A Map of the Research About Lighting Systems in the 1995–2024 Time Frame

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comment is on chapter 2. I'm not sure if it is necessary to describe in such detail the software that was used to evaluate the data.

Author Response

Your Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'm not sure if chapter 2 is necessary to describe the software that was used to evaluate the data.

Sec.2.1 could be replaced by a sentence referencing [38] (the manual of the VOSviewer), but since it recaps (in less than 1 page, out of 42 of the full manuscript, 2.4%) relevant concepts of the software recalled several times in the manuscript, we maintained it.

Keeping this short primer about VOSviewer renders the manuscript self-contained, otherwise future readers must go to the manual of the software to learn about those concepts.

Of course, we are open to cancel Sec. 2.1, but we leave the last word on the issue to the assigned Editor’s.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is a review of research on lighting systems from 1995 till 2024.

1. Introduction – please elaborate whether there are similar previous reviews on the same or similar topics (e.g., https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10087336/ and similar reviews) and how your review differs from existing ones
2. The paper has 43 pages – Please consider how to reduce the text of the work.

Author Response

Please, read the attache PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I read your manuscript with interest.

I have several questions based on the manuscript:

1. What is the purpose of the manuscript? Somehow it was not clearly presented. Is it to analyse the tool or find out the number of specific papers?
2.  Why you have selected SCOPUS database? You have identified limitations. Thus, Google Scholar could provide more papers.

Author Response

Please, read the attache PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I think that manuscript subject is not in line with the topics covered by Computers Journal.  It would be more suitable to the Buildings or Energies Journal.

Author Response

No reply.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your answers to my questions.

Every success in your research!

Author Response

  

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on the Bibliometric Analysis (ΒΑ) of lighting systems during the period between 1995-2024. This is quite useful since it can identify some points for future research trends.  I come from the lighting industry and reading the manuscript I think that it misses significant insights regarding the evolution of lighting systems. The trends recognized are already established and documented in both academic and industry reports. To my opinion an BA should offer something that goes beyond common knowledge and this is exactly what gives a manuscript a scientific value. However the optimization of VOSviewer parameters can be really useful for future BAs. I would say that it is difficult to assess the methodological contribution and if this can be considered as a standard for the future work.  What is the real contribution of the manuscript?

Author Response

Comment 1

I come from the lighting industry and reading the manuscript I think that it misses significant insights regarding the evolution of lighting systems. The trends recognized are already established and documented in both academic and industry reports.

Reply

The reviewer is right. However, the fact that an BA over 30 years confirms previous reports should be considered positively, at the same time our review consolidates the findings in the latter studies. An explicit sentence has been added in the revised manuscript (lines 49--50).

 

Comment 2

I would say that it is difficult to assess the methodological contribution and if this can be considered as a standard for the future work. 

Reply

Thanks to the reviewer’s concern, lines 74--77 have been added to the manuscript to touch this important aspect.

 

Comment 3

What is the real contribution of the manuscript?

Reply

Lines 41--72 in the Introduction details the point. Below, the merits of the study are recapped:

1. an BA for a timeframe of 30 years (new);
2. the study describes a deep analysis about the impact that the use/non-use of a thesaurus of authors’ keywords has on the number and composition of the thematic clusters returned by VOSviewer (new);
3. adoption of a robust process to set the number of clusters (new). Most published BA do not mention any process.