Mapping the Path to Low-Carbon Behaviour: A Systematic Review of Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The scientific research article is highly intriguing; however, some few minor adjustments are needed to further refine its presentation and clarity of the concepts discussed. Authors will find the following comments also in the attached pdf file to be facilitated in revisions.

 

1 - I advise the authors to find a more concise and catchy title to captivate the reader

 

2 - The keyword ‘sustainability’ is a bit vague. I advise the authors to replace it with a more relevant one

 

3 - I advise the authors to move table 1 immediately after the introductory paragraph instead of in the methods

 

4 - I advise the authors to move figure 1 immediately after the introductory paragraph instead of in the methods

 

5 - Figure 1 is somewhat confusing, although very explanatory. I therefore advise the authors to implement a lot of captioning so as to make it clear to the reader what they want to show in figure 1

 

6 - Authors should enhance caption of figure 2

 

7 - Authors should enlarge figure 15 to make it readable

 

8 - From row 465 to row 469, where authors state "[...] Additionally, it would be advantageous to investigate the potential of social media technology to encourage the adoption of low-carbon lifestyles and encourage more companies to implement low-carbon initiatives. These studies will serve as indispensable references for utilizing new media to elevate corporate social responsibility and disseminate low-carbon concepts. [...]", to better contextualise these concepts in the scenario of recent literature, the authors should cite here the following work that deals precisely with these issues (i.e. a systematic literature review on social media topics including sustainability and climate change):

 

- Tomassi, A., Falegnami, A. and Romano, E., 2024. Mapping automatic social media information disorder. The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society. Plos one, 19(5), p.e0303183.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

The scientific research article is highly intriguing; however, some few minor adjustments are needed to further refine its presentation and clarity of the concepts discussed. Authors will find the following comments also in the attached pdf file to be facilitated in revisions.

 

1 - I advise the authors to find a more concise and catchy title to captivate the reader

--Thank you for your constructive recommendation. The new title we proposed is “Mapping the Path to Low-Carbon Behavior: A Systematic Review of Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions”

 

2 - The keyword ‘sustainability’ is a bit vague. I advise the authors to replace it with a more relevant one

--Thank you for the feedback. The keyword “sustainability” was replaced by “climate change”.

 

3 - I advise the authors to move table 1 immediately after the introductory paragraph instead of in the methods

---Thank you, we have removed table 1 immediately after the introductory paragraph.

 

4 - I advise the authors to move figure 1 immediately after the introductory paragraph instead of in the methods

---Thank you, we have removed figure 1 immediately after the introductory paragraph.

 

5 - Figure 1 is somewhat confusing, although very explanatory. I therefore advise the authors to implement a lot of captioning so as to make it clear to the reader what they want to show in figure 1

-- Thank you for your comment. The content in Figure 1 has been accurately expressed and simplified. Different colors are used to indicate the themes of various modules.

 

6 - Authors should enhance caption of figure 2

-- Thank you for your comment. Caption of figure 2 “The methodological framework” was improved with “The research design and methodology”.

 

7 - Authors should enlarge figure 15 to make it readable

--Thank you for your comment. We have enlarged the figure, but the quality is fixed as this is taken from the software.

 

8 - From row 465 to row 469, where authors state "[...] Additionally, it would be advantageous to investigate the potential of social media technology to encourage the adoption of low-carbon lifestyles and encourage more companies to implement low-carbon initiatives. These studies will serve as indispensable references for utilizing new media to elevate corporate social responsibility and disseminate low-carbon concepts. [...]", to better contextualise these concepts in the scenario of recent literature, the authors should cite here the following work that deals precisely with these issues (i.e. a systematic literature review on social media topics including sustainability and climate change):

--Thank you for your constructive comment. We have amended as follows:

From row 580-586: Although there were several systematic literature review papers published related to social media and sustainability [40,41], the context is more of its relationship rather than the outcome of social media practice to the environment. Thus, this study pro-posed that a study related to the outcome of low-carbon behaviour or low-carbon performance can improve current low carbon practices especially since studies related to social media are plenty.

 

References:

40. 40. Vladimirova, K.; Henninger, C. E.; Alosaimi, S. I.; Brydges, T.; Choopani, H.; Hanlon, M. et al. Exploring the influence of social media on sustainable fashion consumption: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing. 2024, 15, 181-202.
41. 41. Bhimani, H.; Mention, A. L.; Barlatier, P. J. Social media and innovation: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019, 144, 251-269.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyses a large body of literature on the issue of low carbon behaviour, an issue that has gained importance in recent years, to determine which methods are being studied and which issues are being analysed in which regions.

The structure of the paper, the content of the analysis and the conclusions are clear and do not require any further revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

This paper analyses a large body of literature on the issue of low carbon behaviour, an issue that has gained importance in recent years, to determine which methods are being studied and which issues are being analysed in which regions.

 

The structure of the paper, the content of the analysis and the conclusions are clear and do not require any further revision.

 

--Thank you for your kind feedback and we hope that this paper will be one of the early attempts to improve low-carbon behaviour as stated by you. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

SHOULD BE POLISHED

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

1. Line 104-105: you should cite the original inventors/works of these tools. (Line 123-124 in the revised version)

-- Thank you for your comment. This section provides an overview of the research methodology, primarily aimed at briefly introducing the tools used. Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and Scimago Graphica are widely recognized tools in this field. According to academic writing conventions, it is not typically necessary to cite the original literature every time such commonly used tools are mentioned. These tools are well-established in the bibliometric analysis community. However, if you have any further suggestions for improvement, we would be more than happy to make adjustments to enhance the clarity and academic rigor of our paper.

 

2. Line 115-116: you should use classical studies from the field of Scientometrics to support the methods and data section especially those focusing on "Web of Science". (Line 137-138 in the revised version)

--Thank you for your constructive comment. We have amended accordingly at line 128 to 133:

This study followed PRISMA protocol to ensure replicability, validity and reliability of research. However, the originality of this study is that this review employs bibliometric analysis together with social network analysis for keywords and theme identification. VOSviewer was implemented for bibliometric analysis and keyword analysis in this investigation due to its user-friendly interface and uncomplicated output.

 

3. Please give more information about the used Web of Science Core Collection according to the suggestions of the following study. This point should be disclosed to readers clearly to avoid potential repeatability crises.

Liu, W. (2019). The data source of this study is Web of Science Core Collection? Not enough. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1815-1824. 

--Thank you for your comment. We have reorganised this paragraph from line 137-148:

In this study, the dataset is sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), a highly authoritative and extensively utilized resource [37] that features high-quality journals and offers a comprehensive data structure enhancing the depth and accuracy of bibliometric analysis. The researchers utilized the Science Citation In-dex Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Hu-manities Citation Index (A&HCI), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). The search, conducted on 11 Jul. 2024, employed the following strategy: Topic = ("low-carbon behavior" OR "low-carbon behaviors" OR "low-carbon behaviour" OR "low-carbon behaviours"), excluding document types = ("Review Article" OR "Pro-ceeding Paper" OR "Book Chapters"). No limitations were set on publication years or language. This comprehensive approach resulted in the selection of 129 articles for visual analysis, ensuring transparency and reproducibility of data collection process.

 

 

 

4. Table 1: what does "country" field mean?

-- Thank you for your comment. The word “country” was intended to represent the main country of authors’ institutions. Sorry we made a mistake for the bellowing:

Literature 1:  There are 6 authors, author 1 to author 4 come from INDONESIA, author 5 and author 6 come from JAPAN.

Literature 2: There are 4 authors, author 1 and author 4 come from CHINA, author 2 and author 3 come from UNITED STATES.

Literature 3: There are 3 authors, all of them come from the NETHERLANDS.

Literature 4: There are 4 authors, all of them come from China.

We would like to modify “Country” with “Authors’ countries” as the co-authors of literature1 and 2 come from 2 different countries.  So “Authors’ countries” of literature 1 to 4 are: “INDONESIA, JAPAN”, “CHINA, UNITED STATES”, “The NETHERLANDS” and “CHINA”.

 

5. Figure 1: the figure is too complicated. Please present it more clearly.

--Thank you for your comment. The content in Figure 1 has been accurately expressed and simplified. Different colours are used to indicate the themes of various modules.

 

6. Figure 3: more information about these journals such as JIF, and publishers should be given.

--Thank you for your comment. More information about these journals such as 2023 JIF and publishers have been given in Figure 3. The paragraph preceding Figure 3 also includes an introduction to the journal impact factors (JIF) and publishers. (Line 198-202)

 

7. Figure 6: the figure is strange. Please also mention the expansion of Web of Science as documented in the literature.

--Thank you for your comment. We have amended as shown in line 245-247:

As the time of writing, the year 2024 is still not finished but already showing positive increment. This is to show both publication and citations for low carbon behaviour are trending and increasing.

 

8. Figure 7 is presented in a strange way.

-- Thank you for your comment. We have amended as shown in line 266 to 268:

 

From the figure, after the year 2014, TC for each author has increased more than the year 2013 and below. This shows the trend of publication in literature. 

 

9. Figure 8: different variants of CAS should be merged.

-- Thank you for your comment. The Chinese Academy of Sciences, the University of Science and Technology of China, and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences cannot be fully equated, although they are closely connected. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (abbreviated as CAS) is China's highest academic institution and comprehensive scientific research organization. The University of Science and Technology of China and the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences are universities founded by CAS, and both are important academic institutions of CAS. The University of Science and Technology of China was established in 1958 and is a comprehensive university, while the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences was founded in 1978 and is a school that cultivates high-level research-oriented talents. The expressions "UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CHINA CAS" and "UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CAS" do not refer to a single noun or fixed phrase, but indicate the cooperative relationship between the universities and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Therefore, due to their different functions and positioning, these two universities are not equivalent to or subsumed under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The same classification method can be referenced in the following literature:

Liu, X., Zhao, S., Tan, L., Tan, Y., Wang, Y., Ye, Z., ... & Wang, G. (2022). Frontier and hot topics in electrochemiluminescence sensing technology based on CiteSpace bibliometric analysis. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 201, 113932.

However, the INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY CAS is one of the affiliated institutions of CAS, and therefore is merged with CAS. The final results can be seen in the updated Figure 8.

 

10. Figure 11 is not clear.

--Thank you for your comment and apologies for the unclear figure. Figure 11 presents a co-authorship network diagram generated by biblioshiny, where nodes represent authors, edges indicate collaborative relationships, and node sizes reflect authors' influence or publication volume. In this visualization, the font size of author names increases proportionally with node size, and the clarity of the names also improves. Conversely, smaller nodes are associated with smaller, less distinct font sizes. This presentation style is a characteristic feature of biblioshiny's network visualization. Consequently, only a select number of names appear in large, clearly legible fonts, corresponding to the most prominent nodes in the network.

 

11. Table 3: it is not correct to replace Scotland with England.

-- Thank you for your comment. Table 3 includes replacements for region or country names (rows 3 to 7), aimed at creating "Figure 10. Publication of low-carbon behavior by country". Drawing Figure 10 requires two software tools: VOSviewer 1.6.20 and Scimago:

(1) First, use VOSviewer 1.6.20 for data cleaning, replacing keywords that shouldn't be considered as countries. For example, "England", "Scotland", "Wales" should be changed to "United Kingdom"; "Taiwan" should be changed to "China", etc. After replacement, generate a file with the. gml extension.

(2) Then, open the .gml file using Scimago. In the "vertices" worksheet, select "country" in the "label" column, and check for any keywords that can't be recognized as countries. If found, manually modify them. For instance, "peoples r china" should be changed to the recognizable "China"; "u arab emirates" should be changed to the recognizable "UNITED ARAB EMIRATES", etc. If all country names in step (1) have already been modified to Scimago-recognizable names, then after checking in step (2), there should be no unrecognizable names and no further modifications needed. If some country names in step (1) weren't changed to Scimago-recognizable names, they need to be manually modified in step (2) to obtain the correct Figure 10.

When drawing Figure 10, "Scotland" and "Wales" were initially temporarily replaced with "England" in step (1), but in step (2), "England" was manually changed to "United Kingdom". If "England", "Scotland", and "Wales" were all replaced with "United Kingdom" in step (1), they would be correctly recognized in step (2) without manual modification. Both methods result in the same Figure 10.

Regarding keyword cleaning in Table 3, to avoid misunderstanding, the original replacement of "Scotland" and "Wales" with "England" has now been changed to "United Kingdom". Additionally, a new line has been added to replace "England" with "United Kingdom" as well. The data originally in the 5th row of the table has been moved to the 34th row. Other contents of the table remain unchanged.

 

12. Limitations of your study especially the limitations of Web of Science should be mentioned. For example the under-representation of non-English publications in Web of Science. The following study is an example. Vera-Baceta, M. A., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2019). Web of Science and Scopus language coverage. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1803-1813.

--Thank you for your comment. Limitations of this study have been added behind the conclusion. (Line 632-639)

 

13. You should discuss your findings with related studies. For example, the performance of China in SCI-indexed papers.

--Thank you for your comment. We have amended as follows:

In conclusion, we discuss that “Secondly, China occupies a preeminent position in this domain, as evidenced by the substantial quantity of high-quality research conducted by institutions such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This work is indicative of China's proactive initiatives to combat climate change and encourage low-carbon behavior”. (Line 620-623)

 

14. The language should be polished carefully.

--Thank you for your comment. We have proofread our paper carefully as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved. However, a careful and thorough revision is still needed, especially to improve the reliability of the method by referring to existing studies and to expand the discussion section. These are very important for a responsible bibliometric analysis or systematic review.

1.     Line 14: Why "Review articles, proceedings papers, and editorial materials were all excluded"?

2.     Line 126: you should replace reference 37 with authoritative studies focusing on "Web of Science Core Collection" published in the past five years.

3.     Studies have found Scopus is also a widely used data source, please justify your choice by using evidence or referring to authoritative studies focusing on these two sources.

4.     Line 128-130: as suggested in the first round of review and suggested by a previous study in Scientometrics, the coverage years of each sub-dataset must be provided. You should also explain this important point to readers.

5.     Line 133: Why "excluding document types = ("Review Article" OR "Proceeding Paper" OR "Book Chapters")"?

6.     Line 152: the expression "emerging sources" is not precise. Some studies published in Scientometrics are helpful.

7.     Figure 4: it is strange to find the appearance of the "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health" for the year 2024. This journal has been delisted in the Web of Science.

8.     Line 195-196: Please notice the limitations of topic search in Web of Science. Related publications may exist before 2012. A recent study focusing on Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis can explain this point. Please add a further explanation here.

9.     Line 207: what does "citations" mean?

10.   Figure 6: Please refer to related studies to explain the "abnormal growth of research publications". Many studies published in the flagship journal in recent years have probed this point.

11.   Figure 6: coverage expansion of the Web of Science as also documented in the literature should be explained to the readers.

12.   Line 225: the phrase "total citation (TC) per year" is strange.

13.   Many studies also found China's rise in academic publications in Natural Science (SCIE indexed papers) and Social Science (SSCI indexed papers). Add these studies to your discussion section.

14.   The limitations of the Web of Science as widely documented in studies focusing on the "Web of Science" should be given.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Should be polished

Author Response

REVIEW ROUND 2

The manuscript has been improved. However, careful and thorough revision is still needed, especially to improve the reliability of the method by referring to existing studies and expanding the discussion section. These are very important for responsible bibliometric analysis or systematic review.

 

1. Line 14: Why "Review articles, proceedings papers, and editorial materials were all excluded"?

-- Thank you for your insightful remarks. We aim to obtain high-quality, reputable articles that have undergone peer review. For conferences, proceedings, etc. Numerous single-blind evaluations or a deficiency of transparency in the review process exist. Review articles possess limited empirical evidence as they solely analyse published works. Our objective is to comprehend contemporary research on low-carbon behaviour, which can be enhanced through the examination of empirical papers.

 

2. Line 126: you should replace reference 37 with authoritative studies focusing on the “Web of Science Core Collection" published in the past five years.

-- Thank you for your feedback. We apologise for the error; but, upon review, reference 37 has been published within the last five years as of the time of writing.

 

37. Abduljabbar, R.L.; Liyanag,e S.; Dia, H. The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2021, 92, 102734.

 

3. Studies have found Scopus is also a widely used data source, please justify your choice by using evidence or referring to authoritative studies focusing on these two sources.

-- Thank you for the comment. Scopus is a comprehensive abstract database. We selected solely the Web of Science due to its more rigorous and discerning paper selection process. Secondly, it represents the top standard in academia. Furthermore, it offers additional data for bibliometric analysis, including country-specific evaluations. To avoid duplication and to ensure replicability, we chose the Web of Science only as our database.

 

 

 

 

4. Line 128-130: as suggested in the first round of review and suggested by a previous study in Scientometrics, the coverage years of each sub-dataset must be provided. You should also explain this important point to readers.

-- Thank you for your comment. The amended content and reference are as follows: The researchers employed the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED, 1970-present), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI, 1970-present), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI, 1975-present), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI, 2005-present). 

 

5. Line 133: Why "excluding document types = ("Review Article" OR "Proceeding Paper" OR "Book Chapters”)?

-- Thank you for your comment. To guarantee the acquisition of high-quality, dependable articles that undergo peer review. For conferences, proceedings, etc. Numerous single-blind evaluations or a deficiency in transparency within the review process exist. The review article possesses limited empirical evidence, as it solely examines published works. Our purpose is to comprehend contemporary research on low-carbon behaviour, which can be enhanced by the examination of empirical articles.

 

6. Line 152: the expression "emerging sources" is not precise. Some studies published in Scientometrics are helpful.

--We much appreciate your invaluable counsel. The term "emerging sources" is deemed insufficiently clear and is revised to "newly evaluated sources".

Furthermore, since the establishment of the Emerging Source Citation Index, there is an increasing interest in evaluating its implications as an assessment instrument. The ESCI's undeniable improvement in the coverage of Social Science and Humanities journals addresses a gap in the Web of Science core collections.

(De Filippo, D., & Gorraiz, J. (2020). Is the Emerging Source Citation Index an aid to assess the citation impact in social science and humanities? Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), 101088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101088)

 

7. Figure 4: it is strange to find the appearance of the "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health" for the year 2024. This journal has been delisted on the Web of Science.

-- We greatly appreciate your suggestion. The "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health" has been removed from Figure 4. The revised Figure 4 re-examined the five leading journals based on the total number of publications in low-carbon behaviour research, encompassing seven journals, with three journals sharing the fourth position.

 

 

 

8. Line 195-196: Please notice the limitations of topic search in Web of Science. Related publications may exist before 2012. A recent study focusing on Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis can explain this point. Please add a further explanation here.

-- Thank you so much. The revised content and added reference are as follows:

The initial search in Web of Science Core Collection identified 129 papers on low-carbon behaviour published up to July 2024, with the earliest paper in this dataset dating from 2012. However, it's important to note that this may not represent the absolute beginning of research in this field due to the limited publication coverage before 1990s and inconsistent indexing of authors' KeyWords Plus before 2000 [38]. …

38. Hou, J. Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics. 2023, 128, 2203-2220.

 

9. Line 207: what does "citations" mean?

--Citations mean other scholars cited this paper recorded in Web of Science.

 

10. Figure 6: Please refer to related studies to explain the "abnormal growth of research publications". Many studies published in the flagship journal in recent years have probed this point.

-- Thanks for your comments. Add the following to the interpretation of Figure 6: One of the key factors in the extraordinary increase in the number of low-carbon management research papers in recent years is related to global environmental and policy changes, especially the Chinese government's financial support for achieving carbon neutral and zero carbon development. In 2020, China put forward a national strategy of carbon peak by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060, prompting the rise of a large number of related research and attracting international attention.

 

11. Figure 6: coverage expansion of the Web of Science as also documented in the literature should be explained to the readers.

-- Thank you for your comment. We have added:

This article selects the Web of Science Core Collection as the database. The Web of Science Core Collection is the recommended database for bibliometric research, encompassing leading journals across disciplines with extensive citation indexing and superior data quality. Its rigorous selection criteria, robust analytical tools, and multi-faceted search capabilities offer dependable and extensive data assistance for bibliometric research.

 

 

 

 

 

12. Line 225: the phrase "total citation (TC) per year" is strange.

--Thank you for your feedback. Illustration 7 Data is obtained from the Bibliometrix-Biblioshiny software, specifically focussing on the Most Global Cited Documents. Total Citations represent the cumulative instances in which an article has been referenced by other publications since its release. entire Citations per Year is the aggregate number of citations divided by the entire number of years from the year of publication to 2024. For instance, the Total Citations for the article "RAI V, 2016, NAT CLIM CHANGE" now stands at 144. Given that there are 9 years from 2016 to 2024, the Total Citations per Year is calculated as 144 divided by 9, resulting in 16. Total Citations per Year standardises citation impact across publishing years, facilitating equitable comparison of papers with varying durations.

 

13. Many studies also found China's rise in academic publications in Natural Science (SCIE indexed papers) and Social Science (SSCI indexed papers). Add these studies to your discussion section.

-- Thanks for your advice. The supplementary content is detailed in the discussion section of “3.6 Publication by Country and Collaboration Network”:

These findings corroborate numerous studies demonstrating China's significant in-crease in academic publications in both natural sciences (SCIE-indexed papers) and social sciences (SSCI-indexed papers). This trend reflects China's expanding influence in the global academic landscape. Factors contributing to this growth may include increased research funding, enhanced international collaborations, and supportive science and technology policies. This phenomenon not only exemplifies China's advancing research capabilities but also signals a shift in the global distribution of academic influence, potentially having profound implications for international scientific cooperation.

 

14. The limitations of the Web of Science, as widely documented in studies focusing on the "Web of Science" should be given.

-- Thank you for your comment. We have added:

It is important to note that using one database may skew study results. For example, the shortcomings of the Web of Science in terms of coverage, disciplinary balance, language preference [44,45], and different subscriptions of the database [46].

44. Singh, V. K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2021, 126, 5113-5142.
45. Zhu, J.; Liu, W. A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics. 2022, 123, 321-335.
46. Gusenbauer, M.; Haddaway, N. R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research synthesis methods. 2020, 11, 181-217.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been improved. However, the current version is still poorly written and needs to be extensively revised in accordance with the reviewers' comments. Just list a few of them.

1.     Please be consistent regarding which document types are excluded in your study. Two different versions exist in your study.

2.     Line 128: replace reference 37 with some authoritative studies published in recent years focusing on the "Web of Science" especially from the field of Scientometrics.

3.     Line 130-133, it is good to disclose the coverage years of these sub-datasets as suggested by researchers from the field of Scientometrics. It is better to explain this important point to readers as advocated by previous studies.

4.     Line 140-143: more recent studies focusing on the "Web of Science" should be referred here.

5.     Line 244: please add a funding analysis section to support this point. Please also notice the limitations of funding information in Web of Science as disclosed in previous studies. All this information should be fully disclosed to readers.

6.     Line 309-311: please cite authoritative references to support this point.

7.     Line 711: it seems this useful article was published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change in 2021 by another researcher.

8.     The language must be polished carefully. For example, the titles of many figures are imprecise and even misleading.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

MUST BE POLISHED

Author Response

Reviewers’ comments:

1. Please be consistent regarding which document types are excluded in your study. Two different versions exist in your study.

--Thank you for your comment. There are 5 document types in Web of Science: Article, Proceeding Paper, Early Access, Editorial Material, and Review Article.  To ensure we get high-quality, reliable articles that have peer reviews, Review articles, proceedings papers, and editorial materials were all excluded. For conferences, proceedings, etc., there are many single-blind reviews or lack of transparency in the reviewing process. There is limited empirical evidence for reviewing articles because this type of article only reviews published articles. Our objective is to understand current studies regarding low-carbon behaviour, which we can get a better view when we review empirical papers.

 

Apologies for the mistake in line 135-136: “excluding document types = ("Review Article" OR "Proceeding Paper" OR "Book Chapters").” We have changed it to “excluding document types = ("Review Article" OR "Proceeding Paper" OR "editorial material").”

The same mistake in “Figure 2. The research design and methodology” has been corrected.

 

2. Line 128: replace reference 37 with some authoritative studies published in recent years focusing on the "Web of Science" especially from the field of Scientometrics.

-- Thank you for your constructive recommendation. The original reference 37 has been replaced by another two references as follows:

37. Klarin, A.; Suseno, Y.; Lajom, J. A. L. Systematic literature review of convergence: A systems perspective and re-evaluation of the convergence process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 2021, 70, 1531-1543.
38. Xu, L.; Ao, C.; Liu, B.; Cai, Z. Ecotourism and sustainable development: a scientometric review of global research trends. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2023, 25, 2977-3003.

 

3. Line 130-133, it is good to disclose the coverage years of these sub-datasets as suggested by researchers from the field of Scientometrics. It is better to explain this important point to readers as advocated by previous studies.

--Thank you for the feedback. To explain this critical point to readers, the supplementary explanation is as follows: “To enhance the transparency and reproducibility of this research [39,40], the coverage years for each sub-dataset are disclosed: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED, 1970-present), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI, 1970-present), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI, 1975-present), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI, 2005-present).”

Two more references are added:

39. Kaur, V. Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities: a scientometric analysis of marriage between knowledge management and dynamic capabilities. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2022, 27, 919-952.
40. Klarin, A.; Suseno, Y. An integrative literature review of social entrepreneurship research: Mapping the literature and future research directions. Business & Society. 2023, 62, 565-611.
41. Line 140-143: more recent studies focusing on the "Web of Science" should be referred here.

-- Thank you for your comment. Two new references have been added here: This article selects the Web of Science Core Collection as the database. The Web of Science Core Collection is the recommended database for bibliometric research, encompassing leading journals across disciplines with extensive citation indexing and superior data quality [41]. Its rigorous selection criteria, robust analytical tools, and multi-faceted search capabilities offer dependable and extensive data assistance for bibliometric research [42].

41. Xiang, Q.; Hu, Y.; Zheng, J.; Liu, W.; Tao, J. Research hotspots and trends of exercise for sarcopenia: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Public Health. 2023, 11, 1106458.
42. Wu, L.; Jin, L.; Li, L.; Yu, K.; Wu, J.; Lei, Y. et al. An examination of Alzheimer’s disease and white matter from 1981 to 2023: a Bibliometric and visual analysis. Frontiers in Neurology. 2023, 14, 1268566.

 

5. Line 244: please add a funding analysis section to support this point. Please also notice the limitations of funding information in Web of Science as disclosed in previous studies. All this information should be fully disclosed to readers.

-- Thank you for your comment. Three new references have been added here: “One of the key factors in the extraordinary increase in the number of low-carbon management research papers in recent years is related to global environmental and policy changes, especially the Chinese government's financial support for achieving carbon neutral and zero carbon development [44-46].”

44. Irfan, M.; Razzaq, A.; Sharif, A.; Yang, X. Influence mechanism between green finance and green innovation: exploring regional policy intervention effects in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2022, 182, 121882.
45. Sun, Y.; Guan, W.; Cao, Y.; Bao, Q. Role of green finance policy in renewable energy deployment for carbon neutrality: evidence from China. Renewable Energy. 2022, 197, 643-653.
46. Wang, Z.; Sami, F.; Khan, S.; Alamri, A. M.; Zaidan, A. M. Green innovation and low carbon emission in OECD economies: Sustainable energy technology role in carbon neutrality target. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2023, 59, 103401.

 

6. Line 309-311: please cite authoritative references to support this point.

-- Thank you for your constructive comment. Two new references have been added here: “These findings corroborate numerous studies demonstrating China's significant increase in academic publications in both natural sciences (SCIE-indexed papers) and social sciences (SSCI-indexed papers) [47,48].”

47. Chen, L.; Zhang, M.; Xiong, W.; Liu, Q. Performance of China's journals indexed in SCIE: An evaluation based on megajournal metrics. Learned Publishing. 2021, 34, 528-536.
48. Zhang, L.; Shang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Sivertsen, G. Toward internationalization: A bibliometric analysis of the social sciences in Mainland China from 1979 to 2018. Quantitative Science Studies. 2021, 2, 376-408.

 

 

 

7. Line 711: it seems this useful article was published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change in 2021 by another researcher.

--Thank you. So sorry for the mistake. The correct reference has been shown as follow:

43. Liu, W. Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021, 172, 121023.

 

8. The language must be polished carefully. For example, the titles of many figures are imprecise and even misleading.

-- Thank you for your comment. We have proofread this article, and hopefully, the language has improved and is readable now.

 

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved. One small concern should be addressed. Many bibliometric analysis case studies focusing on one research field are not rigorous and even flawed. Therefore, it is better to replace references 37-42 and 44-46 with methodological studies and studies focusing on the database "Web of Science" from authoritative journals in the field of Bibliometrics such as "Scientometrics", "Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology", "Learned Publishing" and "Quantitative Science Studies".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

should be polished

Author Response

COMMENT 1:

The manuscript has been improved. One small concern should be addressed. Many bibliometric analysis case studies focusing on one research field are not rigorous and even flawed. Therefore, it is better to replace references 37-42

-- Thank you for your feedback. We have changed the references as suggested:

37. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. & Grilli, L. The role of non-scientific factors vis-à-vis the quality of publications in determining their scholarly impact. Scientometrics 129, 5003–5019 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05106-z.
38. Leydesdorff, L., de Moya‐Anegón, F., & de Nooy, W. (2016). Aggregated journal–journal citation relations in scopus and web of science matched and compared in terms of networks, maps, and interactive overlays. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2194-2211.
39. Zhang, C., Mayr, P., Lu, W. et al. An editorial note on extraction and evaluation of knowledge entities from scientific documents. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05166-1.
40. Šubelj, L., & Fiala, D. (2017). Publication boost in Web of Science journals and its effect on citation distributions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 1018-1023.
41. Shu, F., Julien, C. A., & Larivière, V. (2019). Does the web of science accurately represent chinese scientific performance?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(10), 1138-1152.

42.   Ahlgren, P., Colliander, C., & Sjögårde, P. (2018). Exploring the relation between referencing practices and citation impact: A large‐scale study based on Web of Science data. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(5), 728-743.

 

COMMENT 2:

44-46 with methodological studies and studies focusing on the database "Web of Science" from authoritative journals in the field of Bibliometrics such as "Scientometrics", "Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology", "Learned Publishing" and "Quantitative Science Studies".

-- Thank you for your comment. However, we apologise as it may be due to our weaknesses that references 44-46 are referring to China's net zero carbon policy or regulation and the articles cited were related. 

This is what we wrote in the manuscript:

One of the critical factors in the extraordinary increase in the number of low-carbon management research papers in recent years is related to global environmental and policy changes, especially the Chinese government’s financial support for achieving carbon neutrality and zero carbon development [44-46]. In 2020, China put forward a national strategy of carbon peak by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060, prompting the rise of a large number of related research and attracting international attention.

References:

44. Irfan, M.; Razzaq, A.; Sharif, A.; Yang, X. Influence mechanism between green finance and green innovation: exploring regional policy intervention effects in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2022, 182, 121882.

45. Sun, Y.; Guan, W.; Cao, Y.; Bao, Q. Role of green finance policy in renewable energy deployment for carbon neutrality: evidence from China. Renewable Energy. 2022, 197, 643-653.
46. Wang, Z.; Sami, F.; Khan, S.; Alamri, A. M.; Zaidan, A. M. Green innovation and low carbon emission in OECD economies: Sustainable energy technology role in carbon neutrality target. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2023, 59, 103401.

'Therefore, we would like to seek permission from the reviewer not to change the references for 44-46.