The Dangers of Travel—Banditry on the Roads: The Bibliometric Study of the Retrospective Literature
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors made the requested changes
Author Response
Thank you for your insightful review and acceptance of the revisions.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The authors obviously spent a lot of time to compile potentially relevant data from a variety of sources. This seems already a substantial achievement. Eventually, model and variable selection procedures can always be challenged. Overall, I consider the selected factors to be promising. However, there are some aspects from my perspective:
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the literature review process, taking into account the stages of 321
preparation, pre-selection and final literature items. The sources of the graphics are missing
Figure 3. The stage of preparation, selection of keywords and basic tools for the implementation of 376
the review. The sources of the graphics are missing
Figure 4. Keyword analysis in the context of search using logical operators presented in the form of a tree structure. The sources of the graphics are missing
Table 3. Full-text keyword search results as an introduction to advanced search. The sources of the graphics are missing
Figure 21. Presentation of full-text keyword search results, allowing for preliminary insight into the number of publications related to a given password. The sources of the graphics are missing, very bead quality of the image
Figure 22. The results for the group no. 1. The sources of the graphics are missing, very bead quality of the image
Figure 23. Graphical presentation of the results from Table 5 to facilitate the presentation of the 452 results and discussion in the team, The sources of the graphics are missing very bead quality of the image
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review of our article and your very pertinent comments, which we have corrected with great care and hope that now the results of this work will be satisfactory. The review we received definitely contributed to the scientific quality of our article.
Figure 1: Diagram of the literature review process including the stages ofpreparation, initial selection and final literature items. The source of the graphic is missing.
Answer: the graphics were made by the authors of the article (own development) using Wondershare EdrawMax ver. 11.5.0 graphics.
2 Figure 3: Preparation stage, selection of keywords and basic tools for the implementation of the review. Sources of graphics are missing
Answer: graphics were made by the authors of the article (own development) using Microsoft Visio Professional ver. 2013 graphics.
3 Figure 4: Keyword analysis in a search context using logical operators shown as a tree structure. No sources of graphics
Answer: the graphic was made by the authors of the article (own development) using Mindjet MindManager ver. 16.0.159 graphics.
4 Table 3. Full-text keyword search results as an introduction to advanced search. No sources of graphics
Answer: the graphics were made by the authors of the article (own development) using Mindjet MindManager ver. 16.0.159 graphics
5 Figure 21: Presentation of the results of a full-text keyword search, providing an initial glimpse of the number of publications related to the keyword. No sources of graphics, very beady image quality.
Answer: the graphic was made by the authors of the article (own development) using Microsoft Excel ver. 2210 graphics. Unfortunately, the text generator did not take into account the changes in the graphics and changes the numbering of the figures. Now we have made sure of the corrections. The image quality should be prefect.
6 Figure 22 Results for group No. 1. No sources of graphics, very beady image quality.
Answer: the graphics were made by the authors of the article (own development) using Microsoft Excel ver. 2210 graphics. Unfortunately, the text generator did not take into account the changes in the graphics and changes the numbering of the figures. Now we have made sure of the corrections. The image quality should be prefect
7 Figure 23. graphical presentation of results from Table 5 to facilitate the presentation of results and team discussion, Graphics sources are missing very beady image quality.
Answer: the graphics were made by the authors of the article (own development) using Microsoft Excel ver. 2210 graphics. Unfortunately, the text generator did not take into account the changes in the graphics and changes the numbering of the figures. Now we have made sure of the corrections. The image quality should be prefect.
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
The topic of "bandits" is interesting, already for practically any destination, and under numerous forms of insecurity. However, the presented document lacks scientific effort, in its current format. Because:
1. Rather, it seems like a work on a bibliographic search process, very focused on the keywords used, but without interesting content contributions.
2. Except for section 1: Introduction, duly written, accessible to reading, the rest of the document is chaotic in its preparation:
a. Loose paragraphs without connection to each other.
b. Excess of tables and figures, which repeat their contents
3. The Results section, absolutely key in an academic work, is non-existent.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our article and your very pertinent comments, which we have corrected with great effort and hope that now the results of this work will be satisfactory. The review we received has definitely contributed to the increase in the scientific quality of our article.
Referring to the comments, I kindly inform you of the corrections made:
- a factual lecture was prepared in the following parts of the paper: introduction, iterature analysis, discussion, Analysis with factual content excerpts from selected articles and keywords, bibliographic analysis using a digital-based method (Google Scholar, and EBSCO databases), discussion, conclusion.
- excess tables (4,5) and charts (22.25,26,27) were removed, it flowed to better readability and volume of the work.
- in-depth analysis from the research was completed.
- completed and described in detail part of the results
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the article is quite interesting in terms of technology. However, the article still seems to be a draft of the research and requires a more systemic structure and more in-depth analysis from the survey. Please refer to my detailed comments as follows. 1. The title of the work does not seem appropriate to the research. 2. The document needs to be converted to a more concise format. They look like a mix of introduction and literature review for a regular academic article. However, not only do they need to be structured in simple formats such as the introduction and literature review itself, but also summarized in order to deliver key points and messages to readers. 3. I don't know how this article could contribute to literature. A clear and visible description of the contribution that defines the journal's technical standard should be recorded. 4. I wonder why 2010 was chosen for this study. 5. Authors should describe the key findings and leave useful implications in the literature. Moreover, finally, attention should be paid to research limitations and future research .
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our article and your very pertinent comments, which
we have improved with great effort and hope that now the results of this work will be
satisfactory. The review we received definitely contributed to the increase in the scientific
quality of our article.
Referring to the comments, I kindly inform you of the corrections made:
1. due to significant changes in the content and methodology of the work, we wanted to
stay with the current title because it now more closely reflects the substantive content of
the article.
2. now the work has a more concise format, the individual parts of the work have been
logically combined, the excess of tables (4,5) and charts (22.25,26,27) were removed, it
flowed to better readability and volume of the work.
3. in the work added a summary in the form of discussion and conclusion
4. the results section was completed and described in detail
5. an in-depth analysis from the research was completed.
6. research limitations and future research of the content of the paper there is information
about the limitations in the two research methods used and indications in the form of
conclusions for future researchers.
7. in the second stage of the search, the authors limited to the titles of 2010 as the period
of the lower limit of the research due to the search for more recent items. Of course, with
further work, this caesura will be shifted to subsequent years.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors!
Thanks for the interesting article.
1) It is advisable to finalize the abstract. The abstract should also contain results and a brief conclusion.
2) It is worth adding in the introduction about the importance of tourism and safety issues during travel. Indicate who previously dealt with research questions in the "Literature review" section.
3) In the text, it is desirable to indicate the date of processing of information from the Google Scholar database.
4) What is the point of presenting digital material in the form of a table 1 and duplicating it with a figure 21 ?
5) Check the end-to-end numbering of figures.
6) There are no links to graphic materials in the text.
7) No description Figure 1. What is its essence?
8)The article does not contain conclusions.
9) It is advisable to make one list of the literature that was used in the preparation of the article.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our article and for your very pertinent comments, which
we have corrected with great effort and hope that now the results of this work will be
satisfactory. The review we received has definitely contributed to the increase in the scientific
quality of our article.
Referring to the comments, I kindly inform you of the corrections made:
1. Absrtakt (abstract) has been completed.
2. introduction importance of safety during travel, narrative completed (excerpt in the
introduction).
3. literature review has been introduced.
4. excess tables (4,5) and charts (22.25,26,27) were removed, it flowed to better readability
and volume of the work.
5.The conclusions of the work were included in the "conclusion" part of the work.
6. processing dates of information from Google Scholar database given as 2022. completed.
7. Numbering of graphs and tables corrected.
8. descriptions of figures added.
9. uniform list of literature realized.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Need formal changes
Table 1: Put the authors in chronological order, and summarize the text much more. As it currently stands it is unmanageable.
Figures 1 and 2 have a strictly educational use, they are not of interest in a research project.
Table 1 (again) and Figure 21 (?) represent the same thing, why do there have to be two for the same data set?
The structure of the entire heading 3 (Results and discussion) which is later repeated as 3 (Results) but becomes 4 (Discussion) is real chaos. in the numbering of the tables and figures, but above all, it is impossible to understand because it is
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our article and your very pertinent remarks, which we have improved with great effort and hope that now the results of this work will be satisfactory. The review we received definitely contributed to the increase in the scientific quality of our article.
1. Reviewer: Table 1: Put the authors in chronological order and summarize the text much more. As it stands, it is unmanageable.
Answer: We accept the remark as correct. Hence, the authors have rewritten Table 1 for better readability of the content.
2. Figures 1 and 2 have strictly educational use, they are not interesting in the research project.
Answer: Indeed, the figures are purely illustrative, but for some researchers not familiar with the technology of bibliographic search using search tools so Google Scholar databases, and EBSCO (goggle scholar database processing February 2022). The conceptual diagram of the literature review process including the stages of preparation, pre-selection and final selection
of literature items is very clear and interesting. The diagram shows in a simplified way the various stages of work leading to intermediate results and the final result of the literature review. The work was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA methodology. The second diagram presents in detail the adopted methodology that was used to conduct the review. It was based on the developed Standard for Systematic Review developed and adopted by the
Institute of Medicine of The National Academies. https://doi.org/10.17226/13059.) Hence, the authors wish to keep these two figures in their article.
3. Reviewer: The reviewers comment that Table 1 and Figure represent the same thing is accurate, and the question is why for the same data set there must be two?
Answer: Indeed, such a double form of data presentation is unnecessary. The authors, taking into account the comment, removed the figure.
4 Reviewer: The structure of the entire heading 3 (Results and Discussion), which is later repeated as 3 (Results) but becomes 4 (Discussion) is a real chaos. in the numbering of tables and figures, but above all it is impossible to understand.
Answer: Indeed, there were a number of irregularities in the work related to the editing by several people of the version to be sent. It looked uninteresting. There were even mistakes in the numbering of tables and figures, which was, of course, corrected. Now all the glitches have been corrected. Also, the "discussion" and "conclusions" parts of the work have been clearly separated.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors!
It is advisable to finalize the abstract. The abstract should also contain results and a brief conclusion.
Why submit information about the purpose of the article twice in the abstract? In what sense is the word "autopsy" used?. The purpose of the study was to perform a comparative review related to the topic of travel dan-ger in retrospect on the basis of data obtained from a bibliometric review. The purpose of the study includes comparisons of existing data already obtained from the autopsy to those that were to be obtained using Google Scholar, and EBSCO databases (21-24).
What is the point of presenting digital material in the form of a table 1 and duplicating it with a figure 21 ?
What is the point of presenting digital material in the form of a table 1 (420) and duplicating it with a figure 21 (422)?
Check the end-to-end numbering of figures.
Table 1. Analysis with factual content excerpts from selected articles and keywords (296)
Table 1. Full-text keyword search results as an introduction to advanced search. 420
There are no links to graphic materials in the text.
Similar sentences in terms of content
In the abstract
“Since the dawn of time, one of the main barriers to travel has been the fear of leaving one's place of residence and traveling into a foreign unknown and dangerous space (9-10)
In discussion “Since the dawn of time, one of the fundamental barriers to travel has been the fear of 4 leaving (498)
The article does not contain chapter “conclusions”.
The article has not been read editorially, for example:
“The main purpose of the study was 245 to compare existing data already obtained from autopsies with those to be obtained using 246 Google Scholar, and EBSCO databases (goggle scholar base processing February 2022). 247 The purpose of the study was to perform a comparative review related to the topic 248 of travel dan-ger in retrospect on the basis of data obtained from a bibliometric review. 249 The purpose of the study includes comparisons of existing data already obtained from the 250 autopsy to those that were to be obtained using Google Scholar, and EBSCO databases”.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reviewing our article and your very pertinent remarks, which we have improved with great effort and hope that now the results of this work will be satisfactory. The review we received definitely contributed to the increase in the scientific quality of our article.
1. Reviewer: It is advisable to refine the abstract. The abstract should also include the results and a brief summary
Answer: the reviewer's remark is most appropriate. The authors have included a concise statement of results in the abstract. However, due to the limited number of characters imposed by the editor's matrix, it is impossible to stir a more certain information about the results in the abstract.
2. Reviewer: The reviewer';s remark in the question: why is information about the purpose of the article included twice in the abstract? It is as correct as possible.
Answer: The authors of the article made the appropriate corrections in the revised version.
3. Reviewer: Reviewer's query: In what sense was the word "autopsy" used
Answer: Understandably, and rightly, the Reviewer draws attention to the use of the term "autopsy" The explanation is given in the following passage from the work: "One of the methods of acquiring bibliographic knowledge, in addition to incorporating digital methods of data acquisition and processing into bibliometric search work, is still extracting data from printed sources and analyzing them from autopsy is a heuristic method based on the experience and knowledge of the researcher. The authors at the first stage of the research
relied on this very method to then compare its results with a method based on digital technology".
4. Reviewer: The reviewer's comment that table 1 and figure represent the same thing is accurate and the question is why for the same data set there must be two?
Answer: Indeed, such a double form of data presentation is unnecessary. The authors, taking into account the comment, removed the figure.
5. Reviewer: Reviewer's note on numbering errors.
Answer: Reviewer's remark about errors in numbering. Obviously correct. Answer: There were indeed a number of irregularities in the work related to the editing by several people of the version to be sent. It looked uninteresting. There were even mistakes in the numbering of tables and figures, which was obviously corrected.
6. Reviewer: Note on the content of Tab 1 Analysis including excerpts of substantive content from selected articles and keywords.
Answer: The remark on the content of Tab. 1 Analysis with consideration of excerpts of substantive content from selected articles and keywords is correct. Hence, Hence, the authors have reworded Table 1 for better readability of the content.
7. Reviewer: There are no links to graphic materials in the text.
Answer: In the revised version, extraneous graphic materials have been provided with appropriate links.
