Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) The abstract of the manuscript lacks some key quantitative results to support the research findings. For example, the abstract mentions that the United States leads other countries in terms of institutions, number of publications, research intensity, and level. So, what is its quantitative performance? Please add it appropriately to the abstract. Additionally, some of the images in the manuscript are not clear enough and should be replaced with clearer ones.

(2) It was mentioned that "The data for the statistical analyses in this paper were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection database.". Although the database is comprehensive and high-end, can its representativeness and comprehensiveness be guaranteed? I think other databases, such as Scopus and EI databases, can also be considered for addition. I think other databases, such as Scopus and EI databases, can also be considered for addition. Especially Scopus database, as it involves more comprehensive journals and papers.

(3) In Figure 2, the trend we do see is that both the number of papers and citations gradually increase over time. And this trend is becoming increasingly evident, as can be seen from the slope of the curve. However, why are the number of papers published and cited in 2023 significantly lower than in previous years? In theory, the update speed of the WOS database is very fast, and by the time the author completes the manuscript, the 2023 manuscript in the database must have already been updated.

(4) Although new energy is frequently mentioned, fossil fuels still occupy a pivotal position in the energy structure. This statement should be added at the beginning of the Introduction and supported by some previous papers, like: Numerical simulation of fracture reorientation during hydraulic fracturing in perforated horizontal well in shale reservoirs; Borehole enlargement rate as a measure of borehole instability in hydrate reservoir and its relationship with drilling mud density

(5) On page 5, it was mentioned that this study set the time period to 5 years, the analysis nodes to countries, and the data selection criteria to k=25. What does the parameter k represent here? This requires specific explanation and clarification, as there are many beginners who are not clear enough about some professional parameters.

(6) Although the "Conclusions and Outlook" section presents the research content of the article in detail, the conclusions of the manuscript are too complex to reflect the research results concisely. Moreover, the "Limitations and Considerations" section should be combined with the "Outlook" section. And, the 'Limitations and considerations' section should be placed before the' Outlook 'section, which is more logical.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The conclusion of the manuscript is generally acceptable, but some complex statements require the authors to polish. Such as, the sentence in lines 528-532.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article uses CiteSpace to analyze the outputs in the application of stable isotopes to mine waters.  It's essentially the same as any other of the numerous other articles utilizing CiteSpace on keywords XXXX, YYYY, ZZZZ.  The main question I have for this paper is, who is the intended audience?  The paper makes most sense only if you are familiar with CiteSpace outputs, as many of these terms (ie, Centrality) are not defined in the paper, so the end reader must already know what they are to make full sense of it.  I recommend that the authors define these terms, otherwise the only people who will read this are other CiteSpace papers.

Lines 48-89:  This is a giant paragraph, covering a large number of topics.  It would be better to split into several smaller paragraphs.

Line 114: Mine drainage appears twice in the list

Lines 126-129:  This means your initial search captured a number of articles outside the search criteria?  Why did this happen?

Line 129:  I think you should list all 300 records in a table in the supplementary information.

Figure 3:  It is unclear what the outermost purple ring colour signifies, as it is not in the legend.  Is it meant to be red?

Section 3.2.4: it would be helpful to explain what co-citation is.  Is this just the papers in your database that are most cited by other papers in the database?  Same thing with Centrality - what does this mean?

3.3.2 : What is burst strength?  This needs to be defined.

Section 4 is listed twice, so Limitations and considerations needs to be renumbered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are no serious concerns with English.  Overall it was fairly well written, only the issues above with definition of terms etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review "Hotspots and Progress of Stable Isotopic Techniques Applied in Tracing Mine Water Pollution and Its Environmental Impact Research： A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis From 1998 to 2023" is very interesting for the readers of Water. Just a few suggestions, I advise the authors to insert in the introduction which stable isotopes are used in the field of acid drainage water.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted