Exploring Biblioshiny for Historical Assessment of Global Research on Sustainable Use of Water in Agriculture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, Jordaan and colleagues provided a historical assessment of the sustainable use of water in agriculture using the Bibliometrix analysis. Through this evaluation, the five current research streams of sustainable water use in agriculture were identified along with the influential institutions, authors, countries, and journals, which is useful to the examination of research hot spots and forecast of the research trends. The manuscript is well organized and structured. This reviewer would in general support publication at Sustainability. One minor issue that may deserve the authors’ attention is the citing format. In some part of the main text, citation format such as “(2007a)” was found, which may appear to be not consistent with other formats such as “[1]”. Please double check for consistency.
Other comments：
(1) Figure 2 can be improved for visibility. The legend positioned below the figure was too small and occupied too much space for the whole figure. (2) Please kindly consider the style of the last paragraph of Introduction to see if some revision is required.Author Response
We are grateful to you for taking your time to review our manuscript and providing valuable comments.
Comment 1: One minor issue that may deserve the authors’ attention is the citing format. In some parts of the main text, citation format such as “(2007a)” was found, which may appear to be not consistent with other formats such as “[1]”. Please double-check for consistency.
Response for comment 1: the citation has been fixed
Comment 2. Figure 2 can be improved for visibility. The legend positioned below the figure was too small and occupied too much space for the whole figure.
Response for comment 2: In terms of the figures in the manuscript, we did generate them using the maximum pixel density allowed in the bibloshiny interface. As such, we are restricted from improving the figures' visibility any further.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review is very interesting and deserves to be published.
I've some minor revision to suggest to authors.
Several time in the text authors use "we", in my opinion in a scientific paper authors should use the impersonal.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are grateful to you and the reviewers for taking your time to review our manuscript and providing valuable comments.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1-10. Additional comments
- Line 37, missing reference
- From line 166 to line 171, align with the text
- Line 215, delete repeated sentence
- Figures 1a, 1b and 2 improve quality. The Legend is unclear
- Figure 5 (i) and 6 (i) (ii) delete arrows and the symbol “edit”
- Figure 8 (i) I suggest to change it
- Lines 500, this sentences seems a sub title, please adjust the form
- Figure 9, improve quality
- Figure 11, improve the quality of the legend
- Line 752, delete number 7
Response to points 1-10: All the comments have been addressed. However, we used the maximum pixel density allowed for the figure's qualities. Thus, we are unable to improve the quality further.
