Bibliometric Analysis of Highly Cited Publications on Mangrove Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I congratulate you on your study. Below, I outline several points that I believe will help further improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I wish you success in your work.

Lines 79–89. You clearly state the objectives of the study. However, the final sentence requires further clarification: “This focused approach aims to create a clear, high-impact roadmap of the field, clarifying its core paradigms and guiding future research priorities.” In this part, it is expected that you explicitly address how the study has the potential to generate impact at both local and regional levels, and how specific institutions or countries could benefit from your findings.

In Figure 4, the citation numbers inside the circles are not clearly legible. I recommend increasing the scale to improve readability.

In Figure 5, there appears to be a resolution-related issue. Please provide the figure at an appropriate resolution and enhance its overall readability.

Lines 272–280. Although Figure 6 is briefly described, the explanation remains insufficient for the reader. You should elaborate in more detail on the four clusters represented by red, blue, green, and yellow, and clearly explain how the keyword “Mangrove” relates to these clusters within the context of your results.

For Figure 7, please improve the visual quality to make it more legible.

In Figure 8, I recommend increasing the font size to enhance clarity.

Line 413. Considering the comprehensive and in-depth nature of this study, the conclusion section appears somewhat superficial. I suggest strengthening this section by more explicitly integrating the key findings and discussing their implications for policy and practice.

Author Response

First, I would like to thank you for reviewing our paper and for your valuable comments

 

Comment 01

Lines 79–89. You clearly state the objectives of the study. However, the final sentence requires further clarification: “This focused approach aims to create a clear, high-impact roadmap of the field, clarifying its core paradigms and guiding future research priorities.” In this part, it is expected that you explicitly address how the study has the potential to generate impact at both local and regional levels, and how specific institutions or countries could benefit from your findings.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update page 2, lines 88-90.

Comment 02

In Figure 4, the citation numbers inside the circles are not clearly legible. I recommend increasing the scale to improve readability.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update of Figure 4, page 7, lines 214-215. (This was generated by the biblioshiny software and has been improved to the highest possible level.)

Comment 03

In Figure 5, there appears to be a resolution-related issue. Please provide the figure at an appropriate resolution and enhance its overall readability.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept this modification for improved clarity and readability. Figure 5, page 8, lines 244-245 (This is generated by the biblioshiny software and optimized to the best possible level).

 

 

 

Comment 04

Lines 272–280. Although Figure 6 is briefly described, the explanation remains insufficient for the reader. You should elaborate in more detail on the four clusters represented by red, blue, green, and yellow, and clearly explain how the keyword “Mangrove” relates to these clusters within the context of your results.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification on pages 9-10, and lines 279-298

Comment 05

For Figure 7, please improve the visual quality to make it more legible.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please approve the modification and update of Figure 7, page 10, lines 304-305. (This is generated by the biblioshiny software and has been improved to the best possible quality.)

Comment 06

In Figure 8, I recommend increasing the font size to enhance clarity.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification to Figure 8, page 11 (generated by VOSviewer and optimized to the highest level).

Comment 07

Line 413. Considering the comprehensive and in-depth nature of this study, the conclusion section appears somewhat superficial. I suggest strengthening this section by more explicitly integrating the key findings and discussing their implications for policy and practice.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification on page 15, lines 431-451

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The research article appears to be scientifically sound. Several points require clarification to enhance the overall understanding of the study. The following suggestions are provided to improve the manuscript:

1. In the abstract, clearly state the relationship between your study and mangrove sustainability.
2. At line 57, provide the full names of MDGs and SDGs upon first use in the manuscript. Subsequently, abbreviate Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals from the second mention onward, as in line 60. Review the manuscript for consistency.
3. At line 96, provide the full name of WoS upon first use in the manuscript. Subsequently, abbreviate Web of Science from the second mention onward, as in line 97. Review the manuscript for consistency.
4. For lines 180-181, provide a reason, analysis, or interpretation for the observed decline in publication after 2022.
5. For Figures 4, 5, 7, and 9, increase the font intensity on the left-hand side of the figures.
6. At line 272, change 'Figure 06' to 'Figure 6.'
7. For Figure 11, provide the area of mangrove that supports the conclusions presented in lines 421-424.

Author Response

First, I would like to thank you for reviewing our paper and for your valuable comments

 

Comment 01

1. In the abstract, clearly state the relationship between your study and mangrove sustainability.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update page 1, lines 27-29.

“This study reveals key research imbalances and concludes that achieving mangrove sustainability requires robust South-South collaboration and autonomous research capacity in climate-vulnerable regions.”

 

Comment 02

1. At line 57, provide the full names of MDGs and SDGs upon first use in the manuscript. Subsequently, abbreviate Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals from the second mention onward, as in line 60. Review the manuscript for consistency.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update page 2, lines 57-61.

 

The sustainability concept, advanced by the Brundtland report and later frameworks such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), is a cornerstone of public policy [10], [15], [37], [38]. In this context, mangrove ecosystems are a critical natural resource, and their unsustainable degradation has become a significant focus of scientific research [15], [39]. Conservation of mangroves is directly aligned with global frameworks, specifically the UN SDGs for climate action (SDG 13), life below water (SDG 14), and life on land (SDG 15)[37], [38].

 

Comment 03

1. At line 96, provide the full name of WoS upon first use in the manuscript—subsequently, abbreviate Web of Science from the second mention onward, as in line 97. Review the manuscript for consistency.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update page 3, lines97-98, and lines 114, 139, 140, 217, and 463.

 

Comment 04

1. For lines 180-181, provide a reason, analysis, or interpretation for the observed decline in publication after 2022.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update page 5-6, lines 181-186

 

Although a decline was observed after 2022, it is not a true drop in scholarly output but rather a data artifact. Bibliometric databases like WoS and Scopus exhibit a significant lag in indexing, processing, and assigning publications to annual volumes, meaning that publications from May 2023 to 2025 are not yet fully reflected in the data. However, the overall volume remains high for the study period.

 

Comment 05

1. For Figures 4, 5, 7, and 9, increase the font intensity on the left-hand side of the figures.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modifications and update pages 7, 8, 10, and 12, as well as Figures 4, 5, 7, and 9. (The biblioshiny software generates these and has been improved to the highest possible standard.)

 

Comment 05

1. At line 272, change 'Figure 06' to 'Figure 6.'

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update page 9, line 279

 

Comment 06

1. For Figure 11, provide the area of mangrove that supports the conclusions presented in lines 421-424.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modification and update page 15, lines 438-443

 

However, a stark geographical imbalance persists, although mangroves are predominantly located in the global South (Southeast Asia, Latin and South America, and Africa), research leadership remains concentrated in the North (the USA, Australia, and Europe). At the same time, China acts as a key hybrid collaborator, bringing regions into the dominant hub-and-spoke model, which risks deepening dependencies rather than fostering autonomy.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript with the title “Bibliometric analysis of highly cited publications on mangrove sustainability” is a review of the publications on mangrove sustainability. The topic is relevant in the area of agroforestry and of the systems' perpetuity and sustainability, in particular of the mangrove systems. The manuscript is well structured and well written. The materials, methods, and results are suited to the analysis, and the conclusions are consistent with the objectives and results of the study. Yet, there are some minor issues that should be addressed (see comments). Hence, minor changes are recommended.

 

Comments

1) The quality of the figures should be improved.

2) Figures 4, 7 – text is too small. The numbers in the circles are difficult to read.

3) Figure 5 – legend should be larger to enable an easy reading.

4) Lines 320-327 – please check English.

Author Response

First, I would like to thank you for reviewing our paper and for your valuable comments.

Comment 01

• The quality of the figures should be improved.

Answer

Thank you for your comment. Some figures have been enlarged for clarity and resolution. The other figures, shown at their highest export quality, are automatically generated by VOSviewer and Biblioshiny.

Comment 02

• Figures 4, 7 – text is too small. The numbers in the circles are difficult to read.

Answer

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modifications and update pages 7 and 10, as well as Figures 4 and 7. (This is generated by the biblioshiny software and has been improved to the highest possible standard.)

Comment 03

• Figure 5 – legend should be larger to enable easy reading.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. The legend in the revised figure has been enlarged for improved clarity.

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Please accept the modifications and update page 8, Figure 5. (This was generated by the biblioshiny software and has been improved to the highest possible standard.)

 

 

Comment 04

• Lines 320-327: please check the English.

Answer: Thank you for your comment; I corrected the English and improved the flow. Page 12 lines 335-344

 

The geographical distribution of publications reveals the global origins of mangrove sustainability research, highlighting significant disparities in scholarly output across countries. Mangroves are globally distributed across tropical and subtropical coastlines [5], [15], [92]. Thus, most of the publications on mangrove studies are not recorded in that zone. Figure 9 illustrates the top 10 single- and multi-country publications by corresponding authors on mangrove sustainability research in the WoS and Scopus databases. As a country, the USA has the highest number of publishers, with approximately 135. However, China leads with over 428 publications on signal and multiple-country collaboration publishers. Australia ranks third in publications on mangrove sustainability, with 302 contributions, both independently and through intranational collaboration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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 Authors

Dear Authors,

Your research article appears to be scientifically sound. Below are my suggestions for improving your manuscript:

 

Major issues

1. Please clearly highlight the benefits of this study and mention them in the abstract section.
2. I have a significant concern about the study's emphasis on the research's core substance, particularly compared to other AI programs. Please clarify this point in your manuscript.
3. In the Introduction section, line 102, please explain why the authors ended the data collection period in 2023. Is there a reason to exclude the year 2024?
4. In the Materials and Methods section, lines 122-123, please explain why the authors did not include the Scopus and Google Scholar databases. I believe they should be part of the study.

 

Minor issues

1. In the abstract section, please add the term “SDGs” as a keyword.
2. In the Introduction section, line 35, correct the word “cthe.”
3. Ensure that recurring terms are correctly abbreviated upon their second mention (e.g., SDGs, WoSCC). Their full names are not necessary again.
4. In Figure 8, please correct the misspellings "hevey" and "salanity."

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the study titled "Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on mangrove sustainability." The authors can access my recommendations below.

• The authors titled the study "Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on mangrove sustainability." However, the study used 433 highly cited articles from the Web of Science. Other databases were not examined. The title could be updated to "Bibliometric analysis of highly cited Web of Science articles on mangrove and sustainability."
• Page 2, Line 48 - "IT is exacerbated ...." The 'T' should be written in lowercase.
• Page 2 Lines 87-89 "Bibliometric analysis, widely recognized as a cross-disciplinary research technique that relies on quantitatively and qualitatively mapping research landscapes to understand a field's evolution and accelerate knowledge production [38],[38], [56], [57], [58], ....". The citation number 38 is used twice in this instance. I think it's a typo. It should be revised.
• Page 3, Lines 109-111 - "Mining bibliometric data:

1. a) Define the execution search criteria: search terms "Mangrove" or "Mangroves" and "Sustainability" in the "Title" field,...". From what I understand, articles that mention "mangrove" or "mangroves" in their titles but not "sustainability" were excluded from the review despite having studies on sustainability in mangroves. This may indicate an incomplete literature review. Also, why was only the title examined? The abstract should also have been included in the literature review.

• Another point that caught my attention in the selection criteria is the preference for articles with over 100 citations. As stated in the title, the authors preferred to examine highly cited articles. However, there is an important issue here. Citations are directly related to the date of publication. Since this study spans the years 1994-2023, articles published in 1994 are more likely to reach 100 citations or more than articles published in 2023. Could a normalization based on years be implemented to address this issue?
• Page 3, Lines 112 and 113 - While some numbers in the manuscript use thousands separators, these are not used in the numbers given in the example (e.g., 14056, 9237). For consistency, each number given in the manuscript should be examined, and attention should be paid to the thousands separators.
• Figure 2 presents a summary of the literature review, based on the criteria established by the authors. However, the color choices and font sizes in the figure are challenging to read, with some key areas having small font sizes, while the headings have relatively large font sizes. I suggest that the authors enhance the figure.
• The JIF and JR values ​​given in Table 2 should be based on the publication date of the study. The 2023 figures may be misleading. For example, the journal Aquatic Botany was in the Q3 category instead of Q2 in 2008. https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr-jp/journal-profile?journal=AQUAT%20BOT&year=2024&fromPage=%2Fjcr%2Fhome
• Page 6 Line 192 – JFI seems to be a typo. It should be JIF.
• Figure 6's caption says "Co-authorship network of the top universities and institutions related to 307 ecosystem services research in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC)..." but it's incorrectly listed as "ecosystem services research." However, the study is based on mangrove sustainability. This appears to be a caption error and should be corrected.
• The legend in Figure 9 contains misspellings. It should be "Salinity" instead of "Salanity," and "Heavy Metals" instead of "Hevey Metels." Additionally, "blue carbon" is a term that should be written as I gave.
• The References section is missing journal titles for many publications. There are formatting errors. All of them need to be reviewed again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the opportunity to thoroughly review the study titled “Bibliometric analysis of highly cited articles on mangrove sustainability.” The paper, produced using a systematic approach that examines scientific publications on mangroves both quantitatively and qualitatively, reveals the structure, development, and impact of this field. Citation counts, author collaborations, keywords, journals, and institutions were analyzed. Within this scope, the study identified which topics in mangrove research are prominent and how they have evolved over time, determined leading authors, institutions, and journals, assessed the impact of articles and research areas based on citation counts, and analyzed collaborations among institutions and countries. Therefore, it can be understood that this is a comprehensive bibliometric study. However, the section on identifying gaps in the mangrove-related literature and highlighting potential research opportunities remains underdeveloped. This part is particularly important and should be discussed in detail.

In addition, I would like to suggest several recommendations to improve the study:

• In the Abstract, briefly describe the study methodology and also emphasize the innovation of the research.
• Line 47: “Despite their ecological and economic importance, global mangrove cover has declined by approximately 35% over the past few decades.” This is a highly important statement; therefore, a more precise time range should be provided (e.g., 1990–2020).
• Lines 72–75 and line 77: The sentence “as no previous studies have been conducted before” is contradictory. The distinguishing feature of your study compared to similar studies in the literature should be clearly highlighted. Additionally, it should explicitly state how your study addresses a gap in the literature and how researchers can benefit from this information.
• Lines 386–387: “….while mangrove-rich nations in Africa and South America show disproportionately low publication volumes, indicating a significant research capacity gap.” Is it sufficient to explain this situation solely as “indicating a significant research capacity gap”? Various factors such as the economic conditions of countries, journal publication fees, and researcher collaborations may influence this situation. A broader perspective should be considered.
• Line 430: The heading “Patents” is unnecessary and should be removed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you very much for your research and the findings on current research in mangrove forests. This research is relevant to recent work on mangrove forests and their sustainability.

The methods would need substantial revision to make them replicable. However, the weakest part is the results section, where the authors simply count and list information that is unfortunately neither novel nor scientifically meaningful. In some cases, such as co-occurrence of author keywords like “mangrove” being the largest, there is no need to report or present this as Figure 5.

We regret to suggest that the authors carefully reassess the aim and find a better way to present the results, and more carefully describe the methods. We recommend rejecting the paper due to its low quality and lack of novelty. You will find details comments attached here!

Best regards,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would recommend to check the argument carefully. There are quite some part jump back and ford and redundant information happen quite often.