Geography of Sustainability Transitions: Mapping Spatial Dynamics and Research Trends Between 1995 and 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the paper Geography of Sustainability Transitions: Mapping Spatial Dynamics and Research Trends between 1995 and 2024 address a relevant topic, namely the interdisciplinary study of sustainability transitions (ST). This leads us to conclude that the paper has a multiplying effect on research results, which is why we suggest that the authors highlight this aspect as early as in the abstract of the study.

Furthermore, the innovative aspects related to the authors' personal contribution to the scientific literature should also be emphasized from the initial stage. Additionally, we recommend that the authors reduce the similarity index from 20% to below 10%.

The concepts, citations, and bibliographic references are appropriately highlighted. For example, references [1, 12] support the idea that "The growing academic interest reflects the perception of ST as processes of social change essential for addressing contemporary challenges." Moreover, it is commendable that the authors include up-to-date and relevant bibliographic references in the Literature Review chapter.

The research methodology is well-presented by the authors, as they employ the PRISMA model to conduct a literature review in the field of sustainability transitions, along with a bibliometric analysis of the presented results. Additionally, the dataset identified and analyzed from scientific publications indexed in SCOPUS (1995–2024) is relevant and provides justified support for the study's findings.

The results are presented both descriptively and graphically, using figures and tables, highlighting the spatial distribution of the six dominant transition themes: urban transitions, energy transitions, industrial transitions, transport transitions, circular economy, and agri-food transitions. However, as previously mentioned, we recommend that the authors emphasize their personal and innovative scientific contributions to specialized literature. Furthermore, if the analyzed data allow a discussion on possible interdependencies among the six themes would be beneficial.

The conclusions are well-presented and application oriented. However, we suggest that the authors clearly highlight the study’s limitations and how these correlates with future research directions.

We congratulate the research team on their study and recommend a revision in line with the suggestions mentioned above.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the referee for the insightful and comments/ suggestions that have helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. All the comments were considered, analysed and accepted by the authors. Therefore, the authors tried to rectify the essential questions put by the Referee regarding data quality, objective description of results, and conclusions, and highlight the main outcome of the study. The table below shows the comments and changes made.

In the paper, the modifications are highlighted with green colour.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has its merits, but it is not properly supported in scientific terms, particularly in methodological terms, and this jeopardises the robustness of the conclusions and results obtained.

It begins by considering only the Scopus database as the source of the documents analysed, ignoring other scientific databases such as Web of Science, Google, ... 

What's more, the number of documents obtained from the search is very small, and it's hard to see the point of applying the PRISMA methodology to filter the search. 

In fact, it seems to me that it would make more sense to describe the study as a literature review rather than a systematic review. Given these weaknesses, one wonders if the methodology adopted had been different, whether the conclusions and results obtained would have been different.

In my opinion, the study is not fit to be published and needs to be rethought from the beginning, adopting other methodologies and considering more scientific data.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the referee for the insightful and comments/ suggestions that have helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. All the comments were considered, analysed and accepted by the authors. Therefore, the authors tried to rectify the essential questions put by the Referee regarding data quality, objective description of results, and conclusions, and highlight the main outcome of the study. The table below shows the comments and changes made.

While we acknowledge the feedback provided, it is important to note that the other reviewers have not raised significant objections to this study. Their evaluations suggest a more favourable or balanced perspective, indicating that the concerns raised may not be universally shared

In the paper, the modifications made are highlighted with green colour.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I personally do like researches, which are not local case studies, but are written from international or even global perspective.

The title is matching the content.

The paper is of bibliometric nature.

The database chosen was Scopus.

63 scientific publications were selected, with indeed different geographical regions.

The time taken into account is quite long: 1995-2024. It is a very good approach, since with such long time span we can really see the development of studies on sustainability transitions.

However the connection with sustainable development could be a little bit deeper.  The main issue is that the time taken into account by the authors could be divided into two periods. First one:1995-2014 and the second one:2015-2024.

The reason for such division is that in 2015 United Nations introduced 17 Sustainable development goals (SDGs). Document, which was very important, since instead of a lot of dispersed documents we got one big strategy.

So, the question that should be added to the research is: how new SDGs fit into sustainability transitions trends after 2015, so after their introduction?  The basic areas already exists in the paper: agriculture, industry, economy, energy, transport, urban transitions.

Also it is worth to note, that in the years 2020-2023 we had global COVID-19 pandemic. Just short comment how the pandemic influenced research trends on the subject will do. More researches? Less researches? The same as earlier?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

The authors would like to thank the referee for the insightful and comments/ suggestions that have helped us to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. All the comments were considered, analysed and accepted by the authors. Therefore, the authors tried to rectify the essential questions put by the Referee regarding data quality, objective description of results, and conclusions, and highlight the main outcome of the study. The table below shows the comments and changes made.

In the paper, the modifications are highlighted with green colour.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors decided to refute my comments and do not address many of my suggestions.