Bibliometric Network Analysis of Trends in Cyclone Separator Research: Research Gaps and Future Direction
, Gangfeng Tan 1,*, Philip K. Agyeman 1,3, Prince O. Ansah 2, Isaac O. Olayode 4, Jamshid V. Fayzullayevich 1 and Shuang Liang 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the study, the Authors focused on the crucial issue of Bibliometric Network Analysis of Trends in Cyclone Separator Research: Research gaps and future direction. Please, explain about choosing WoS and not taking decision of conducting this study with using the Scopus repositories and CiteSpace? Or maybe in future make some comparison of these two repositories. What is your point of view? Is it possible to give some recommendations? What was the trigger to perform such analysis?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewed article concerns on a tracking of evolution of technological knowledge, research gaps, and future directions of cyclone separator. The work has the character of a bibliometric review. The undertaken topic may have a scientific potential. This is due to the fact that despite a large amount of research already carried out in this field, research on cyclone separators is still being undertaken. I reviewed this article in another journal. The authors made the necessary corrections and changes.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper.
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
Major Comments
Paper entitled "Bibliometric Network Analysis of Trends in Cyclone Separator Research: Research gaps and future direction", is a very well written, well-founded and clear scientific work on the research being published regarding the Cyclone separators. This is a very complete and well-founded bibliometric analysis. The objectives are clear and concise. It presents an appropriate structure and reviews correctly the literature published, which can be found in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The findings summarise the most important research results on the topic. The level of written English is very good, and the manuscript uses the references style correctly.
The paper should be accepted at the sustainability journal.
Suggested Revisions: The paper is very good and does not need any revision to be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper.
Thank you.
