Integrated Coastal Zone Management Studies in Turkey in the Context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An Evaluation Using Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are my detailed comments and suggestions for improvement:

1. Abstract and Introduction:

The abstract and introduction sections should clearly articulate the urgency and forward-looking nature of the research. It is crucial to specify the research background and current developments in Coastal Zone Management Studies. Explain the existing issues and key focus areas to highlight the unique aspects of this field and its significance for academic development.

2. Global Context and Research Necessity:

In the introduction, provide a more comprehensive discussion of the necessity for research in this field within a global context. Even though this is a review article, it is important to focus on relevant perspectives and research questions.

3. Section 1.2 - Visualization:

Enhance Section 1.2 by including diagrams and visual representations. This will improve the understanding of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and its unique characteristics. Visual aids can significantly enhance the reader's comprehension and engagement with the material.

4. Section 4 - Policy Guidance:

Section 4 provides a policy guidance diagram to illustrate the applicability and guidance provided by the review. This will help underline your review's practical implications and policy relevance.

 

Author Response

All requested revisions has been made. Revised changes of reviewer 1 coloured as green.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript analyzes, through a bibliometric search based on the Web of Science Core Collection database, the characteristics related to the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in relation to three strategic development goals (SDGs) of the UN Agenda 2030, in the national context of Turkey. The three SDGs considered are “Clean water and sanitation,” “Sustainable cities and communities,” and, “Life below water.”

Although the study addresses very important issues for current scientific and technical debate, nevertheless it is not, in my opinion, publishable in its current draft. In a revised version of the manuscript, the author should carefully address the following points.

i. Section 1. “Introduction,” Subsection 1.1." Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Context of UN Sustainable Development Goals” and Subsections 1.2 ‘Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Turkey.’ The three parts of the Introductory Section do not link together clearly, so the reader is left bewildered as it is not explained what is the reason for the special interest of Turkey's national context in relation to ICZM practices, compared to other international contexts, and in relation to the SDGs system. Similarly, the choice of the three SDGs with respect to which bibliometric analysis is implemented, as opposed to the other fourteen, which are not considered interesting in relation to ICZM practices, is not motivated. I would recommend, therefore, that the author rewrite the Introduction, organizing it according to the following references: i. make the reader aware of the reasons why the three SDGs that characterize the bibliometric analysis and their survey periods were chosen; ii. discuss, in a detailed and systematic manner, the relationships between the three chosen SDGs and the ICZM features in general terms; iii. explain why, with reference to the previous two points, the environmental context of Turkey is particularly significant, even in relation to other international contexts. Although the choice of Turkey could be motivated by the author's familiarity with this territorial context and/or the good availability of bibliographic sources, this choice should be justified in terms of its general interest for Sustainability readers.

ii. Section 2. “Materials and Methods.” In relation to the methodological approach, outlined in this section and based on the integration of bibliometrics, social network analysis and content analysis, I would recommend that the author contextualize this choice in relation to the use of this mode of bibliometric analysis in other studies related to the issue of the implementation of the sustainable development principle in ICZM-related spatial policies. In other words, I would recommend the author to highlight the value added of the implementation of the methodological approach used in relation to SDGs, ICZM and Turkey.

iii. Section 4. “Discussion and Conclusion.” A comparative analysis of the results, obtained from the implementation of the methodological approach regarding Turkey, with respect to the outcomes of similar studies, concerning the implementation of the ICZM in relation to the SDGs, available in the current literature, is completely lacking. This comparative analysis would enable the reader to realize similarities and differences with respect to the contents of the current disciplinary debate and, most importantly, to understand the value added of the proposed study, within the same debate.

iv. Section 4. “Discussion and Conclusion.” Also with reference to my previous comment, I would recommend that the authors add to this section an analysis of the pros and cons of exporting the methodological approach defined and implemented in the submitted manuscript to other international contexts, which would enable the reader to effectively identify the overall relevance of the submitted manuscript.

I would also recommend that the authors give concrete examples of policy recommendations related to ICZM, related to the spatial, management, political and institutional context of Turkey.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs a comprehensive, careful and detailed revision.

Author Response

All requested revisions has been made. Revised changes of reviewer 1 coloured as red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting and actual. 

The abstract should include one or two sentences about the study's limitations that could influence the generalization of the results.

1. Introduction: Please insert the structure of the article, cut the repetition of the aim. 

1.2 section: it concerns area study so it's better as well as a subsection of section 2. Also insert a photos or map. 

Discussion and Conclusion: please the author creates sub sections.  

I believe that the authors can deepen the research's limitations, also practical aspects.

Furthermore, the authors could detail which specific variables could be confounding in the context of the study.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check minor mistakes, readability of the manuscript. Although this is a well written document, there are several jargons, difficult to understand.

 

Author Response

All requested revisions has been made. Revised changes of reviewer 1 coloured as blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has similarities with https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1201811/full.

The authors should take care of these parts and make the necessary alterations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

All requested revisions has been made. Revised changes of reviewer 1 coloured as purple.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has responded to the comments. The revised version is satisfactory for publication.

Author Response

Necessary changes have been made and editing support has been received from mdpi's English editing service and the certificate is attached as supplementary material.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, it is totally improper to submit a revised version of the manuscript without a cover letter that, in detail, explains how the different points raised in the first place were addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Therefore, I consider this second submission inadmissible and confirm all the critical points already highlighted in the first review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs a comprehensive, careful and detailed revision.

Author Response

Necessary changes have been made and editing support has been received from mdpi's English editing service and the certificate is attached as supplementary material.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript. I still have some general remarks that you may find below. 

You have not revised the discussion conclusion section, as suggestion (Discussion and Conclusion: please the author creates sub sections), it remains rather long. It seems like a combination of literature listing and policy recommendation rather than a balanced argumentative discussion.This lack of an “added value”.  In your conclusion section discuss your findings in relation to the case study and literature you have reported in the beginning (please improve the literature). Here you have to construct your contribution, also consider your case study. As the research has a territorial connotation, the authors should reinforce this relation between their results and the territory they refer to. 

The manuscript is duly structured in terms of clarity of expression less of continue readability. There are repetitive sentences (specially refers to objective of the article).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In my opinion English language is fine with the exception of a few minor edits to the phrasing and sentence structure.

Author Response

Necessary changes have been made and editing support has been received from mdpi's English editing service and the certificate is attached as supplementary material.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The (revised) paper aims to highlight how the basic principles of coastal sustainability and coastal zone management are associated with Turkey's performance regarding the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The authors illustrate potential solutions in line with Turkey's specific conditions. This is an improved version compared to the first version but still requires some revisions before being publishable in Sustainability.    

1. What is the source of Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15? The authors should cite it. Additionally, Figure 15 needs to be corrected. The sum of publications is different to 199.
2. What are the new approaches to protecting and using coastal areas (lines 38-39)? The authors should be more specific here.
3. The authors rightly draw attention to the connection between Coastal Zone Management and sustainable development. However, the authors have yet to discuss sustainable development and not only cite the famous Brundtland definition. To further engage the readers, it is recommended that a brief discussion on sustainable development be included in the introduction. This can be done by referencing the following two papers: 'Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy', New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and 'History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory', Sustainability, 13 (3).
4. I need help understanding how the added paragraph (lines 63-70) relates to the previous discussion. More work is needed here. In the same vein, what is the role of the added paragraph (lines 469-472)?  
5. What are the theoretical and policy implications of this study? How are the policy implications connected with SDGs, which is the policy axis of the paper?
6. Are there any limitations?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Necessary changes have been made and editing support has been received from mdpi's English editing service and the certificate is attached as supplementary material.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Once again, in my opinion, it is totally improper to submit a revised version of the manuscript without a cover letter that, in detail, explains how the different points raised in the first place were addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Therefore, I consider this third submission inadmissible and confirm all the critical points already highlighted in the first review, except the assessment concerning the English, which is fine.

Author Response

Comments 1: The submitted manuscript analyzes, through a bibliometric search based on the Web of Science Core Collection database, the characteristics related to the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in relation to three strategic development goals (SDGs) of the UN Agenda 2030, in the national context of Turkey. The three SDGs considered are “Clean water and sanitation,” “Sustainable cities and communities,” and, “Life below water.” Although the study addresses very important issues for current scientific and technical debate, nevertheless it is not, in my opinion, publishable in its current draft. In a revised version of the manuscript, the author should carefully address the following points. Section 1. “Introduction,” Subsection 1.1." Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Context of UN Sustainable Development Goals” and Subsections 1.2 ‘Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Turkey.’ The three parts of the Introductory Section do not link together clearly, so the reader is left bewildered as it is not explained what is the reason for the special interest of Turkey's national context in relation to ICZM practices, compared to other international contexts, and in relation to the SDGs system. Similarly, the choice of the three SDGs with respect to which bibliometric analysis is implemented, as opposed to the other fourteen, which are not considered interesting in relation to ICZM practices, is not motivated. I would recommend, therefore, that the author rewrite the Introduction, organizing it according to the following references: i. make the reader aware of the reasons why the three SDGs that characterize the bibliometric analysis and their survey periods were chosen; ii. discuss, in a detailed and systematic manner, the relationships between the three chosen SDGs and the ICZM features in general terms; iii. explain why, with reference to the previous two points, the environmental context of Turkey is particularly significant, even in relation to other international contexts. Although the choice of Turkey could be motivated by the author's familiarity with this territorial context and/or the good availability of bibliographic sources, this choice should be justified in terms of its general interest for Sustainability readers. Response 1:  Necessary edits are expanded in the article on lines 57-65.   Comments 2:  Section 2. “Materials and Methods.” In relation to the methodological approach, outlined in this section and based on the integration of bibliometrics, social network analysis and content analysis, I would recommend that the author contextualize this choice in relation to the use of this mode of bibliometric analysis in other studies related to the issue of the implementation of the sustainable development principle in ICZM-related spatial policies. In other words, I would recommend the author to highlight the value added of the implementation of the methodological approach used in relation to SDGs, ICZM and Turkey. Response 2: Necessary arrangements have been made in lines 77-83.   Comments 3:  Section 4. “Discussion and Conclusion.” A comparative analysis of the results, obtained from the implementation of the methodological approach regarding Turkey, with respect to the outcomes of similar studies, concerning the implementation of the ICZM in relation to the SDGs, available in the current literature, is completely lacking. This comparative analysis would enable the reader to realize similarities and differences with respect to the contents of the current disciplinary debate and, most importantly, to understand the value added of the proposed study, within the same debate. Response 3: The results obtained from the ICZM applications for Turkey to date are presented in detail in the table in comparison with the results of similar studies on ICZM application related to the Sustainable Development Goals available in the existing literature. It is informed on line 420.   Comments 4:  Section 4. “Discussion and Conclusion.” Also with reference to my previous comment, I would recommend that the authors add to this section an analysis of the pros and cons of exporting the methodological approach defined and implemented in the submitted manuscript to other international contexts, which would enable the reader to effectively identify the overall relevance of the submitted manuscript. I would also recommend that the authors give concrete examples of policy recommendations related to ICZM, related to the spatial, management, political and institutional context of Turkey. Response 4:  The results obtained from the ICZM applications for Turkey to date are presented in detail in the table in comparison with the results of similar studies on ICZM application related to the Sustainable Development Goals available in the existing literature. It is informed on line 420.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors attempted to address some of my previous comments. However, they have to submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each of my comments. Without this list, it isn't easy to follow their revisions.

Author Response

Comments 1: The (revised) paper aims to highlight how the basic principles of coastal sustainability and coastal zone management are associated with Turkey's performance regarding the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The authors illustrate potential solutions in line with Turkey's specific conditions. This is an improved version compared to the first version but still requires some revisions before being publishable in Sustainability.       What is the source of Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15? The authors should cite it. Additionally, Figure 15 needs to be corrected. The sum of publications is different to 199.     Response 1: Figure 1 is indicated in line 123, figure 3 is indicated in line 163. Other figures are tables extracted from this publication by the author.   Comments 2: What are the new approaches to protecting and using coastal areas (lines 38-39)? The authors should be more specific here.   Response 2: Comments 3: The authors rightly draw attention to the connection between Coastal Zone Management and sustainable development. However, the authors have yet to discuss sustainable development and not only cite the famous Brundtland definition. To further engage the readers, it is recommended that a brief discussion on sustainable development be included in the introduction. This can be done by referencing the following two papers: 'Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy', New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and 'History, Knowledge, and Sustainable Economic Development: The Contribution of John Stuart Mill’s Grand Stage Theory', Sustainability, 13 (3).   Response 3: Classical political economy provides an analytical backbone of certain elements, including the important role of history, the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach, and the analytical primacy of social classes that can be critical in enriching sustainable development studies. Shown in lines 423-426.   Comments 4: I need help understanding how the added paragraph (lines 63-70) relates to the previous discussion. More work is needed here. In the same vein, what is the role of the added paragraph (lines 469-472)?     Response 4: Necessary explanations have been made   Comments 5: What are the theoretical and policy implications of this study? How are the policy implications connected with SDGs, which is the policy axis of the paper?   Response 5: The results obtained from the ICZM applications for Turkey to date are presented in detail in the table in comparison with the results of similar studies on ICZM application related to the Sustainable Development Goals available in the existing literature. It is informed on line 420.   Comments 6:: Are there any limitations?   Response 6: The results obtained from the ICZM applications for Turkey to date are presented in detail in the table in comparison with the results of similar studies on ICZM application related to the Sustainable Development Goals available in the existing literature. It is informed on line 420.