Research Hotspots and Evolution Trends of Port Emission Reduction: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsQ1: The article mentions the application of CiteSpace software but lacks detailed descriptions of specific operational steps and parameter settings. It is suggested that the authors supplement more details about the particular parameter settings and operational processes of CiteSpace software to help readers better understand and reproduce the research process.
Q2: The study only uses the CNKI and Web of Science databases for literature retrieval, which may omit some important related literature in other databases. It is suggested that the authors consider adding other databases, such as Scopus and IEEE Xplore, to improve the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the literature retrieval.
Q3: The article mainly focuses on the overall comparison between domestic and international studies in analyzing the regional differences in port emission reduction, lacking a detailed analysis of the differences within different countries and regions. It is suggested that the authors further refine the research to explore the differences in port emission reduction technologies, policies, and management measures within different countries and regions to provide more targeted suggestions.
Q4: Although the article mentions the insufficiency of cost-benefit analysis in port emission reduction, it does not provide specific analysis methods or cases. In subsequent research, it is suggested that the authors combine practical cases to conduct a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of port emission reduction measures, providing systematic quantitative analysis and economic evaluation to support policymakers and port managers in making more scientific decisions.
Q5: Although the article proposes several directions for the future trends of port emission reduction research, it lacks in-depth discussion on the specific development paths and potential impacts of these trends. It is suggested that the authors further explore the specific development paths of these trends and their potential impacts on the port industry and regional economy to provide a more forward-looking research perspective.
Q6: Although the article mentions some specific port emission reduction technologies, it lacks a detailed analysis of actual cases. It is suggested that the authors add some specific cases of port emission reduction technology applications to demonstrate the effects and challenges of these technologies in actual operations, enhancing the empirical and persuasive power of the research.
Q7: Although the article proposes policy suggestions in the right direction, it lacks specific implementation steps and operational details. It is suggested that the authors, in combination with the actual policy environment, propose more operational policy suggestions, including specific policy tools, implementing entities, and timetables, to improve the feasibility and practicality of the policy suggestions.
Q8: Although the article concludes based on extensive literature analysis, it lacks independent verification of the research results. It is suggested that the authors verify the research results through methods such as field research, expert interviews, or case studies to improve the reliability and credibility of the research results.
Q9: Although the article uses CiteSpace for bibliometric analysis, it does not compare it with other bibliometric tools. It is suggested that the authors supplement the comparative analysis of other bibliometric tools (such as VOSviewer, BibExcel, etc.), explaining the reasons and advantages of choosing CiteSpace to enhance the scientific rationality of the research methods.
Q10: Port emission reduction research involves multiple disciplinary fields, such as environmental science, transportation, and economics. It is suggested that the authors further strengthen the interdisciplinary perspective and methods in the research, integrating theories and methods from different disciplines to provide more comprehensive and in-depth research results.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found the paper to be interesting and different in approach compared to other bibliometric papers.
First, I suggest the authors to improve the quality of the figures and to calibrate the information so that the figures representing information regarding WoS and the ones representing the information extracted from CiteSpace to be equally distributed in page.
Second, I think that the methodology should be better explained. It is not clear how the keywords have been chosen - please add references to support your decision regarding the chosen keywords. How have you ensured that you have used all the equivalent forms of the keywords?
As for the WoS search, in order for the platform to search for all combination of the three words used as keywords, namely "port emission reduction", and not the individual words, the search query should have contained the words listed as follows: port_emission_reduction . Please revise the search you have performed.
Please list the number of papers you have gathered from each database at each step.
As the access to WoS is based on subscription, please list the indexes to which you have had access and the period in which you have had access as different subscriptions can conduct to different results.
Please better state the choices you have made in section 2.2 for each step by providing evidence from the scientific literature using references.
I found section 4 and 5 to be of much interest. If possible, in section 4 please provide a summary table which presents (briefly) the results in each considered period of time.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
