Understanding Factors That Influence Pest Risk in Olive Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction: 

Clarity and Structure: The introduction provides a good overall context for the study, discussing the global demand for agricultural products and the use of pesticides in olive cultivation. However, the text could benefit from improved structure and clarity. It should be divided into clear sections, such as background, research objectives, and a concise statement of the problem. This will make it easier for readers to follow the narrative.

Relevance of Information: The introduction should better establish the specific research gap or problem that the study addresses. While it highlights the negative consequences of excessive pesticide use, it should more explicitly connect these issues to the pest risks in olive cultivation, which is the main focus of the study.

Citations and References: The introduction uses references to support the discussion, which is a good practice. However, the cited references are not fully integrated into the text. It's important to connect each reference to the relevant point in the discussion. Additionally, the reference list at the end of the introduction appears to be incomplete, which needs correction.

Research Questions and Objectives: The introduction introduces the research questions and objectives effectively. However, it would be helpful to clearly state why these questions are important and what knowledge gaps they aim to fill in the context of pest risks in olive cultivation.

Conciseness: The introduction is somewhat lengthy and contains information that may be more suitable for the main body of the article. Consider trimming some of the general information about pesticides and their health effects to make the introduction more concise and focused on the study's specific objectives.

Integration with Sustainability Concepts: As a sustainability expert, you may want to see a stronger emphasis on sustainability-related concepts in the introduction, such as the importance of sustainable agricultural practices and how the study contributes to sustainable pest management.

Cohesive Narrative: The introduction should have a more cohesive narrative that seamlessly leads the reader into the main body of the article. This can be achieved by refining the transitions between different sections of the introduction.

Alignment with Title: Ensure that the introduction aligns closely with the article's title, "Understanding factors that influence pest risk in olive production." The introduction should provide a clear preview of the content and research focus

Materials and Methods: 

Weaknesses:

Clarity and Structure: The section contains extensive technical details and descriptions that might overwhelm readers, making it less accessible. It is important to maintain a balance between providing detailed information and clarity.

Lack of Prior Explanation: The section dives into technical details without giving an initial overview or context of the study's materials and methods. A brief introduction to the purpose and significance of the chosen methodologies would be beneficial.

Software Description: The text discusses the use of specific software tools (VOSviewer and Bibliometrix) but lacks an introductory explanation of these tools and how they contribute to the research. This information should be provided before delving into their application.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Introduction to Methodology: Begin the section with a brief introduction that explains the choice of methods, emphasizing their relevance to the research questions and objectives. This will provide context and engage the reader.

Subheadings and Paragraphs: Organize the text into subheadings and paragraphs to create a more structured and readable format. For example, you can have subsections for "Bibliometric Method" and "Systematic Review."

Simplified Language: Simplify technical language and provide clear explanations for those who may not be familiar with bibliometric analysis. Avoid excessive jargon, or if it's necessary, provide definitions or references.

Flow and Transition: Ensure a smooth transition between subsections. The reader should easily follow the logical progression from the bibliometric analysis to the systematic review.

Software Explanation: Introduce each software tool (VOSviewer and Bibliometrix) separately, explaining their purpose, features, and how they were used in the study. Provide context for their selection.

Search Strategy: While the search strategy is explained, consider presenting it in a more concise and visually structured manner, such as a flowchart or a table. This will help readers understand the process at a glance.

Search Strategy Validation: Provide a clear rationale for the validation approach used to ensure the accuracy of the search query. Explain how the top-cited publications were selected and reviewed by experts to avoid false positives.

Limitations: Acknowledge any limitations in the chosen methodology, such as potential biases in the search strategy or databases used, and how these limitations were addressed.

Flow of Systematic Review: Describe the systematic review process in a step-by-step manner, including criteria for article selection and how the final set of articles was arrived at.

PRISMA Guidelines: Mention that the systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines but briefly explain what these guidelines entail and how they were applied.

Results and Discussion: 

Clarity and Organization:

Weakness: The section is quite dense with information, which might make it challenging for readers to follow. There's a need for better organization and clarity.

Suggestion: The section could be subdivided into subsections, each addressing a specific aspect of the research. For example, you could have subsections for bibliometric research results and systematic review findings.

Interpretation of Results:

Weakness: While the results and data are presented, there's limited interpretation and discussion of their implications.

Suggestion: Discuss the significance of the results in the context of sustainability. For example, how do the findings relate to the use of sustainable agricultural practices or the impact of pesticides on the environment? Provide insights into how these results can inform future research and practical applications.

Visuals and Figures:

Weakness: The figures provided are valuable, but there could be more context and explanation for each of them.

Suggestion: Provide detailed descriptions of the figures and their key takeaways within the text. Readers should be able to understand the figures without having to refer to the figure legends.

Citation of Sources:

Weakness: The text frequently mentions authors and studies without proper citations.

Suggestion: Ensure that each reference to a specific author or study includes a proper citation, including the publication year and source.

Clarity in Terminology:

Weakness: Some technical terms, such as "VOSviewer" and "bibliometrix," are introduced without clear explanations for readers who might not be familiar with these tools.

Suggestion: Provide brief explanations or definitions for any technical terms or software tools introduced in the text to help readers understand the context.

Conciseness:

Weakness: The section contains some redundant statements and repetitive information.

Suggestion: Review the text for conciseness and eliminate redundancy. Keep the discussion focused on the most critical points.

Cohesive Flow:

Weakness: The transition between different subsections and topics within the Results and Discussion section could be improved for a more cohesive flow.

Suggestion: Use transition sentences or phrases to guide readers from one topic to the next and ensure a logical flow of ideas.

Discussion on Data Quality:

Weakness: The text discusses the number of documents, keywords, and authors but does not touch on the quality of the data and its potential limitations.

Suggestion: Address the potential limitations of the data used in the analysis. Discuss any biases or shortcomings in the dataset that might affect the validity of the findings.

Practical Implications:

Weakness: The discussion could benefit from a more explicit exploration of the practical implications of the research findings for policymakers, researchers, or agricultural practitioners.

Suggestion: Summarize the practical takeaways and policy recommendations that can be derived from the research results.

Author Response

There are three files attached. One contains the responses to the comments, the other the final version of the article and the MDPI English proofreading certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Understanding factors that influence pest risk in olive production" provides a review of scientific literature concerning pest concerns related to olive agriculture". The paper provides a review based less on an in depth analysis of the literature from the perspective of the author, but rather attempts to use database tools to provide a more objective picture of the scientific efforts in this realm. This approach is interesting and not yet common in the scientific literature, which makes the purpose of the paper worthwhile.

While a summary of the analytic tools are used and the results are discussed, it is difficult to understand what the main conclusions of the work entails. The discussion ends with a paragraph that is unclear with respect to whether they are discussing the conclusions of a particular cited study, or of this paper itself. The lack of description of some of these methods and the lack of complete and clear information in the figures also hinders interpretation. The following minor and major points need to be addressed.

ln28-29. Abstract: Providing this specific information about the numbers of studies selected does not make sense without any background and description. More general statements would be appropriate.

ln 64- The Introduction does not mention the equally important issue of insecticide resistance, which merits a paragraph here.

Discussion: There is generally a problem where the numbered references are triggering capitilizations in the middle of sentences and unclear meanings. Perhaps there was a problem with a citation managing program?

ln 88-89 The relevance of climate change is unclear here. It needs to be  better explained here, or perhaps more appropriately in the discussion.

ln 341. It is unclear who "we" is here and what stories are being referred to.

Fig1 - The nature of this analysis is not clear. What are the x-axis and y-axis representing? 

Fig 2- What do the different line thicknesses mean? Fonts are too small to read. Words are placed over lines in critical places obscuring figure features and should be moved to the margins.

Fig 4- Can any of these trends be quantified? Perhaps using percentages of of the top terms used in each time period would be more informative.

There are some minor to moderate grammar errors throughout. The biggest problem is that it is often unclear what studies the authors are referring to in the discussion, or if they are presenting their own opinion based on the review.

Author Response

There are three files attached. One contains the responses to the comments, the other the final version of the article and the MDPI English proofreading certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented results based on a review to understanding factors that influence pest risk in olive production. The manuscript is of interest to the journal; however, it requires some revisions for the paper in its actual form.

In the abstract, the last paragraph (line30-33) is very general and very short in terms of the information it intends to highlight. A phrase could be added with a more specific and relevant conclusion.

In the introduction, to be a review there are few quotes (only 13 and throughout the review 41) that focus and lead to the question that is raised. From line 70 to line 102 there is no appointment. In these paragraphs the objective is addressed along with rather methodological issues, making the introduction very poor in terms of content.

Regarding the material and methods are well planned and defined. Comment that section 2.1. Bibliometric Method could be considerably summarized.

In the results and discussion part, Figure 1 may confuse the reader. It would be necessary to detail why there are two well-differentiated yellow zones. More detailed information should be added so that the figure can be self-explanatory.

In table 2, one of the columns details the area of ​​study of the article in question. In both the first (Persistence of Metarhizium brunneum…..) and ninth (Measurement of CO2 Emissions in the Semi) titles, the study area does not detail any specific geographical area. It should be detailed as has been done with the other titles.

In a review of this magnitude, the discussion can improve significantly. The added references are limited to the paragraph (line 319-334). In this paragraph, the most relevant aspects of each article analyzed and detailed in Table 2 are basically summarized with one sentence.

Finally, the conclusions should be included in the manuscript in a specific section different from the discussion and made more specific based on the results derived from the search for articles. Readers will appreciate that conclusions are more direct and understandable. It would be interesting that the authors addressed the importance of the research with the results obtained. In this sense, a section should be included with the applicability on a real scale (farmers) of the results obtained and argued throughout the discussion. In other words, it should be noted, why is this type of study important from the agronomic, policy and environmental point of view? Where will future research go?.

Author Response

There are three files attached. One contains the responses to the comments, the other the final version of the article and the MDPI English proofreading certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is interesting. Collected data in the paper are valuable and can be used in further studies. Some changes in the text have to be done.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

There are three files attached. One contains the responses to the comments, the other the final version of the article and the MDPI English proofreading certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have greatly improved the quality of the manuscript with good attention to the issues raised in the last review.

The English language has also improved greatly

Reviewer 3 Report