Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled "Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Digitization Research of Chinese Archives Based on Bibliometrics" contains an analysis of the current state of research development, research hotspots and trends, and possible future research directions in the field of archival digitization research in China. The analysis was conducted based on a literature review using 1267 relevant literature articles from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from January 1995 to September 2022 as the research object. This approach ensures a representative sample. The study summarizes the research hotspots and development trends in the field of archival digitization by applying bibliometric analysis and knowledge graph analysis, and visualizing and analyzing the research content, authors, and institutions using appropriate software.
The research methods include bibliometric methods to analyze the development trend of Chinese archives digitization and a knowledge graph - a graphical representation of the development and structural relationships of scientific knowledge in the real world. The research methods are clearly described, ensuring reproducibility of the methodology.
The results are clearly presented and thoroughly analyzed. It is necessary to increase the font size and typeface in Figure 3 and the resolution of Figures 5, 6, and 8 to ensure readability of the data.
The results show that research in digital archiving first began in the late 19th century, with an increasing trend followed by a decreasing trend in annual publication numbers. Based on the changes in annual publication volume, research on digital archiving in China can be roughly divided into three phases. Thanks to the efforts of many scholars, China has made significant progress in the field of digital archiving. The authors conducted a statistical analysis of the publication volume of authors in the field of digital archiving in China from 1995 to 2022 and identified the most representative authors, their affiliations, and research directions. Frequency of occurrence and analysis of publishing institutions in 1267 articles were conducted. Both universities and archives play an extremely important role in archival digitization research. Within colleges and universities, the schools of management and history have the highest overall distribution of publishing institutions.
The research directions of representative scholars and publishing institutions show that there is a clear trend toward interdisciplinary research in current research on digital archives, focusing primarily on new fields of interdisciplinary fusion such as archives and museums, computer software and applications, and library and digital library. However, the authors conclude that collaboration between authors and institutions is relatively loose and that no central research body has yet formed. The conclusion is clear and concise and summarizes all the findings. The mouse script also includes possible future research directions in the field of Big Data technology, as it is an important supporting technology for building digital archives and building digital archives promotes the development of archival work.

Based on the above, I submit the paper with minor corrections to the graph for publication in Sustainability journal.
Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The following corrections are recommended:

 

The introduction sets out the conceptual framework but only cites three articles. It is recommended to include more theoretical background.

 

In section 2, it is recommended to first present the method and then how the data were collected. It is also recommended to add theoretical references that support the information presented in Section 2.

 

Figures 3 and 5 contain information of a small size. The figures are original but the size makes it difficult to read the content. In addition, most of the content of the figures is blurred.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for an exciting and careful study. However, I want to draw attention to the fragments that have to be corrected in my opinion.

Detailed Notes:

Introduction:

The authors describe the field of the solved problem - Digitization Research of Chinese Archives but did not formulate a clear research goal.

I also think that in the introduction, it is necessary to discuss about the world's research on the digitalization of archives and the problems solved in this regard. I think that the problem presented by the authors is not sufficiently substantiated.

2.2.1. Bibliometrics

The authors describe the Bibliometric analysis process, in lines 74-76. However, it does not provide the tools applied in the research.

I think it is necessary to present all research methods and tools in the methodology. For example, what method was used to determine the Clustered co-occurrence network map of keywords?

5. Conclusion

The authors summarize the results of the study, but it remains unclear how the research goal was achieved because the goal of the research is not formulated.

I would like to recommend that after formulating the purpose of the research, the conclusion presents data on the realization of the set research goal.

 

Sincerely.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript describes a bibliometric study on the hot topics and trends of archival digitalization in China. In this new era of digitalization and emerging technologies, the insights gained from the current analysis are expected to contribute further to the evolving significant collections in this important research domain. The current work comes as a timely and significant contribution and also generate perspectives on possible future research directions in the identified topics. The value of the work is supported while there are also some observations and comments for further consideration.

1.

This paper specifically focuses on the field of archival digitization in China. There are some general background covered in the first paragraph of introduction, I would suggest reinforcing why specifically there is a need to focus the research in the China context in the background introduction section; and how the analysis and findings in the current work would generate comparisons and perspectives in an international context. The correlations can be more explicitly and comprehensively discussed in ln 381-419 within the identified framework. The research questions should be stated in section 2.

2.

Ln 60-61, the search methods are suggested for more details. Any other search strings used in this study? More information on the inclusion / exclusion criteria are desirable for reference and replication of study, e.g. what does “other documents” (being excluded) exactly refer to in ln 67? Did authors set any restrictions on the language of reports for included studies, etc.

3.

Ln 113-114: is a revision needed for the identified years with highest publication counts? It seems to me from the analysis as in figure 2, that the years should be 2014, 2013 and 2011, instead of what have been described in the relevant parts as 2014, 2015 and 2011.

4.

Should the name of the author be Yali Luo (ln 124) or Liya Luo (item 3, table 1)?

5.

Any differentiations in the ranking provided for the ranking as 3 and 4 in table 1, with both having the same frequency count and pertaining to same percentage. Or both be 3 and should be mentioned in ln 124 as well in addition to other mentioned scholars.

6.

Ln 168: should the name of the school be Information Resources Management or Information Resource Management in Table 2?

7.

It is suggested to include in a separate section on any limitations of the current work and for the included studies to be provided to readers before the conclusion section. Overall, more discussions on the analysis in relation to recent literature on the given domains such as big data should be provided with more references and literature reports.

8.

Better resolutions of figures 5 and 6 are needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I am satisfied with the changes made and thank the authors’ substantial work to incorporate my comments and significantly enhance the manuscript. The additional background added to address my previous comment 1 to supplement the readers for the specific focus of archive research in the Chinese context, as well as the reinforced details of methods on p.2-4 and further discussions made on p. 7-8 are appreciated. I only have a few minor notes on editing and refinement:

1.

My previous comment on the name of the School of Information Resource Management of School of Renmin University of China remains. In ln 207, it is written as Information Resources Management. Should it be Information Resource Management, which is consistent with the naming displayed in table 2 and the actual name of the School.

2.

Thanks for revising the ranking in ln 162, for the name of the author, it should be Weihong Lin according to my knowledge, should not be Weihong Li.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf