191: This is an interpretation (and no result). – In some parts of the article, the authors explained the evaluation method and its significance at the beginning of a subsection. Perhaps that could also be done here.
Line 205: Instead of The following table it would be better to specifically write Table 2.
Line 228: Figure 8 is not mentioned in the text. It could, for example, be referenced in line 220 after affiliations and again at the end of the sentence in line 225.
Line 235: The multiple counts, in my view, only refer to cases where authors come from different countries, since Table 3 does not address different institutions. The note on double-counting regarding affiliations with different institutions belongs in the previous section, i.e., with Figure 8.
Table 3: Please write USA in uppercase letters.
Line 339: It says that terms related to climate change are missing in Figure 10. However, the term climate change is included (though not prominently). In addition, the sentence seems incomplete.
Lines 345 and 347: The term air pollution appears in two lists—once as a topic consistently addressed over the years, and once as a relatively new topic. Please correct this inconsistency.
Figure 11: The size of the dots is difficult to interpret based on the frequency scale on the right side. Could this perhaps be optimized?
Figure 13: One dot lacks a label (on the connecting line between environmental health literacy and risk communication). Also, the labels of the two red dots—behavior and health communication—overlap. This could perhaps be adjusted for clarity.
Figure 16: There are ten dots without author names. The figure legend should explain why these names are missing.
Figure 17: Here as well, many dots are missing author names. A justification should also be added to the legend.
Discussion: I have a general comment here, which I consider important. In my opinion, a stronger link should be established between the discussion and the results section. This could be done by adding references in parentheses in the various paragraphs indicating the figure or subsection (of the result section) being discussed. – This would also help highlight where community participation plays a role in the results, as this aspect is very prominent in the discussion.
Author Response
Comment: The authors revised the article very thoroughly. However, it would have been desirable for these changes to be visually highlighted in the manuscript as well. Despite the extensive revisions, here are a few comments:
Answer: We would like to thank the reviewer for another round of careful reading and recommendations for improving the text. We have been using Overleaf for text editing and unfortunately we don't know how to mark changes to the text in this tool. We apologize for this problem and have tried to be as clear as possible in describing the changes we have made to overcome this problem.
Comment: Line 68: The date of the new literature search is after the article's first submission. That seems somewhat inappropriate. Perhaps the dates of the literature searches—both the original and the update July this year—should be indicated.
Answer: We appreciate the reviewer's pertinent observation. To address it, we have adjusted the text to read as follows: “The search was originally conducted on June 3, 2024, and updated on July 7, 2025.”
Comment: Lines 134–137: This aspect belongs less in the results section and would be more appropriate in the discussion.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have moved this excerpt to the discussion section.
Comment: Line 156: Figure 5 is not mentioned in the text (and should be added).
Answer: We have added a reference to Figure 5 in the text. We thank the reviewer for their careful observation.
Comment: Lines 166–168: This seems to be a repetition of what is already stated above (line 162 and following).
Answer: We deleted the following excerpt to make the text more concise: “These results indicate that the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is the main source of impact in the area, followed by other journals that also have significant relevance.”
Comment: Lines 189 and 192: The authors Hoover and Grinstein are mentioned in the text, but they do not appear in Figure 7. This discrepancy needs to be clarified.
Answer: Once again, we thank the reviewer for their careful observation. We have adjusted the text to match the figure.
Comment: Line 191: This is an interpretation (and no result). – In some parts of the article, the authors explained the evaluation method and its significance at the beginning of a subsection. Perhaps that could also be done here.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for their insightful comment. We have adjusted the text of the paragraph to restrict it to the presentation of the results, as well as providing a concise explanation of what it is about.
Comment: Line 205: Instead of The following table it would be better to specifically write Table 2.
Answer: We have adjusted the text to specify which table it refers to. We made further adjustments n this paragraph to bring the data presented in the text into line with that in the table.
Comment: Line 228: Figure 8 is not mentioned in the text. It could, for example, be referenced in line 220 after affiliations and again at the end of the sentence in line 225.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for their comment and inform that we have mentioned figure 8 at the points indicated.
Comment: Line 235: The multiple counts, in my view, only refer to cases where authors come from different countries, since Table 3 does not address different institutions. The note on double-counting regarding affiliations with different institutions belongs in the previous section, i.e., with Figure 8.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have adjusted the text to clarify it.
Comment: Table 3: Please write USA in uppercase letters.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for the observation. We have adjusted the country abbreviation.
Comment: Line 339: It says that terms related to climate change are missing in Figure 10. However, the term climate change is included (though not prominently). In addition, the sentence seems incomplete.
Answer: In fact, the term appears in the analyses in a non-prominent way due to the new database. We have adjusted the text to reflect this.
Comment: Lines 345 and 347: The term air pollution appears in two lists—once as a topic consistently addressed over the years, and once as a relatively new topic. Please correct this inconsistency.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for the observation. We have adjusted the corrected the inconsistency.
Comment: Figure 11: The size of the dots is difficult to interpret based on the frequency scale on the right side. Could this perhaps be optimized?
Comment: Figure 13: One dot lacks a label (on the connecting line between environmental health literacy and risk communication). Also, the labels of the two red dots—behavior and health communication—overlap. This could perhaps be adjusted for clarity.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for their accurate observation. We have adjusted the Figure 13 so that it won’t present overlapping or lack labels.
Comment: Figure 16: There are ten dots without author names. The figure legend should explain why these names are missing.
Answer: We replaced the node shapes, which were previously dots, with text labels, so that now no nodes appear without a label.
Comment: Figure 17: Here as well, many dots are missing author names. A justification should also be added to the legend.
Answer: We have reduced the number of nodes in the network, thus reducing the density of the graph. The smaller amount of information makes it easier to visualize.
Comment: Discussion: I have a general comment here, which I consider important. In my opinion, a stronger link should be stablished between the discussion and the results section. This could be done by adding references in parentheses in the various paragraphs indicating the figure or subsection (of the result section) being discussed. – This would also help highlight where community participation plays a role in the results, as this aspect is very prominent in the discussion.
Answer: Thanks again to the reviewer for his pertinent comment. We have adjusted the text to ensure a clear link between the results and the discussion.
