Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Technological advances to reduce Apis mellifera bee mortality: a bibliometric analysis

 

This study considers the number of patents and scientific manuscripts relating to technologies for improving A. mellifera colony losses. A major problem for me is that papers included in the literature review are not necessarily related to technologies. In fact, it seems that the purpose of the analysis of the scientific literature is to demonstrate the importance of colony losses. While this is relevant, it is not what the authors say they are doing. There needs to be greater clarity and accuracy of aims and results.

 

The paper can be considerably reduced in length. A careful proof reading is required. Species names should be italicized. Sometimes the resolution of the figures is poor

 

Line 29: please replace ‘cultures’ with a more accurate word such as ‘plants’

Line 30: remove ‘renda’

Line 37: remove ‘its’

Line 37-42: it’s unclear if this paragraph relates to all bees or just honey bees. Following on from this, the following paragraphs do not specific that the subject is Apis mellifera. The topic needs to be clear. I am unsure that lines 42-66 add much to the manuscript, and suggest that lines 37-42 are sufficient for demonstrating this point.

Line 44 and 61: please change ‘swarm’ to ‘colony’

Line 57-60: I think the main pathogens related to Apis mellifera decline will vary from region to region

Line 77-91: I find this irrelevant

Line 143: ‘funders are discussed’

Line 182-184: please remove

Line 191: please provide proof that R&D budgets have increased and some specificity e.g. do you mean research in general, research on bees, worldwide or in a specific country?

Line 196: please remove this sentence, cumulative will always result in an upward trend

Line 206: ‘referred’ is the incorrect word. I suggest ‘inferred’ or ‘calculated’

Figure 4: ‘Guangdong’ not ‘Guangdng’

Line 204-205 209-210: please remove ‘(level of significance)’. Also I think it is sufficient to say that p < 0.001

Line 224: please remove ‘being this is’

Line 227-228: please justify this statement

Line 233-234: given that the search terms included A. mellifera it is unclear how the diversity of species in China would contribute to patents involving A. mellifera

Figure 5: I suggest uniting the categories into a single circle

Line 281-283: this does not really match with the legend to figure 7. Is it the number of papers on mortality, or the number of papers that examine technologies for reducing mortality?

Line 290: this is likely in part due to only literature in the English language being considered

Figure 8 and 9: again I’d like to clarify if these research papers are about A. mellifera deaths or about technology? For example, “Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema” does not discuss any technologies. Rather, it investigates the effect of pesticides on bee health; no solutions in the form of technology are proposed. I’m not sure that these analyses of authors/institutions add anything to the manuscript (lines 280-346) and in any case the topic needs better definition of the content of the articles as currently it is inaccurate. Questions also remain about whether articles on bees other than A. mellifera have been included in the analysis.

Line 336: Please rephrase the sentence such that it does not start with ‘Were found’ which is poor grammar

Figure 10: is this a repeat of previous figures or could it be combined with other figures?

Line 357: please add information on what correlation you are referring. It is possible that the table will not be published directly preceding this statement and the reader needs to be able to find the information. In saying that, all the information in the text is also provided in table 2, which makes the table unnecessary

Line 357: ‘significant, positive, and strong correlation’

Line 359-361: please remove, readers don’t need this explained to them

Line 358: please use 0.7865 or 78.65%, not both

Line 369-370: This would only be true if the articles included something that could be patented. I believe that a large proportion of the articles do not come under this category - they document the effect of various stressors on bees, not solutions to these effects

Author Response

Reviewer 1:  This study considers the number of patents and scientific manuscripts relating to technologies for improving A. mellifera colony losses. A major problem for me is that papers included in the literature review are not necessarily related to technologies. In fact, it seems that the purpose of the analysis of the scientific literature is to demonstrate the importance of colony losses. While this is relevant, it is not what the authors say they are doing. There needs to be greater clarity and accuracy of aims and results.

Answer: The objective of the study and the results  were readjusted in order to clarify this for the reader. Actually, the data (bibliometric data of published papers)  represent discussions about the mortality of A. mellifera and not solutions or technologies to reduce mortality.

Reviewer 1: The paper can be considerably reduced in length. A careful proof reading is required. Species names should be italicized. Sometimes the resolution of the figures is poor.

Answer: There was a 1950 word reduction in the article. The species name was also adjusted. The resolution of the figures has been improved (Figures 3 and 6 have been improved).

Reviewer: Line 29: please replace ‘cultures’ with a more accurate word such as ‘plants’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 30: remove ‘renda’

Answer:  Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 37: remove ‘its’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 37-42: it’s unclear if this paragraph relates to all bees or just honey bees. Following on from this, the following paragraphs do not specific that the subject is Apis mellifera. The topic needs to be clear. I am unsure that lines 42-66 add much to the manuscript, and suggest that lines 37-42 are sufficient for demonstrating this point.

Answer: Added an excerpt in the text talking about Apis mellifera and justifying why this bee was chosen to carry out this study. The passage between lines 42-66 was excluded from the manuscript.

Reviewer: Line 44 and 61: please change ‘swarm’ to ‘colony’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 57-60: I think the main pathogens related to Apis mellifera decline will vary from region to region.

Answer: This excerpt from the manuscript, between lines 42-66, was excluded, as indicated by the reviewer.

Reviewer: Line 77-91: I find this irrelevant

Answer: Removed as requested.

Reviewer: Line 143: ‘funders are discussed’

Answer: Adjusted as requested!

Reviewer:  Line 182-184: please remove

Answer: Removed as requested.

Reviewer: Line 191: please provide proof that R&D budgets have increased and some specificity e.g. do you mean research in general, research on bees, worldwide or in a specific country?

Answer: Some possible explanations for the increase in the number of patents were put in the article. For China and the United States.

Reviewer: Line 196: please remove this sentence, cumulative will always result in an upward trend

Answer: This sentence was removed, as requested.

Reviewer: Line 206: ‘referred’ is the incorrect word. I suggest ‘inferred’ or ‘calculated’

Answer:  It was replaced by the word “inferred”.

Reviewer: Figure 4: ‘Guangdong’ not ‘Guangdng’

Answer: Adjusted as requested.

Reviewer: Line 204-205 209-210: please remove ‘(level of significance)’. Also I think it is sufficient to say that p < 0.001

Answer: The sentence “level of significance” was removed as requested.

Reviewer: Line 224: please remove ‘being this is’

Answer: The sentence “being this is”, was removed as requested.

Reviewer: Line 227-228: please justify this statement

Answer: A justification was presented.

Reviewer: Line 233-234: given that the search terms included A. mellifera it is unclear how the diversity of species in China would contribute to patents involving A. mellifera

Answer: The patents were all analyzed manually, so the patent data represents solutions to the mortality of Apis mellifera. However, some patents may also represent solutions for the mortality of Apis cerana, for example, as they represented solutions or practices for more than one genus of bees.

Reviewer: Figure 5: I suggest uniting the categories into a single circle.

Answer: The categories in the figure have been joined into a single circle.

Reviewer: Line 281-283: this does not really match with the legend to figure 7. Is it the number of papers on mortality, or the number of papers that examine technologies for reducing mortality?

Answer: The text was rewritten, in order to adapt to what is presented in the figure. This is the number of articles that examine technologies to reduce bee mortality.

Reviewer: Line 290: this is likely in part due to only literature in the English language being considered

Answer: Added a sentence explaining this fact: "This could probably be in part due to the fact that only English language literature is considered in this survey."                                                  

Reviewer: Figure 8 and 9: again I’d like to clarify if these research papers are about A. mellifera deaths or about technology? For example, “Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema” does not discuss any technologies. Rather, it investigates the effect of pesticides on bee health; no solutions in the form of technology are proposed. I’m not sure that these analyses of authors/institutions add anything to the manuscript (lines 280-346) and in any case the topic needs better definition of the content of the articles as currently it is inaccurate. Questions also remain about whether articles on bees other than A. mellifera have been included in the analysis.

Answer: The objective and results  of the article have been readjusted to make this clearer for the reader. Showing that the article data represent discussions about bee mortality and not technologies for mortality reduction. The articles refer only to the mortality of Apis mellifera, other genera of bees are not part of the data and analysis.

Reviewer: Line 336: Please rephrase the sentence such that it does not start with ‘Were found’ which is poor grammar

Answer: The sentence was rewritten.

Reviewer: Figure 10: is this a repeat of previous figures or could it be combined with other figures?

Answer: This figure has been removed from the article and replaced with figure 2.

Reviewer: Line 357: please add information on what correlation you are referring. It is possible that the table will not be published directly preceding this statement and the reader needs to be able to find the information. In saying that, all the information in the text is also provided in table 2, which makes the table unnecessary.

Answer:  The information that was in the text has been removed. Leaving the data only in table 2.

Reviewer: Line 357: ‘significant, positive, and strong correlation’

Answer: This suggestion was added to the sentence.         

Reviewer: Line 359-361: please remove, readers don’t need this explained to them

Answer: This sentence was removed from the article.

Reviewer: Line 358: please use 0.7865 or 78.65%, not both

Answer:  Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 369-370: This would only be true if the articles included something that could be patented. I believe that a large proportion of the articles do not come under this category - they document the effect of various stressors on bees, not solutions to these effects

Answer:  This sentence was removed from the article!

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer's opinion about MS entitled “Technological advances to reduce Apis Mellifera Bee Mortality: a bibliometric analysis”.

General comments:

This manuscript is typical seconder research based on data processing, which reports on phenomena underlying bee mortality. The main advantage of the displayed research is its analytical aspects, which are able to point out the trends of scientific reaction in connection with the serious ecological concern. The results of this work will be unequivocally contributed to the realization of a pollinator-friendly technology in days to come.

Specific comments:

Title:

The scientific name of the European honey bee is Apis mellifera. The second part is the so-called species character, which begins with small letters and should be written in italics in every case. By no means can it be called “Apis mellifera bee”. The analyzed organisms should be displayed as “European honey bee”, “group of honey bee species” or “Apis genus” because eight species belong to the Apis genus. For example, Apis cerana, or otherwise known as Asian honey bee occurs across the south and southeastern Asia up to Russia. So more than likely, that the Chinese researchers deal with this species and not only A. mellifera. That is why I recommend changing the name of the target organism/organisms and its consistent usage in the whole manuscript.

Abstract

It is necessary the indicate the whole scientific name (with author, and year of description) of examined species in the first mention. Later, an abbreviated name can be used such as A. mellifera.

Besides, I find an important thing the introduction of the main factors causing bee mortality in this section.

Introduction

line 43: organic phosphate should be added too.

line 46: the scientific name of Varroa mite should be displayed.

line 56:  The determinative effect of climate change is the decreasing of the flowering time, which clearly causes a shortening of the pollen collection time.

line 57: the whole scientific name of Nosema species should be displayed. Actually, all scientific names should be written in italics in the whole manuscript.

Material and Methods.

This section is exact and interesting.

Results and discussion.

lines 182-184: These sentences can be deleted.

The sharpness of Figures 3 and 6 is rather wrong. The improvement of the quality of these figures is necessary.

line 205 and 209: degrees of freedom (df) are missing. Please replace them. Besides, at the end of line 211, I miss the literature comparison here.

in figure 4: “BASF” should be displayed instead of “Basf”, because it is an acronym.

line 357-361. The written texture is only a repetition for the content of Table 2. That is why these lines should be deleted.

Conclusion:

I miss the displaying of the main consequences, public and social benefits of this important researches and these thoughts do not provide guidance for the next related researches.

 

Author Response

Reviewer: This manuscript is typical seconder research based on data processing, which reports on phenomena underlying bee mortality. The main advantage of the displayed research is its analytical aspects, which are able to point out the trends of scientific reaction in connection with the serious ecological concern. The results of this work will be unequivocally contributed to the realization of a pollinator-friendly technology in days to come.

Answer: Yes, it represents an important contribution to the scientific community.

Reviewer: The scientific name of the European honey bee is Apis mellifera. The second part is the so-called species character, which begins with small letters and should be written in italics in every case. By no means can it be called “Apis mellifera bee”. The analyzed organisms should be displayed as “European honey bee”, “group of honey bee species” or “Apis genus” because eight species belong to the Apis genus. For example, Apis cerana, or otherwise known as Asian honey bee occurs across the south and southeastern Asia up to Russia. So more than likely, that the Chinese researchers deal with this species and not only A. mellifera. That is why I recommend changing the name of the target organism/organisms and its consistent usage in the whole manuscript.

Answer: Modified to refer only as “Apis mellifera”. It is justified by the fact that all solutions presented can be applied to reduce Apis mellifera mortality. However, some of the solutions brought to reduce bee mortality can be applied to more than one genus of bee, including Apis cerana.

Reviewer: Abstract: It is necessary the indicate the whole scientific name (with author, and year of description) of examined species in the first mention. Later, an abbreviated name can be used such as A. mellifera. Besides, I find an important thing the introduction of the main factors causing bee mortality in this section.

Answer: The full scientific name was used, in line 4. In lines 12 and 13 of the abstract it is mentioned that the main reasons for bee mortality are: such as pesticides, mites, viruses, climate change, pathogens and a reduction in food resources and nests.

Reviewer: Introduction: line 43: organic phosphate should be added too.

Answer: Reviewer 1 felt that lines 42 to 66 don't add much to the manuscript. So that excerpt was deleted from the manuscript.

Reviewer: Introduction: line 46: the scientific name of Varroa mite should be displayed.

Answer: Yes. However, as reviewer 1 found the excerpt from lines 42- to 66 unnecessary, this excerpt was excluded from the manuscript.

Reviewer: Introduction: line 56:  The determinative effect of climate change is the decreasing of the flowering time, which clearly causes a shortening of the pollen collection time.

Answer: Yes! However, as reviewer 1 found the excerpt from lines 42- to 66 unnecessary, this excerpt was excluded from the manuscript.

Reviewer: Introduction: line 57: the whole scientific name of Nosema species should be displayed. Actually, all scientific names should be written in italics in the whole manuscript.

Answer: This has been adjusted in the manuscript.

Reviewer: Material and Methods. This section is exact and interesting.

Answer: Thank-you.

Reviewer: Results and discussion: lines 182-184: These sentences can be deleted.

Answer: This sentence was removed from the article.

Reviewer: The sharpness of Figures 3 and 6 is rather wrong. The improvement of the quality of these figures is necessary.

Answer: An improvement in the quality of these figures has been made.

Reviewer: line 205 and 209: degrees of freedom (df) are missing. Please replace them. Besides, at the end of line 211, I miss the literature comparison here.

Answer:  Degrees of freedom have been added to the manuscript.

Reviewer: in figure 4: “BASF” should be displayed instead of “Basf”, because it is an acronym.

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: line 357-361. The written texture is only a repetition for the content of Table 2. That is why these lines should be deleted.
Answer: The lines have been excluded from the article to avoid this repetition.

Reviewer: Conclusion: I miss the displaying of the main consequences, public and social benefits of this important research and these thoughts do not provide guidance for the next related researches.

Answer: Added a paragraph at the conclusion to carry out this recommended discussion (between lines 354-359).

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The first time in the abstract, a figure legend, and in the main body you write Apis mellifera. Thereafter you use A. mellifera

The authors switch between using ‘,’ or ‘.’ for decimal places

Abstract: Please add a sentence that takes us from talking about the importance of bees generally to Apis mellifera specifically. E.g. ‘The honey bee (Apis mellifera) is the most widely used bee for commercial pollination and honey production’.

Line 35-36: please provide references for this sentence

Line 41-43: I suggest removing this as it is not clear if you are discussing natural migration and/or human mediated migration

Line 44: ‘cause honey bee mortality’

Line 55: please change ‘bee swarms’ to ‘honey bee colonies’

Line 56, 58, 59, 69, 214, 306, 331, 349, 350, 362: ‘honey bee’

Line 78: please specify the keywords

Line 80: please specify the string

Line 86: ‘impacts on A. mellifera; this step’

Line 102-104: ‘related to A. mellifera mortality, covering 842 documents.’

Line 109: ‘A. mellifera’

Line 147: ‘increased mortality of A. mellifera colonies in’

Line 151: ‘could be colony’

Line 153-156: how does this affect your analysis? Would it be better to use a shorter time frame to account for these issues?

Figure 4: could you please place the country of each institution/company in the figure

Line 200, 202: A. cerana

Line 201: ‘Chinese’

Line 202: ‘commonly used in A. mellifera’.

Line 211: should the word ‘patent’ appear in the legend?

Line 215-217: where is the evidence for this?

Figure 6: Is it possible to tell the difference between CNRS and BASF in black and white?

Line 228: here ‘Basf’ elsewhere ‘BASF’. Also full names are given for other institutions here and elsewhere

Table 1: ‘Quantity’ non ‘Quantidade’

Line 246-247: ‘number of peer-reviewed publications that’

Line 249, 257: please provide more information about the type of document

Line 255-273: I still don’t see the value of this analysis. No rationale has been provided. How does knowing this advance the field?

Line 258: ‘most peer-reviewed articles related to A. mellifera colony mortality is’

While figure 7 and 9 are different, are they really providing any new information? Why not just add the country the author is from into figure 8?

Line 266-267: data on patent families is not presented in figure 9

Line 289: ‘by managed bees supplemented’

Line 293-294: inconsistent use of capitals

Line 297: ’There were 98’

Line 301: ‘colony collapse disorder and honey bee’

Line 304-305: ‘colony collapse disorder and compare’

Line 306: ‘populations.’

Line 306-307: ‘colony collapse disorder’

Line 328-329: please improve accuracy of statement

Author Response

Reviewer: The first time in the abstract, a figure legend, and in the main body you write Apis mellifera. Thereafter you use A. mellifera

Answer:  This correction has been performed.

Reviewer: The authors switch between using ‘,’ or ‘.’ for decimal places

Answer:  It has been changed to use only “.” to the decimal context.

Reviewer: Abstract: Please add a sentence that takes us from talking about the importance of bees generally to Apis mellifera specifically. E.g. ‘The honey bee (Apis mellifera) is the most widely used bee for commercial pollination and honey production’.

Answer: Added a sentence between lines 13 and 14.

Reviewer: Line 35-36: please provide references for this sentence

Answer: References 9, 10 and 11 were added.

Reviewer: Line 41-43: I suggest removing this as it is not clear if you are discussing natural migration and/or human mediated migration

Answer:  It was removed from the text. 

Reviewer: Line 44: ‘cause honey bee mortality’

Answer:  Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 55: please change ‘bee swarms’ to ‘honey bee colonies’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 56, 58, 59, 69, 214, 306, 331, 349, 350, 362: ‘honey bee’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 78: please specify the keywords

Answer:  The Keywords were included (lines 78 and 79).

Reviewer: Line 80: please specify the string

Answer:  It was mentioned in the sentence that the string steps are in figure 1 (lines 80 and 81). 

Reviewer: Line 86: ‘impacts on A. mellifera; this step’

Answer:  Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 102-104: ‘related to A. mellifera mortality, covering 842

documents.’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 109: ‘A. mellifera’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 147: ‘increased mortality of A. mellifera colonies in’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 151: ‘could be colony’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 153-156: how does this affect your analysis? Would it be better to use a shorter time frame to account for these issues?

Answer:   This could affect the accuracy of the predictions made with the logistic growth curve in figure 3.  This sentence was added on lines 158 and 159.

Reviewer: Figure 4: could you please place the country of each institution/company in the figure

Answer: The country of each institution was included. 

Reviewer: Line 200, 202: A. cerana

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 201: ‘Chinese’

Answer: Done as requested.

Reviewer: Line 202: ‘commonly used in A. mellifera’.

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 211: should the word ‘patent’ appear in the legend?

Answer:   Yes. It must be included.

Reviewer: Line 215-217: where is the evidence for this?

Answer:   Between lines 221 and 224, some patents were exemplified, confirming the part mentioned in the text.

Reviewer: Figure 6: Is it possible to tell the difference between CNRS and BASF in black and white?

Answer:   The change in figure 6 was done to clarify this difference.

 Reviewer: Line 228: here ‘Basf’ elsewhere ‘BASF’. Also full names are given for other institutions here and elsewhere

Answer:   These adjustments were realized. The abbreviation “BASF” was described in line 44.

Reviewer: Table 1: ‘Quantity’ non ‘Quantidade’

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 246-247: ‘number of peer-reviewed publications that’

Answer:  Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 249, 257: please provide more information about the type of document

Answer:  Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 255-273: I still don’t see the value of this analysis. No rationale has been provided. How does knowing this advance the field?

Answer:  There really isn't much value in this analysis, it would be more for information. Therefore, it was decided to exclude this mentioned excerpt from the article.

Reviewer: Line 258: ‘most peer-reviewed articles related to A. mellifera colony mortality is’

Answer:  Done as requested. 

Reviewer: While figure 7 and 9 are different, are they really providing any new information? Why not just add the country the author is from into figure 8?

Answer:  As mentioned in the previous item, it was decided to exclude this excerpt from the article.

Reviewer: Line 266-267: data on patent families is not presented in figure 9

Answer:  As mentioned in the previous item, it was decided to exclude this excerpt from the article.

Reviewer: Line 289: ‘by managed bees supplemented’

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 293-294: inconsistent use of capitals

Answer: The text was standardized.

Reviewer: Line 297: ’There were 98’

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 301: ‘colony collapse disorder and honey bee’

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 304-305: ‘colony collapse disorder and compare’

Answer:  Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 306: ‘populations.’

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 306-307: ‘colony collapse disorder’

Answer: Done as requested. 

Reviewer: Line 328-329: please improve accuracy of statement

Answer:  Done as requested.