An Overview of Smart Composites for the Aerospace Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is relevant, for understanding the main current trends in the field. However, there was an expectation for a more in-depth discussion of the scientific topics covered in the review. Instead, the analysis remained relatively superficial compared to the bibliometric evaluation carried out in the study. The readers of the paper would likely be more interested in gaining deeper knowledge about the highlighted research topics themselves. At least, a more extensive reference list could be included to serve as a source for further research.

Author Response

Please, see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

   This review focused on the topic of smart composite in aerospace field. The topic is important, and the content from systematic bibliometric analysis is interesting. However, there is a lack of in-depth analysis in this research area. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

1. Supplement specific aerospace application scenarios for relevant research hotspots.
2. Enhance the analysis of future research directions and challenges, and provide more specific recommendations.
3. Some content is somewhat lengthy and repetitive, and it is recommended to streamline it.
4. In section 4.4. Topic analysis, there is a repetition in the topic numbering.(vii) Advanced Materials is duplicated with the earlier (i) Advanced Materials.
5. The author should provide a detailed explanation of the roles and usage methods of Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny.

Author Response

Please, see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For their work, the authors conducted a systematic bibliometric analysis using data from Scopus and the Web of Science covering publications since 2015 about Smart Composites for the Aerospace Sector. In the manuscript there is a deep introduction to the subject and review of the antecedents. Regarding the description of the study and consideration to perform the analysis of the results is good. On the other hand, there are an extensive presentation and discussion of the obtained results. Which made it possible to write comprehensive conclusions. The manuscript has the potential to be published, but first I would like the authors to clarify some aspects of their work.

 

To authors

1. In Figure 6. while considering that the information for the month of February 2025 is significant especially when comparing the papers published in this year with those of the other years. This year's data should be handled with caution because it is only equivalent to publications of less than 2 months, while in the rest of the years the data is for 12 months. If the trend in publications were to continue in 2025, there would be some 400 publications on the subject, making what is published in 2025 even more relevant.
2. Figure 8 shows an upward trend in publications each year. However, the data corresponding to 2025 is equivalent to less than 2 months for all the journals, and in spite of this, this data is above all the previous years (which is equivalent to 12 months). I suggest reviewing the data for 2025.
3. Just to clarify, does the information in Figure 9 and consequently Table 2, correspond to the 10 years of the analysis being performed here?
4. Something that is noticeable in Figure 9 and according to the surname of the author is mainly authors of Chinese origin, it seems that only in China is relevant research being done on the subject of smart composites. However, further on, there is information that relevant research is being done in other countries such as the USA and India, even above Korea and Italy (see figure 10), I feel there is a discrepancy here, what can you comment on this?
5. Although Figure 10 shows work by authors from South Korea and Italy, there are only two universities that stand out apart from those from China. Of the 10 institutions presented here in China, 8 are working on the subject. So, it seems that, in the rest of the world, although there are works, they are not as relevant as those of the institutions presented here. What do you think about this?

Author Response

Please, see attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision is OK.