Progress and Hotspot Analysis of Bibliometric-Based Research on Agricultural Irrigation Patterns on Non-Point Pollution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the article is to find the possibilities of reducing non-point source pollution in modern irrigation and to identify the hotspots and the main research trends. The methodology of the article is the collection of the relevant literature and its statistical analysis using the CiteSpace software. The research goal is interesting and important. However, the methodological description of the article is confusing, the applied statistical method alone is not sufficient to answer the question, the conclusion of the article is short and provides little information beyond the evidence. It is not recommended for publishing in this form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is OK.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and suggestions. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely topic in agricultural irrigation and environmental pollution, with a solid bibliometric analysis that guides future research and policy-making. The methods are sound, using reliable data, and the findings are well interpreted. However, a broader discussion on trends, such as the increasing focus on non-point pollution and regional differences, would add depth. Additionally, exploring regional differences in countries like China and the USA, which contribute significantly to this field, could provide insight into the local, economic, and political factors influencing research. Moreover, the frequent use of CiteSpace presents an opportunity to delve deeper into how this tool aids in mapping and interpreting the scientific landscape, adding clarity and depth to the manuscript. The references are well-selected.  With minor revisions, particularly regarding trend discussions and citation clarity, the manuscript is well-positioned for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is mostly clear, though some fluency improvements are needed in the introduction and conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and suggestions. Please check the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The paper represents solid contribution to the understanding of the recent global efforts in the domain of research focused upon non-point source of pollution induced by irrigation in agriculture. However, prior to publishing some issues needs to be clarified and some parts of the text need to be polished. Here are my recommendations:

Introduction:

This part needs to be completely rephrased (lines 35-70) in order to become more compact and informative.

-          You need to clearly define what is meant upon “non-point pollution in agriculture” and what you are intending to focus on in the later text. Namely, agriculture includes also animal husbandry as well, and non-point source irrigation also might originate from these sources, and you seem to be focusing only on crop cultivation. In addition, at some points later in the text you mention urban areas and non-point source pollution related to these areas, which goes over the scope of your paper. Please, clear this up – by defining non-point source pollution you are going to deal in the paper. 

-          In a few occasions you mention nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, while omitting to mention other polluting substances originating from modern agricultural pollution, such as pesticides. Please, pay attention and present all relevant groups of pollutants in this domain, rather than making similar remarks a few times that nitrogen and phosphorus are main polluters…

-          Please define also NPS-IRR practices, since they appear later in the text (e.g. line 225), so the readers can be informed about their purpose from the beginning of the article.

Line 42: “In recent years” this is not informative enough. Please be more specific, e.g. at least saying that “during the last two decades”.

Line 48: Explain what are the causes of improper irrigation practices and how it reflects to the quality of soil and underground water and eventually to the overall environment.

Line 71: Please replace “bibliometrics theory” replace with “Bibliometric analysis”.

Materials and methods:

Line 84: Once you introduce acronym you do not need to repeat the explanation – so please erase “non-point source”.

Line 38-85: Please reconsider your statement that “there were fewer relevant studies prior to 2010” since the source you have cited is a review dating back from 1988. I strongly suggest presenting the number of studies about the topic from the first reference until the 2010. I know for sure that in 80’ and 90’ attempts of modeling of non-point source pollution was in progress.

Line 87:  You should add also SCOPUS data of neferences just for comparison to WoS, since SCOPUS covers much more scientific journals (almost 1/3 more). Just find the number of references from the first time your keywords appeared to the present and compare it to the number of references according to WoS.

Line 92: It would be more appropriate to say “keywords” instead of “topics”.

Line 101: WoS or WOS? Are these the same? Please clarify this.

Line 103: Here it is said that 911 documents were thoroughly analyzed and in Table 1. (line 190) the sum of publication volume per country exceeds 911. Please, reconsider this issue.

Line 112: There is no need to emphasize someone's nationality and origin since the paper is addressing the global scientific audience and, commonly, researchers are changing countries and institutions. Please erase “Chinese-born American”.

Line 114: Please provide the reference for the statement that it is “the most widely used ….software”.

Line 141: Please add an acronym after the term “connection strength”. Is it “Cos”?

Line 149: Write the name “CiteSpace” uniformly throughout the whole text.

 

Results…

 

Line 146: Please change the chapter name to “Results and Discussion”

Line 150-167: I understand that you intended to exploit as many as possible opportunities CiteSpace offers. However, this part is a bit broader than your main topic and its presentation in Figure 2 is difficult to follow since the letters are too small for the majority of terms. I suggest, either making additional explanations considering the figure and your topic, or erasing the figure and accompanying text since the paper is already robust enough. In the case, you decide to keep the figure, correct “Zooigy” in the figure.

Line 190: mention in Materials and Methods that data analyses will include “Burst”.

Line 190: Not “volume”, it is better to say “number”.

Line 194: Instead of “publication volume” it is more precise to say “number of published articles”.

Line 199: Please add a reference for this statement.

Line 231: Please add a separate column on the right and cite references from which keywords were derived.

Line 277-278: The text within the figure is almost unreadable. Please increase the font size.

Line 279: Please quote exact the keywords you had in mind.

Line 315: The focus of the paper is on agriculture and here you are mentioning residential irrigation. Either wider the scope of the paper (which requires changes starting from the title), or put “irrigation controllers” used in residential settings only as an example how the IRR practice can be improved in wider scale in agricultural production.

Line 319-322: Accompany the statement by adequate references.

Line 413: Please increase font size or the overall figure size.

Line 480-481: If you are using a term only a few times there is no need to add acronym. Here you are using Wetting and Drying Irrigation and in the next sentence you have put AWD and it a bit inconsistent. Similar situation is in lines 497-498 and lines 502. The same issues arise in the paragraph lines 536-559 and later in the text. Too many acronyms can confuse readers.

Line 527: There is 5 parts of discussion. Please reconsider the statement.

Line 528: The term “wellness centrality” needs to be explained in the Materials and Methods chapter, and there is no formula you are addressing to - just the flowchart. Please reconsider this issue.

Line 669: “The study uses” maybe to add “reference-based” before “CiteSpace technology”.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your review and suggestions. Please check the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly follow my comments and suggestions provided in my report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate English editing is required. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review and suggestions. Please check the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the article is to find the possibilities of reducing non-point source pollution in modern irrigation and to identify the hotspots and the main research trends. The methodology of the article is the collection of the relevant literature and its statistical analysis using the CiteSpace software. The research goal is interesting and important.

 

Comments

The applied statistical method alone is not sufficient to answer the question but it was supplemented with personal expert evaluation which increases the scientific value of the paper.

The methodology chapter is still inconsistent, because among the mentioned BC, S, Q characteristics, the calculation of BC is included, the rest are missing from the description.

Author Response

Comments 1: The applied statistical method alone is not sufficient to answer the question but it was supplemented with personal expert evaluation which increases the scientific value of the paper.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out; we agree with your observation. We sincerely appreciate your time in reviewing and providing feedback on our article. Regarding this issue, we would like to clarify as follows: This study aims to eliminate subjective bias by using the CiteSpace bibliometric analysis to objectively validate the reliability of our findings. Relying on individual expert assessments may compromise the objective integrity of our study, so we respectfully choose not to make revisions in this area.

Comments 2: The methodology chapter is still inconsistent, because among the mentioned BC, S, Q characteristics, the calculation of BC is included, the rest are missing from the description.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for this comment. Therefore, I have completed the revision on line 166-183, showing the principles and representational ranges of the Q value and S value formulas.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for considering most of my recommendations. Unfortunately, since you have made so many changes, I was not able to track if you have completely responded to my suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine. Only one more check by a native English lecturer to avoid some minor mistakes is recommendable.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your advice. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

you have put significant efforts to provide comprehensive overview on non-point source pollution caused by irrigation originating from agricultural practice. Additional quality represents the fact that you have upgraded the simple review by highlighting the current hot spots in the field. After an extensive review and corrections, I truly believe the paper will also be interesting for readers of the worldwide scientific community.

Author Response

Comments 1: you have put significant efforts to provide comprehensive overview on non-point source pollution caused by irrigation originating from agricultural practice. Additional quality represents the fact that you have upgraded the simple review by highlighting the current hot spots in the field. After an extensive review and corrections, I truly believe the paper will also be interesting for readers of the worldwide scientific community.

Response 1: Your profound insights and constructive suggestions are greatly appreciated. We extend our heartfelt gratitude for the extensive effort you dedicated to the review process. By thoroughly summarizing the pivotal aspects of our research and accentuating the prevailing trends within the field, you have significantly elevated the caliber of the peer review. We have meticulously addressed each of your recommendations and accordingly refined the manuscript. We remain committed to consistently enhancing the quality of our research and writing endeavors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf