Current Status and Outlook of Roadbed Slope Stability Research: Study Based on Knowledge Mapping Bibliometric Network Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following are my comments:

·       The paper provides an extensive bibliometric analysis of 453 studies, which is useful for identifying trends, collaborations, and research hotspots.

·       While the article extensively discusses publication counts, keyword occurrences, and collaborations by countries and institutions, it fails to critically analyze the implications of these findings on roadbed slope stability research.

·       The paper primarily revolves around bibliometric data and does not delve into the technical or practical aspects of roadbed slope stability challenges or solutions.

·       Much of the content, such as co-authorship maps and keyword clusters, repeats similar information without offering meaningful insights.

·       It lacks actionable or innovative suggestions to address the field's current challenges.

The authors need to:

• Add a critical discussion of the key technical and scientific advances in roadbed slope stability research.
• Address the real-world implications of bibliometric findings.
• Provide detailed, actionable recommendations for future research beyond generic statements.

Author Response

Your comments and professional advice are much appreciated. These points help to improve the academic rigor of this paper . Based on your suggestions and requests, we have revised the manuscript. The changes/additions are marked in red in the manuscript, in addition, we would like to show the following details:

Comments 1: Add a critical discussion of the key technical and scientific advances in roadbed slope stability research.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out, I have added a critical discussion of key technical and scientific advances in roadway slope stability research in the Analyzing Knowledge Mapping section and in the Discussion section, please see the manuscript for specific changes.

 

Comments 2: Address the real-world implications of bibliometric findings.

Response 2: Thank you for your guidance. Firstly, a review of the literature on bibliometric review is added in the introduction section, followed by the introduction of specific bibliometric analysis principles and methods in the “date and methods”, then the bibliometric analysis of the literature in the field of authors, keywords, journals, institutions, and other network co-occurrence analysis is carried out, and finally, the conclusion section summarizes the practical value of bibliometric analysis of roadbed slope stability research. The conclusion section summarizes the practical value of bibliometric methods for analyzing roadbed slope stability studies. Please see the manuscript for specific revisions.

 

Comments 3: Provide detailed, actionable recommendations for future research beyond generic statements.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, through the previous meeting of the literature in this field, in the conclusion part, I added detailed and practical suggestions for future research, specifically:

The future direction is proposed: firstly, in-depth study of the slope instability mechanism under multi-factor coupling and development of new simulation methods; secondly, analyzing the problem from a cross-disciplinary point of view and verifying the experimental results with practical working conditions.

Detailed and workable solutions: In the future research, we can use numerical simulation technology to simplify the complex conditions in nature to the fields in numerical simulation software. Taking the ABAQUS finite element analysis software as an example, we can flexibly use the method of the ABAQUS correlation subroutine to firstly set up the original ground stress field and seepage field, which can simulate the migration characteristics of the moisture, and then write the DLOAD Then write DLOAD subroutine to establish the static load stress field of the vehicle, VDLOAD subroutine to establish the dynamic load stress field of the vehicle, usually the slope needs to be considered for its creep characteristics under long time loading, and CREEP subroutine to establish the creep field, and these fields are established in a model to form a multi-field coupling model, although this model can not be completely applicable to all the slope models of the roadbed, this model is more in line with the real situation and reduces the slope failure, so as to reduce the slope stability. reality, and reduce the error generated by the calculation process of slope instability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a method of prefiltering different works in the literature related to the roadbed slope stability using networking analysis of the origin of the publication and the keywords. First, the manuscript is not aligned with the aim of the journal, no discussion related to sustainability or sustainable approaches to address the problem of the roadbed stability. Additionally, the paper is categorized as a Review type. Nevertheless, no detailed review of the literature is presented, and the conclusions based on network analysis of the keywords could be misleading. Therefore, I regret to recommend that the paper is not considered for publication in Sustainability MDPI. 

Author Response

Your comments and professional advice are much appreciated. These points help to improve the academic rigor of this paper . Based on your suggestions and requests, we have revised the manuscript. The changes/additions are marked in red in the manuscript, in addition, we would like to show the following details:

Comments: The paper presents a method of prefiltering different works in the literature related to the roadbed slope stability using networking analysis of the origin of the publication and the keywords. First, the manuscript is not aligned with the aim of the journal, no discussion related to sustainability or sustainable approaches to address the problem of the roadbed stability. Additionally, the paper is categorized as a Review type. Nevertheless, no detailed review of the literature is presented, and the conclusions based on network analysis of the keywords could be misleading. Therefore, I regret to recommend that the paper is not considered for publication in Sustainability MDPI.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully read your review comments and have made comprehensive revisions and additions to the manuscript to better meet the goals and requirements of the journal Sustainability:

First: we have added a discussion of the relationship between roadbed slope stability and sustainability in the Introduction section. In the Literature Review section, we have added a discussion of recent studies that have used sustainable methods to solve roadbed slope stability problems, such as ecological slope protection techniques and anti-slip piles. These methods not only improve the stability of slopes, but also reduce the impact on the environment, which is in line with the concept of sustainable development. In the discussion section, we clearly pointed out that future research on roadbed slope stability should pay more attention to sustainability, and develop more environmentally friendly, economical and efficient slope stabilization techniques by combining multidisciplinary cross research methods.

Second: you mentioned that our paper was categorized as a Review type, but there was no detailed review of the literature, and the conclusions based on the keyword network analysis might be misleading. We have made the following improvements to this: we have re-conducted the keyword network analysis and interpreted the results in more depth in relation to the content of the literature. We not only paid attention to the emergence and frequency of keywords, but also analyzed the correlation and evolutionary trends among keywords to more accurately reflect the research hotspots and trends in the field. Based on the improved literature review and keyword network analysis, we draw more meaningful conclusions and propose more targeted directions for future research.

We believe that with these revisions, our manuscript has been significantly improved in terms of content and structure, and is more in line with the goals of the journal Sustainability and the needs of its readers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the bibliometric analysis of roadbed slope stability research, aiming to help scholars better understand the hot issues and research trends in this field, demonstrating a certain level of innovation. However, there are some issues, and the following are the main review comments:

1. It is recommended to clearly specify the scope of the research in the introduction, for example, whether it includes all types of roadbed slopes or primarily focuses on a specific type of slope.

2. The text only needs to state the source of the data, and there is no need to emphasize the software used for generating the graphs.

3. It is suggested to provide more explanations and discussions on the results of the collaboration analysis and keyword co-occurrence analysis, such as why China's research in this field is relatively mature?

4. Improve the resolution and clarity of the figures, and it is recommended that the font size within each image be consistent with the font size in the main text to enhance readability.

Author Response

Your comments and professional advice are much appreciated. These points help to improve the academic rigor of this paper . Based on your suggestions and requests, we have revised the manuscript. The changes/additions are marked in red in the manuscript, in addition, we would like to show the following details:

Comments 1: It is recommended to clearly specify the scope of the research in the introduction, for example, whether it includes all types of roadbed slopes or primarily focuses on a specific type of slope.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions!

First of all, the research object of this paper includes all types of roadbed slopes of highways and railroads, which can be judged from the Boolean algorithms mentioned in section 2.1 of this paper. Secondly, it is true that the scope of this paper is not clear, according to your suggestion, I have clarified the scope of the study in the introduction part, please see the revised manuscript for the specific changes.

 

Comments 2:The text only needs to state the source of the data, and there is no need to emphasize the software used for generating the graphs.

Response 2: Thank you for your guidance!

I have made further corrections to the description of the chart generation software, please see the revised manuscript for details.

 

Comments 3 : It is suggested to provide more explanations and discussions on the results of the collaboration analysis and keyword co-occurrence analysis, such as why China's research in this field is relatively mature?

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. I have provided additional explanations on the results of the synergy analysis and keyword co-occurrence analysis. Meanwhile, regarding the statement “China's research in this field is relatively mature” in the co-occurrence analysis of countries and institutions, the logical problem you pointed out is very correct. The number of publications only reflects the level of research investment and attention, but does not directly represent the quality and maturity of research, so I have deleted this inaccurate conclusion and corrected the relevant content. Corrections to the graphical analysis have also been reflected in the manuscript; please see the notation for specific changes.

 

Comments 4: Improve the resolution and clarity of the figures, and it is recommended that the font size within each image be consistent with the font size in the main text to enhance readability.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion, I have increased the resolution and clarity of the image and submitted the image separately, as well as adjusted the font size of the image, please see the manuscript for specific changes.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A bibliometrics review of roadbed slope stability has strong practical significance and value. The manuscript should be revised as follows.

(1) In the abstract, there is no description of the current status of roadbed slope stability bibliometrics and the existing problems, i.e., why it is necessary to carry out a bibliometric review of roadbed slope stability.

(2) In the introduction, the evolution and development of roadbed slope stability research uses only 10 years of literature, which is not representative enough in terms of time, and it is suggested that the time series of the analysis of this issue should be extended appropriately.

(3) In “3. literature analysis and discussion”, the analysis and discussion of the hot research methods and research objects of the roadbed slope stability research are insufficient and need to be supplemented.

(4) In the discussion, the relevant literature needs to be supplemented to explain the difference and connection between this review and other reviews related to roadbed slope stability research and highlight its innovation.

(5) In the references, the literature on the evolution and development of roadbed slope stability research and the review of roadbed slope stability research should be supplemented.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Your comments and professional advice are much appreciated. These points help to improve the academic rigor of this paper . Based on your suggestions and requests, we have revised the manuscript. The changes/additions are marked in red in the manuscript, in addition, we would like to show the following details:

Comments 1: In the abstract, there is no description of the current status of roadbed slope stability bibliometrics and the existing problems, i.e., why it is necessary to carry out a bibliometric review of roadbed slope stability.

Response 1: In response to your suggestion, I have stated in the abstract the current status of bibliometric research on roadbed slope stability, i.e., there is a lack of a systematic review and outlook of roadbed slope stability research in the field; such a lack is likely to lead to a lag in the theoretical development of the field, and therefore a bibliometric review of roadbed slope stability is needed.

 

Comments 2: In the introduction, the evolution and development of roadbed slope stability research uses only 10 years of literature, which is not representative enough in terms of time, and it is suggested that the time series of the analysis of this issue should be extended appropriately.

Response 2: First of all, the base of articles in the field of roadbed slope stability research is small, regarding the choice of years, I made the choice by referring to some other reviews with a small base of literature, such as (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32561-1).

Secondly, the earliest time that this kind of research can be searched on web of science is 2010, in the section 2.1 of this paper, a brief introduction is made for the literature from 2010-2013.

 

Finally, I analyzed some of the knowledge maps for 2010-2023 and 2014-2023 in comparison, with no significant change in the final conclusions, so I did not extend the time, but I did briefly evaluate the literature for 2010-2023 in Section 2, with the modifications described in the manuscript.

 

Comments 3 : In “3. literature analysis and discussion”, the analysis and discussion of the hot research methods and research objects of the roadbed slope stability research are insufficient and need to be supplemented.

Response 3: Thank you for your question!

I have done a more comprehensive analysis and discussion of the related analysis, and see the manuscript for specific changes.

 

 

Comments 4 : In the discussion, the relevant literature needs to be supplemented to explain the difference and connection between this review and other reviews related to roadbed slope stability research and highlight its innovation.

Response 4: Thank you for your proposal!

I have added relevant literature in the Introduction and Discussion section to explain the differences and connections between this review and other reviews related to roadbed slope stability studies. See the manuscript for specific revisions.

 

Comments 5 : In the references, the literature on the evolution and development of roadbed slope stability research and the review of roadbed slope stability research should be supplemented.

Response 5: Thanks to your proposal, I have analyzed the similarities and differences between this review and other reviews in the introduction section and added relevant references. See the manuscript for specific revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript mainly emphasizes bibliometric metrics without delivering a critical analysis or substantial discussion on roadbed slope stability research. It lacks technical depth, provides only general recommendations, and contributes little to advancing the field. In its present state, it does not meet the criteria for a scholarly review article and should be rejected.

Author Response

Please see the attachmen
Thank you for your valuable comments, as this reply involves the interpretation of the picture, the input box can not be displayed well, so Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachmen
Thank you for your valuable comments, as this reply involves the interpretation of the picture, the input box can not be displayed well, so Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    

Author Response

Thank you for your critical review and valuable comments on the study. We fully understand your concern about the contribution of the study and have made the following multidimensional improvements in the revised version to significantly enhance the originality and application of the study. The following is a point-by-point response to the issue of “insufficient contribution”:

1.Compensate for the lack of research in this field.

Remedy the shortcomings that there are few prospective and summarized studies in the field of roadbed slope stability research, thus affecting the generation of new knowledge and the enhancement of innovation ability.

2.proposing specific new ideas

Established a specific multi-field coupling model (seepage-stress-creep), which provides reference for the numerical simulation and analysis of complex slope stability.

Thank you again for prompting us to deepen the depth and breadth of our research!