Bibliometric Analysis and Key Messages of Monkeypox Research (2003–2022)
, Meijiao Du 1, Yue Dong 1, Lin Liu 1, Hongguo Rong 1,2,3,* and Jianping Liu 1,2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A bibliometrics analysis of the monkeypox research is presented by Yu et al in this study. The outbreak of monkeypox has adversely affected global health and has been a hot topic in the scientific field. The results clearly demonstrated the publication trend, distribution of countries, authors and citation data. The manuscript is well-written and well-organized. Just a few issues could be improved before publication.
1. it would be helpful if the authors could provide a flow chart of the study selection process.
2. The publication collection was done in June 2022 in this study and the first monkeypox case of 2022 was reported in May. The authors could miss a large part of the studies in the field. Is it possible to include the newest data in the manuscript?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting publication about the VOSviewer program and applicated to the MonkeyPox.
It appears interesting in order to use this method for other pathogens.In the discussion, why so much importance given to the TCM ? In the article, there are no specific data on the tradictional chinese medicine. This information has nothing to do here because it is not develop in the result. It seems like a advertisement. I think this paragraph must be deleted because inappropriate.
The references in the article seem appropriate.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I must commend your efforts in developing a bibliometric analysis on this emerging are of public health threats. However, before I can recommend the article for publication, a fair amount of corrections are necessary.
1. In some areas, coronaviruses are referred to instead of Monkeypox (e.g., line 48). It is also important to state that you are writing on the 2022 outbreak or ??
2.Methods section is poorly written. In particular, please revise Lines 81-88.
3. In the "discussion section", limitations included English-language articles, which was not the case at the start.
4. A lot has changed within the landscape of Monkeypox diagnostics and use of antivirals and vaccines since June 2022 when the article was written. I would highly recommend that a revision includes the current statuses. The updated contents will be much appreciated in 2023.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my major concerns.
