A Bibliometric and Scientometric Network Analysis of Occupational Safety and Health in the Electric Power Industry: Future Implication of Digital Pathways

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer comments:

Manuscript: sustainability-3043107.

Title: A Bibliometric and Scientometric Network Analysis of Occupational Safety and Health in the Electric Power Industry: Future Implication of Digital Resilience

Overall evaluation:

This is an extensive paper that present new aspects of literature reviews. The authors have done a good job, which can even be more improved if they consider the following upgrades:

General notes:

1. For the benefit of readers, give full definitions / explanations of the two terms: Bibliometrics and Scientometrics. Explain why, how, and at what domains these are applied.

2. Explain in more details why the three analysis focusses of ‘research cooperation, author keywords, and journal co-citation pattern’ were selected, and how?

3. Further to point 2 above; Authors need to clarify what do such analyses add to the problem of safety within electricity generation and distribution organizations? What practical aspects can be taken from the relevant provided figures (3, to 8) and other ones as well? In other words: what is the benefits of exploring the relations between various descriptive keywords of authors of the 603 reviewed articles?

Methodology:

4. Line 88: Written: “This study adopted a three-phase analytical approach to conduct a systematic literature review”. Do authors mean the three domains of focus as in point 2 above? If yes, then the use of the word ‘phase’ is a bit misleading as it indicates some sort of sequential progress, one step after the other. The use of a different expression like ‘a three-parts’ or similar will be clearer.

5. Or, if the mentioned three analyses approaches are different from the mentioned three focusses mentioned in point 2, then please explain more.

6. It will be more useful if the authors give a block diagram or a similar illustration to graphically show the steps of the methodology and the sequence / or parallel relation of the named methodology parts. If there is a sequence in the methodology steps, then please show that. of these steps (i.e. outputs of some steps may be used as inputs for next steps).

7. Section 2.3: Line 125: Explain more about the ‘content analysis’ of the publications. What tools were used, or was that done manually?

8. Line 176. Written: “China is a developing country”. This is not accurate as China is currently the world's second largest economy and a global manufacturing powerhouse as per the definitions from relevant international organizations. Please correct.

9. Line 188: written “Nigeria, Turkey, India, Brazil and Iran are developed countries”. Again, this is not correct. From this point and the previous one (point 7) it seems that as if the authors have confused the definitions of developed/ developing countries.

10.   Line 232: written: “Four clusters were generated based on the proximity of various topics”. What are these clusters, and what they represent in terms of impact on safety of electrical operations?

11.   Please upgrade the quality of figures (e.g. figures 3, 4, 5, etc.)

Overall scientific / Conceptual contribution:

12.   Authors are encouraged to answer this question somewhere in their conclusions: What could be expected to differ from other safety critical domains (transportation, oil and gas, mining, etc.) if this research was not focused on electricity organizations operations?

13.   Authors are encouraged to explain how normal readers in industry benefit from the graphical representations of various analyses as shown in various figures.

14. The authors need to very clearly indicate the relevance of the second part of the article’s title : “Future Implication of Digital Resilience” to this work, or otherwise remove this part of the title.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The idea of the paper is clear and there is some innovation, but at present there is a problem of whether the method introduction and use match. The result analysis stays on the surface and lacks in-depth discussion. Details are as follows:

1.          It is recommended to summarize the 4 into a large table. It's too fragmented at the moment.

2.          “2.2. Scientometric Analysis”: It is not clear from the text that the method mentioned in it is used at the same time. Did the author use the methods mentioned at the same time? What does "scientific mapping and scientometric network approaches" mean?

3.          The serial number of the figure is repeated, such as the two Figure. 1 in the paper.

4.          Some pictures are not clear, as shown in Figure 4.

5.          The text content of the picture is partially displayed, such as "Figure 5: ood safety".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf