Bibliometric Analysis of Dental Erosion (2011–2020)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper idea is good, although abstract should be rewrite in order to have a better overall comprehension of the paper. Reading an abstract should already give the reader the overall idea of the scientific paper findings, this does not

Results part, in the abstract,  is not understandable.

Conclusions should be rewrite: they do not provide any information except saying that this paper will help researchers; this is not a conclusion.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Suggested changes have been made.

Sincerely.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the manuscript is the bibliometric analysis of dental erosion between 2011 and 2020.

The title and the abstract of the article are informative. The Introduction presents the issue of dental erosion, however, it should be shortened. The section "Material and Methods" and the section "Results" should be improved. The Discussion is well written, but it could be more elaborate. The Conclusions do not fully meet the objective of the study.

Some following points must be clarified/corrected for the further processing of this article.

Merits-related comments:

1. The purpose of the study is not clearly stated in the Introduction.
2. The article search formula given is not correct, nor is the Boolean operator.
3. It is suggested to include Scopus and WoS databases (if possible).
4. Also, it is necessary to present a search strategy using a flow chart according to PRISMA.
5. In line 128 "reviews" instead of "revisions".
6. The classification of topics is quite broad, and I don't know if they shouldn't be grouped into larger subgroups somehow. Where, for example, was the article on the relationship of physical activity to the occurrence of erosion cavities classified (doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093002)? This is an increasingly common issue not also mentioned when discussing the aetiology of tooth erosion.
7. The Results section is a little chaotic. It is perhaps suggested that the subsections be defined.
8. Figure 2 is incomprehensible as to what it represents. The X-axis should be completed by the unit, i. e. %. Only two countries were included from the EU, although overall, they were the majority?

Technical comments:

1. The abstract should be unstructured.
2. Numbers with decimal places should have periods instead of commas.
3. The duplicate legends in Spanish in Figure 4 should be removed.
4. The text should be carefully checked for editorship – present typos, missing periods at the end of sentences, missing spaces before references and sometimes double spaces.
5. All Authors should have the same affiliation "1".
6. The citation list must be corrected. References should be described as follows:
   1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate your work, the article is well structured and scientifically conducted. I only have several questions/recommendations:

1. Can you explain in a few words how you used the Boolean Operator ( row 118-119)?
2. Please check the article once again as there are minor typographical errors ( row 124-exemple)
3. How did you establish these topics and what does the “Others” category contain? Was there a minimum number of articles on a certain topic for which a separate category for that topic would be established? Would articles on a topic with a number less than that minimum get filed in the “Others” category? (row 163-164-Table 1)
4. Why didn't you enter the rank of the publication in which the article was published as a parameter? ( row 152-158)
5. Figures 4 and 6 cannot be read (row 226, 281)
6. The references chapter does not fully respect the recommended style

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Conclusion in the abstract is exactly the same as in the paper, this is not good.

Conclusion must be re-written: try to answer this question when you write it: after reading your article, what a reader can conclude? what is the outcome of your study? what did you discover making this research? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors addressed only part of the comments.

The following corrections are required:

1. The Introduction is still chaotic and dominates the length of the Discussion, which is not complete. Figure 6 should be in the Results section instead of in the Discussion.
2. Using the new pasted formula in place of the previous completely wrong one, narrowing the search period 2011-2020 the result is 1,894 articles (not 1,852). Moreover, the formula currently given contains duplicate elements and should be presented in the following form: "tooth erosion"[All Fields] OR "dental erosion"[All Fields] OR ("tooth"[All Fields] AND "erosion"[All Fields]) OR ("dental"[All Fields] AND "erosion"[All Fields]) which produces the same end result. Also, quoted search terms "TS (dental erosion) TS (tooth erosion)" are applicable in WoS and not in PubMed.
3. In line 144 should be "reviews" (not “review”).
4. The Methods section must be completed with a detailed flow chart in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The one added in response to the review rather than inserted in the article is far too simplistic.
5. The example of athletes shows that the classification of topics is unclear and should be simplified.
6. In the graphs on origin and distribution, the "%" is still missing from the units on the X axis. Similarly, for Figure 5 to add “%” and to remove 120 on Y axis (cannot be more than 100%).
7. The Conclusions do not respond to the objectives set out in the study.
8. Technical correction of affiliations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf