Bibliometric Analysis of Game Theory on Energy and Natural Resource
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented an article about “Bibliometric Analysis of Game Theory on Energy and Natural Resource”. I think the paper is not well organized and is not appropriate for “Sustainability” journal but the paper will be ready for publication after major revision.
· The abstract don’t looks good. Please include significance results.
· Author contact information is missing in the title of the paper and the contributions of the authors are missing at the end of the paper. Please edit them.
· For the introduction section, please add more reference and briefly explain them.
· The information given for readers in the paper is usually not cited. It is very important for the reliability of this information. Please cite information provided.
· Please explain more clearly the relevance of sustainability for your paper. What information gap in the literature did the authors try to fill in this paper?
· In the last paragraph of the introduction, it should be expressed the novelty of the study, the differences from the past in detail. In a current form, a novelty of the conducted research is unclear.
· It is clear that the authors make too many self-citations. This is not professional. Authors are advised to obtain information from different sources.
· Image quality needs to be improved in Figure 2.
· Was the Figure 3 drawn by the authors? Or are there copyright permissions for the figure? If Figure 3 is original please give it in table form.
· Improve the conclusion parts. Conclusion title should be 4 not 3
· Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in paper.
· The authors need to add more literature studies related to the this paper. 16 citations for one paper is too few. Please duplicate the number of citations related to the paper.
· The paper is well-organized yet there is a reference problem. First, your reference list contains no paper from “Sustainability” journal. If your work is convenient for this journal’s context then there are many references from this journal. Secondly, cited sources should be primary ones. Namely, indexed area shows the power of a paper and directly your paper’s reliability. Please make regulations in this direction.
· The article should be rearranged by taking into account the journal writing rules and citation rules. Please revise the article title according to this sentence.
· Please use the paper outline provided for the authors
*** Authors must consider them properly before submitting the revised manuscript. A point-by-point reply is required when the revised files are submitted.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- The abstract don’t looks good. Please include significance results.
Answer: Revised. Please see the latest manuscript.
- Author contact information is missing in the title of the paper and the contributions of the authors are missing at the end of the paper. Please edit them.
Answer: Edited. Please see the latest manuscript.
- For the introduction section, please add more reference and briefly explain them.
Answer: Added. Please see the latest manuscript.
- The information given for readers in the paper is usually not cited. It is very important for the reliability of this information. Please cite information provided.
Answer: Corrected.
- Please explain more clearly the relevance of sustainability for your paper. What information gap in the literature did the authors try to fill in this paper?
Answer: We did a literature review on game theory that is applied especially on energy and natural resources. We believe that there are already many bibliometric studies on energy, green technology and natural resources, but as far as we know researchers have not done a literature review or bibliometric study on game theory on energy and natural resources. This is an interdisciplinary field that is worthy of attention, because economists and policy-makers need the papers reviewed by our paper to improve their resource management strategy and maximize the total benefit for all. Since Sustainability is concerned with technical, environmental, economic and social sustainability of human beings, we believe that our paper fits your aim and scope very well.
- …In a current form, a novelty of the conducted research is unclear.
Answer: Added.
- …Authors are advised to obtain information from different sources.
Answer: We added more references. You can see a summary of the added references in introduction.
- Image quality needs to be improved in Figure 2.
Answer: We definitely agree with this remark. The image quality needs to be improved. But the software (CiteSpace) cannot generate a clearer picture. ScreenPrint is not any better. When we were using the software, we could zoom in to see the details but in Word we could not zoom in…
- Was the Figure 3 drawn by the authors? Or are there copyright permissions for the figure? If Figure 3 is original please give it in table form.
Answer: Figure 3 was produced by CiteSpace. We input 700 literature data to CiteSpace, and then CiteSpace generated top 5 keywords with the strongest citation bursts. Figure 3 is original. We prefer to present it in the current form, because we would like to keep the red and blue bars on the image. These bars give a straightforward presentation about the beginning and ending year of the research keyword. But if you prefer a table form, we definitely could change the image to table.
- Improve the conclusion parts. Conclusion title should be 4 not 3
Answer: Corrected.
- Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in paper.
Answer: fixed some.
- The authors need to add more literature studies related to the this paper. 16 citations for one paper is too few. Please duplicate the number of citations related to the paper.
Answer: Done.
- The paper is well-organized yet there is a reference problem. First, your reference list contains no paper from “Sustainability” journal. If your work is convenient for this journal’s context then there are many references from this journal. Secondly, cited sources should be primary ones. Namely, indexed areaf shows the power of a paper and directly your paper’s reliability. Please make regulations in this direction.
Answer: Made major revisions.
- The article should be rearranged by taking into account the journal writing rules and citation rules. Please revise the article title according to this sentence.
Answer: We made some changes.
- Please use the paper outline provided for the authors
Answer: Done.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article investigates game theory on energy and natural resource. The bibliometric method was mainly used to analyze the structured information such as subjects, journals, countries, institutions, key words and co-citation clusters of the documents, and get some valuable conclusions. But I still have some doubts about this study, if they are solved, I would recommend publication in Journal of sustainability, the doubts are listed as below for reference:
1. The author studied the literature about game theory on energy and natural resources, and retrieved articles dealing with energy game theory and natural resource game theory. However, I think the game theory on ‘energy’ and ‘natural resource’ are quite independent and different. Electricity, wind power, and solar energy are all energy sources, which are significantly different from natural resources. Please give your deep thought about the question and explain why you combined energy and natural resources.
2. The retrieve for game theory on energy and natural resources was inadequate, using only ‘game theory’, ‘energy’ and ‘natural resources’ as keywords, other useful keywords are omitted, resulting in the omission of many relevant documents. Please expand your keywords appropriately to refine your work.
3. In the introduction, the development phase is divided into four stages, whereas in Part 3.2 there are only three parts of which the first part 1990-2009 is disappeared. Please explain why the first part 1990-2009 was deleted in Part 3.2?
4. Lines 10-13 from the bottom of the introduction section record that ‘The Colombian Ministry of Mines and Energy estimated that coal production in 2021 could increase…’, however, it is the end of 2022, have the predictions for 2021 become reality?
Author Response
- Please give your deep thought about the question and explain why you combined energy and natural resources.
Answer: Indeed, energy sources are different from natural resources. But we still combine them mainly for 2 reasons: 1) first of all, we obtained only 700 valid literature data after removing duplicates. If we focus on only one type of resource, then the size of our data would be too small to have meaningful results; 2) We read through the articles and found that whether the resource type is natural or energy, they share some common topics and methods. The game theory models and management models also can be applied to both types of resources. So, in the end we decided to include all types of resources in our study.
- Please expand your keywords appropriately to refine your work.
Answer: We experimented a lot with our keywords and we decided that our current scope is the most appropriate. Of course, we could broaden our research scope and include more key words and more papers, but then that would be different research. Our conclusions and findings would be very different. We are considering doing a review on “Game Theory on Resources and Commodity” in the future, so we could include, for example, agriculture commodities in our study. But for this paper, if we expand our keywords in this way it would be too much work, and our research conclusions would be overturned.
- Please explain why the first part 1990-2009 was deleted in Part 3.2?
Answer: About 1 article was published per year before 2000. In 2005~2009, yearly published articles rose to 7~14. These papers were very rarely cited by later papers in this field. Their research results and contributions were practically irrelevant to the current field of study. Part 3.2 is basically a description and analysis of Figure 2. In “Figure 2. Time map of literature co-citation analysis”, we can see relations between papers in 2010~2021. What we didn’t show in Fig.2 is the papers published in 1990~2009. The reason we didn’t show them is that there would be too many contents on the same figure. So, in the end we decided to show the most important and relevant information on Fig.2 and in part 3.2.
- Lines 10-13 from the bottom of the introduction section……
Answer: We made changes in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
I congratulate the authors on the work done. The article contains an extremely interesting and necessary analysis from the point of view of the needs of the environment, which can be used in the future in various ways. The study carried out partially coincides with the research that I am currently conducting personally :)
Before publishing the article, please correct the following minor errors in the paper:
1. Chapters: Abstract and Introduction contain identical fragments (due to the lack of line numbering, I am unable to indicate the exact location): "The co-citation cluster analysis on the literature topics shows that the game theory of energy and natural resources have roughly gone through four stages: (1) From 1990 to 2009, this is the embryonic stage with no more than 15 new papers per year; (3) From 2015 to 2017, the main research topics became the integrated energy system, subsidy mechanism and household energy management, with a hot topic on the evolutionary game process between government and enterprises; (4) From 2018 to 2021, this stage to focus on the previous topics, and the research goes much deeper, resulting in more models and new green technologies."
Please correct one of the chapters of your choice.
2. I am asking for language correction of the article by a Native Speaker because some individual fragments are difficult to understand for the reader.
Well done!
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind remarks. Here are our replies to your comments:
- We made revisions in the latest version. Please see the new manuscript.
- We also welcome native speakers to give comments on our writing and style.
Thank you again for your encouraging reviews. We really appreciate that:)
Reviewer 4 Report
Revisions are needed.
1. please delete paragraph 1 in your introduction section. It is just a repetition of the abstract.
2. introduce why you select Citespace rather than others.
3. when introducing your software selection procedure, please try to update and expand your references. Current references are not enough. For instance, you can see these documents which will give you insights to revise question 2 and 3: (1) Research Progress of Green Marketing in Sustainable Consumption based on CiteSpace Analysis (2) Bibliometric review of carbon neutrality with CiteSpace: evolution, trends, and framework (3) Visualization analysis of seabream and seabass aquaculture research using CiteSpace (4) Knowledge Mapping Analysis of Manufacturing Product Innovation Based on CiteSpace (5) Additive manufacturing is sustainable technology: citespace based bibliometric investigations of fused deposition modeling approach
4. clarify your innovation and limitation in your conclusion.
5. draw a flowchart at the beginning.
6. draw a framework to conclude your research findings. Example to be referred: Research Progress of Green Marketing in Sustainable Consumption based on CiteSpace Analysis
7. I suggest authors add the literature mentioned in your manuscript such as those in page 9 and 10. References should be expanded.
8. in the introduction, authors should briefly tell us the former progress of this field, and the gap of the study (why your research is innovative).
Author Response
- please delete paragraph 1 in your introduction section. It is just a repetition of the abstract.
Answer: Done.
- introduce why you select Citespace rather than others.
Answer: Done.
- when introducing your software selection procedure, please try to update and expand your references. Current references are not enough. For instance, you can see these documents which will give you insights to revise question 2 and 3: (1) Research Progress of Green Marketing in Sustainable Consumption based on CiteSpace Analysis (2) Bibliometric review of carbon neutrality with CiteSpace: evolution, trends, and framework (3) Visualization analysis of seabream and seabass aquaculture research using CiteSpace (4) Knowledge Mapping Analysis of Manufacturing Product Innovation Based on CiteSpace (5) Additive manufacturing is sustainable technology: citespace based bibliometric investigations of fused deposition modeling approach
Answer: Thank you very much for providing us with this list of references. These papers are really helpful. We have included them in our paper and made significant changes. Please see the revised manuscript.
- clarify your innovation and limitation in your conclusion.
Answer: Added.
- draw a flowchart at the beginning.
Answer: Done.
- draw a framework to conclude your research findings. Example to be referred: Research Progress of Green Marketing in Sustainable Consumption based on CiteSpace Analysis
Answer: Done.
- I suggest authors add the literature mentioned in your manuscript such as those in page 9 and 10. References should be expanded.
Answer: Done.
- in the introduction, authors should briefly tell us the former progress of this field, and the gap of the study (why your research is innovative).
Answer: Revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for revisions
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments
Reviewer 2 Report
Figure 3 is suggested to be more concise and clcear.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. I have improved Fig.3. It's not exactly super clear but it's clearer than before. Please see the updated manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
it can be published.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments.
