An Analysis of Global Trends from 1990 to 2022 of Microbial Fuel Cells: A Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thanks to the author's revision, which I think the whole content has been close to perfection after careful reading. The author added the content analysis method to make the structure of the whole article more complete, and also made some content additions in the conclusion part. However, after reading the whole article, there are still two problems that need to be corrected.
 
The first one lies in the part of the conclusion. The author divides the conclusion into three parts, research discussion, research limitation and future research direction. But it is suggested that the future direction and limitation should be more detailed, which will also provide the reader with a clearer direction for future research on this topic. As for the conclusion part, please take into careful consideration of the following reference: Xu et al. (2022) Mapping Neuroscience in the Field of Education through a Bibliometric Analysis, and Lin et al. (2022) Roles and Research Trends of Neuroscience on Major Information Systems Journal: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.
 
Secondly, I think it requires professional proofreading as there still exist some minor grammatical errors, which should be provided proof of editing in English as evidence.
 
On the whole, the author only needs to revise the above two points. Thank you for spending a lot of effort to improve the quality of the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the comments made for the manuscript; All the researchers have done what was suggested. I hope you like it.
Response to comments:

1. The first one lies in the part of the conclusion. The author divides the conclusion into three parts, research discussion, research limitation and future research direction. But it is suggested that the future direction and limitation should be more detailed, which will also provide the reader with a clearer direction for future research on this topic. As for the conclusion part, please take into careful consideration of the following reference: Xu et al. (2022) Mapping Neuroscience in the Field of Education through a Bibliometric Analysis, and Lin et al. (2022) Roles and Research Trends of Neuroscience on Major Information Systems Journal: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.

Ans. The suggested changes were made, following the suggested documents as a guide, as can be seen in the conclusions part.

Secondly, I think it requires professional proofreading as there still exist some minor grammatical errors, which should be provided proof of editing in English as evidence.
 Ans. A native US colleague reviewed the document and made corrections.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors mention, in line 105, that published studies have not used the Scopus database in their bibliometric analyses and that this would be the gap that the article will explore. In conclusion, it should be clear what this article's contribution is using the Scopus database. Which new studies entered the review, and how do they contribute to the evolution of the theme.

In line 157, the authors say that the software VOSViewer and Scimat were used to analyze the results, but the authors do not show any analysis using Scimat.

The keyword map in Figure 7 needs more explanation. What does each quadrant represent? Did Scimat generate this map? According to Scimat, each quadrant has an explanation, representing motor, basic, declining, and highly developed clusters. This map of figure 7 should be widely discussed in section 4 because this is the great differential between your article.

Congratulations on the article, and I wish you a great job.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the comments made for the manuscript; All the researchers have done what was suggested. I hope you like it.
Response to comments:

The authors mention, in line 105, that published studies have not used the Scopus database in their bibliometric analyses and that this would be the gap that the article will explore. In conclusion, it should be clear what this article's contribution is using the Scopus database. Which new studies entered the review, and how do they contribute to the evolution of the theme.

Ans.  The apologies of the case, if the Scopus database was used and the clarification was made in the text. This research gives a clearer picture of the institutions, topics, authors, documents and countries that are conducting the most relevant research on this topic; It also allows researchers to make better selections with which groups or colleagues to conduct research due to the impact they have on the scientific community.

In line 157, the authors say that the software VOSViewer and Scimat were used to analyze the results, but the authors do not show any analysis using Scimat.

Ans.  You are absolutely right, this term was removed from the text.

The keyword map in Figure 7 needs more explanation. What does each quadrant represent? Did Scimat generate this map? According to Scimat, each quadrant has an explanation, representing motor, basic, declining, and highly developed clusters. This map of figure 7 should be widely discussed in section 4 because this is the great differential between your article.

Ans. This graph was made using Rstudio (bibliometrix) and what was indicated in the document was done, from line 360 to 379

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

In the current round of revision, I have compared the suggestions made by the reviewers with the authors' responses and cross-checked them in the present text. I found that the authors will implement the recommendations proposed by the reviewers, improving substantially on the text submitted in the first round of review.  Given the changes made, I consider that the requirements presented in the first round were satisfied.

Best Regards

Reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for answering my questions. The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been greatly improved and now highlight the contributions of the article. Congratulations.

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 authors have sorted the published papers in microbial fuel cell research, categorized the most recent literature, and described them in detail. They have provided informative statistics on the quality and quantity of the related research in this field. However, the authors need to summarize the mentioned references in a better way and discuss the key points from each reference that can bring more value to this review article. The main issue is the English writing, which needs to be rewritten from scratch and edited by a native English speaker.

Author Response

Thank you very much dear colleague for the opinion made.
Based on your feedback, the manuscript has been improved in the English language.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review "Analysis of global trends from 1990 to 2022 of microbial fuel cells: bibliometric analyzes" by Rojas Flores et al. shows excellent work with Scopus database and provide comprehensive analysis of published works in respect to their impact on the field. The review very briefly describes also some practical aspects of microbial fuel cells, according to my opinion, this should be extended and more critical evaluation of practicals aspects of construction and operation of the fuel cells should be presented.

Author Response

Thank you very much dear colleague for the opinion made.
Based on your commentary made, the manuscript has increased analysis, as well as the figure.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study focuses on applying bibliometric analyses to analyze the research trends of microbial fuel cells between 1990 and 2022, and Scopus was used for data processing. However, there are still several issues in the study that require the authors to make significant amendments.

1.     Why did the authors use Scopus for data analysis? The data volume is 6,551 articles, but these include journals, conference papers, and reviews, and the content is written in English, Chinese, Spanish, Korean, and Persian. In terms of data processing, the content analysis of different language families and article types cannot present the significance of the results, especially the results from multiple language families, and the visualizations generated would indicate that most papers are written in English. This causes a defect in the credibility of the paper. It is recommended that the categories be compared in data processing, and the language element be considered for homogeneity.

2.     We should consider whether multivariate data processing is required for this paper of different article types. Should the data analysis of different types of articles (e.g., journals, conference papers, reviews) be conducted differently? Otherwise, it may be more difficult to reflect the value of the research. It is recommended that different types of data analyses be conducted for different types of articles to realize the value of this paper.

3.     The data volume of the paper is 6,551 articles, but what are the content filtering criteria for these articles? The authors have not cleansed the texts. The authors would need to explain the work done on data cleansing, especially in terms of the thematic fit of these studies.

4.     The content analysis of this paper is not clear. For example, Figures 6 and 7 do not explain the significance of the research. It is also recommended that the authors clearly explain the key studies and methods used for this topic, as these are not clarified in the paper.

5.     In the Conclusions section, the authors only state the results of the paper, but the significance and implications behind the study are not explained. Overall, this paper is merely a quantitative analysis, and it is difficult to see its contribution and value. It is recommended that the authors resubmit it after a significant revision.

6.     The references in this paper are formatted inconsistently. Please amend them in accordance with the journal’s standard format.

Author Response

Thank you very much dear colleague for the opinion made.
Based on your feedback, you have the following answers:

1. Why did the authors use Scopus for data analysis? The data volume is 6,551 articles, but these include journals, conference papers, and reviews, and the content is written in English, Chinese, Spanish, Korean, and Persian. In terms of data processing, the content analysis of different language families and article types cannot present the significance of the results, especially the results from multiple language families, and the visualizations generated would indicate that most papers are written in English. This causes a defect in the credibility of the paper. It is recommended that the categories be compared in data processing, and the language element be considered for homogeneity.

Ans. Scopus was used basically because of the large database it has and because it is the main source of information worldwide. The calculations were made, leaving only the English language. All values changed.

2. We should consider whether multivariate data processing is required for this paper of different article types. Should the data analysis of different types of articles (e.g., journals, conference papers, reviews) be conducted differently? Otherwise, it may be more difficult to reflect the value of the research. It is recommended that different types of data analyses be conducted for different types of articles to realize the value of this paper.

Ans. It may not indicate it in the manuscript, but only Fig. 01 gives an overview but from table 01 to the end, only articles were analyzed. I did this basically because in most bibliometric analysis they make that general report at the beginning.

3. The data volume of the paper is 6,551 articles, but what are the content filtering criteria for these articles? The authors have not cleansed the texts. The authors would need to explain the work done on data cleansing, especially in terms of the thematic fit of these studies.

Ans. A flowchart was made with what was required.

4. The content analysis of this paper is not clear. For example, Figures 6 and 7 do not explain the significance of the research. It is also recommended that the authors clearly explain the key studies and methods used for this topic, as these are not clarified in the paper.

Ans. Explanations and characteristics have been added to the final paragraphs of each indicated figure.

5. In the Conclusions section, the authors only state the results of the paper, but the significance and implications behind the study are not explained. Overall, this paper is merely a quantitative analysis, and it is difficult to see its contribution and value. It is recommended that the authors resubmit it after a significant revision.

Ans. Added an implications paragraph at the end of the conclusions about possible implications.

6. The references in this paper are formatted inconsistently. Please amend them in accordance with the journal’s standard format.

Ans. The references are placed in the same way; the font size was different.

 

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors slightly corrected the English level of the text, but still, the text needs to be rewritten and corrected before publishing. Also, I would suggest adding more specific details to the categories they have made in table 1 (specific fields/research and materials that they are working on, what is the specific selling point of their research for each specific research group mentioned in Table 1 and describe a summary of it in the tables).

Reviewer 2 Report

The work deserve to be publish as it is.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. It is recommended that the authors expand the discussion of content analysis, such as summarizing the more commonly employed theories and research methods in this area or other analyses that would help enhance the value of this paper.

2. In the section discussing significance and future research, it is recommended that the authors be more precise about the significance that future research could bring, compared to the results of the paper, rather than merely stating the possible directions of future research as perceived by the authors.

Overall, this paper has shown improvement compared to the previous one, but the overall article quality still leaves something to be desired. Therefore, based on the results of this review, the reviewer recommends that the article be rejected and resubmitted after revision.