Bibliometric Analysis of OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020 Based on Web of Science (WoS)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a great paper about bibliometrics. There are some issues with figure 1 and figure 5 that have to be fixed. 

In figure 1, text do not correspond to the gray scale figure; and figure 5 legend is so small...

My comments are in the paper attached.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Ms. Yang and reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled "The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020" (ijgi-1587551). We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful and valuable comments on our paper. We have carefully considered all of the suggestions made by the reviewers and made a thorough major revision on our manuscript. Importantly, we would like to rename the title from “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020” to “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020 based on Web of Science (WoS)” with a particular study scope.

 

Our major revises also include: 1) according to comments of Reviewer 1, 2, and 3, we redraw the Figure 1 and Figure 5 and updated the related illustrations; 2) according to comments of Reviewer 2, we added answers to the research question 1 “whether OGC adequate and of good quality” through the keywords analyses in the Figure 7 and 8, in sub-section 3.5; 3) we answered the research question 2 “OGC further needs” in sub-section 3.6 by the analysis in Table 7; 4) we added our explains at the ends of the sub-section 4.2 and 4.4 trying to answer research question 3 “how OGC specifications facilitate FAIR”; 5) we carried out a literature analyses Terms Emerging Analysis in sub-section 4.1 to support FAIR Analysis and connected it with the quantitative analysis in Section 3; 6) we rewrote the case analysis of OCTOPUS in sub-section 4.4, that misused WMS as a data standard in the original version; 7) we reorganized conclusion to answer the three research questions more directly; and, 8) according to the comments of Reviewer 4, we added a new sub-section 3.7 for OGC membership and organization analysis; and we have added a reference and corrected some typos.

 

All modifications are explained in detail with the point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the Response file as attached. The updated manuscript has been revised and marked up by the Track Changes function. Finally, a native English speaker has proofread the manuscript thoroughly.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Corresponding author: Liping Di

E-mail address: ldi@gmu.edu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper the authors perform a bibliometric analysis of the OGC Specifications based on articles extracted from WOS for the years 1994 to 2020.  The authors aim to answer 3 research questions regarding 1. whether OGC standards are adequate and of good quality, 2. OGC further needs and 3. how FAIR faciliated the FAIR concept. A basic concern is that the 3rd question is not answered based on the bibliometric analysis results. 

Specific remarks:

Line 59 to 82: Is this OGC standards classification an idea of the authors? This is not clear.  Ιt should not be presented as an well acepted classification if it is a suggestion.  The authors should also present the OGC Standards Architecture Diagram (https://www.ogc.org/docs/is) and comment on the similarities and differences. 

Figure 5. Number of publications should not be portrayed with a choropleth map but with proportional symbols (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_symbol_map)

Line 390: reference to OSIRIS

Section 4. FAIR is one of OGC missions as a result it is not something that needs to be proved. This section is not conneted to the bibliometric analysis.  It is rather a discussion based on authors arguments that does not cover all OGC specifications and it is not deep and thorough enough

Line 361: what is good science?

Line 503 -505: use of standards is reported erroneously. WMS is not for data.

Line 507: what do you mean by "reference as a sample"?

Dicussion and Conclusions: it not evident what are the answers to the research questions.

 

Author Response

Dear Ms. Yang and reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled "The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020" (ijgi-1587551). We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful and valuable comments on our paper. We have carefully considered all of the suggestions made by the reviewers and made a thorough major revision on our manuscript. Importantly, we would like to rename the title from “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020” to “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020 based on Web of Science (WoS)” with a particular study scope.

 

Our major revises also include: 1) according to comments of Reviewer 1, 2, and 3, we redraw the Figure 1 and Figure 5 and updated the related illustrations; 2) according to comments of Reviewer 2, we added answers to the research question 1 “whether OGC adequate and of good quality” through the keywords analyses in the Figure 7 and 8, in sub-section 3.5; 3) we answered the research question 2 “OGC further needs” in sub-section 3.6 by the analysis in Table 7; 4) we added our explains at the ends of the sub-section 4.2 and 4.4 trying to answer research question 3 “how OGC specifications facilitate FAIR”; 5) we carried out a literature analyses Terms Emerging Analysis in sub-section 4.1 to support FAIR Analysis and connected it with the quantitative analysis in Section 3; 6) we rewrote the case analysis of OCTOPUS in sub-section 4.4, that misused WMS as a data standard in the original version; 7) we reorganized conclusion to answer the three research questions more directly; and, 8) according to the comments of Reviewer 4, we added a new sub-section 3.7 for OGC membership and organization analysis; and we have added a reference and corrected some typos.

 

All modifications are explained in detail with the point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the Response file as attached. The updated manuscript has been revised and marked up by the Track Changes function. Finally, a native English speaker has proofread the manuscript thoroughly.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Corresponding author: Liping Di

E-mail address: ldi@gmu.edu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of the paper is a literature analysis of OGC specifications from the Web of Science between 1994 to 2020 using Derwent Data Analyzer and VosViewer. The contribution is an overview of the evolution and trends of OGC specifications.

The paper is well structured and the led analysis is interesting for the scientific community. Its strength is in the detailed description of the analysis protocol and the analysed topics. The weakness of the paper is the lack of explanation in the choice of analysis tools.

The first section presents OGC, its goal and structure. It then introduces the quantitative literature analysis and the questions answered by it. This section is well written, but it would be good to explain/justify the choice of analysis tools (Derwent Data Analyzer and VosViewer). Why these ones? It would also be good to adapt the text related to figure 1 or figure 1 because the colours discussed in the text are not present inside figure 1.

The second section presents the methodology applied for this analysis. It is composed of three steps: data collection, data cleaning with Derwent Data Analyzer, and data analysis with the computation of bibliometrics indicators.

The third section presents the results of the analysis. This analysis presents the number of publications per year between 1999 and 2020, the main contributing countries, regions and organisations, the core journals, the main research fields and keywords, and the most discussed OGC specifications.

The fourth section presents the requirements to provide FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data and show how OGC helps geospatial data FAIR. 

The fifth section discusses the limit of this paper, which is to have limited the literature analysis to only one academic database. It would indeed have been better to carry out the analysis on several databases, including industrial applications, and even compare the academic and industrial community trends. This could be future work. It would be necessary to precise the scope of the study in the title and in the introduction not to mislead the readers. This section then presents some further needs for specifications.

The last section concludes by summarising the analysis and its results.

Finally, I suggest a spell check to correct some mistyping as: commomly l.120,  subject in equation l.173, fundemntal l.354, 1.2 rather than A1.2 and .. l.404., 6. Conclusion l.528, fields l.543.

Author Response

Dear Ms. Yang and reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled "The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020" (ijgi-1587551). We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful and valuable comments on our paper. We have carefully considered all of the suggestions made by the reviewers and made a thorough major revision on our manuscript. Importantly, we would like to rename the title from “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020” to “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020 based on Web of Science (WoS)” with a particular study scope.

 

Our major revises also include: 1) according to comments of Reviewer 1, 2, and 3, we redraw the Figure 1 and Figure 5 and updated the related illustrations; 2) according to comments of Reviewer 2, we added answers to the research question 1 “whether OGC adequate and of good quality” through the keywords analyses in the Figure 7 and 8, in sub-section 3.5; 3) we answered the research question 2 “OGC further needs” in sub-section 3.6 by the analysis in Table 7; 4) we added our explains at the ends of the sub-section 4.2 and 4.4 trying to answer research question 3 “how OGC specifications facilitate FAIR”; 5) we carried out a literature analyses Terms Emerging Analysis in sub-section 4.1 to support FAIR Analysis and connected it with the quantitative analysis in Section 3; 6) we rewrote the case analysis of OCTOPUS in sub-section 4.4, that misused WMS as a data standard in the original version; 7) we reorganized conclusion to answer the three research questions more directly; and, 8) according to the comments of Reviewer 4, we added a new sub-section 3.7 for OGC membership and organization analysis; and we have added a reference and corrected some typos.

 

All modifications are explained in detail with the point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the Response file as attached. The updated manuscript has been revised and marked up by the Track Changes function. Finally, a native English speaker has proofread the manuscript thoroughly.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Corresponding author: Liping Di

E-mail address: ldi@gmu.edu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper provides a very interesting bibliometric study on the use and referencing of OGC standards in journal publications for the last 20 years. The study provides useful insights into the history, evolution, and applicability of the standards in scientific research. The authors collected and analyzed a large set of papers so their results are statistically significant.

But having access to those data, I think allows the authors to do a deeper study that would allow the paper to provide additional conclusions. For example:

• are the displayed fields really independent? Are there any correlations among them?
• The analysis of the origin of the publications could go a bit beyond the reporting of the countries of origin or the organizations with the most publications. E.g., what is the relation of the organizations with OGC (members vs. not members); what is the fraction of research/industrial papers; what is the relation of the authors with OGC, themselves, etc. - are there any author hubs that could be identified?
• What is the relation between the different standards: do they appear together or individually? If they appear together besides which, when and why, one could explore the relationships that might exist among the different standards (e.g. they are based/use other common standards, etc.).

In general, I would like the paper to dig a bit deeper into the correlations of the different variables explored and provide us with some insights that might give us also an idea on how the citations evolved and what is the role of the standards in the current research and its trends.

Author Response

Dear Ms. Yang and reviewers:

 

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled "The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020" (ijgi-1587551). We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful and valuable comments on our paper. We have carefully considered all of the suggestions made by the reviewers and made a thorough major revision on our manuscript. Importantly, we would like to rename the title from “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020” to “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020 based on Web of Science (WoS)” with a particular study scope.

 

Our major revises also include: 1) according to comments of Reviewer 1, 2, and 3, we redraw the Figure 1 and Figure 5 and updated the related illustrations; 2) according to comments of Reviewer 2, we added answers to the research question 1 “whether OGC adequate and of good quality” through the keywords analyses in the Figure 7 and 8, in sub-section 3.5; 3) we answered the research question 2 “OGC further needs” in sub-section 3.6 by the analysis in Table 7; 4) we added our explains at the ends of the sub-section 4.2 and 4.4 trying to answer research question 3 “how OGC specifications facilitate FAIR”; 5) we carried out a literature analyses Terms Emerging Analysis in sub-section 4.1 to support FAIR Analysis and connected it with the quantitative analysis in Section 3; 6) we rewrote the case analysis of OCTOPUS in sub-section 4.4, that misused WMS as a data standard in the original version; 7) we reorganized conclusion to answer the three research questions more directly; and, 8) according to the comments of Reviewer 4, we added a new sub-section 3.7 for OGC membership and organization analysis; and we have added a reference and corrected some typos.

 

All modifications are explained in detail with the point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments in the Response file as attached. The updated manuscript has been revised and marked up by the Track Changes function. Finally, a native English speaker has proofread the manuscript thoroughly.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Corresponding author: Liping Di

E-mail address: ldi@gmu.edu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors have made some revisions, they didn't manage to cover my main concern which is the 3^rd research question regarding the FAIR aspect of OGC. The discussion presented by the authors still does not support the answer of this question by the results of the bibliometric analysis. The text presenting a sub topic trend analysis that is added in subsection 4.2 is not relevant to the FAIR aspect and the remaining subsections remain intact. The discussion on FAIR can still be included in the paper but it should be introduced as independent of the bibliometric analysis.

Additionally the authors claim that they have reorganized the Conclusion in Section 6. To my understanding only four new lines in red have been added. As a result answers to research questions are still vague.

This work includes a great effort and can be published if the authors make adequate changes to the text.

 

Author Response

Dear Editors:

 

Thank you all for the email and the reviewer’s comments on our manuscript entitled “The Bibliometrics Analysis of the OGC Specifications between 1994 and 2020 based on Web of Science (WoS)” (ijgi-1587551). Again, we appreciate the time and efforts you and the reviewer dedicated to our manuscript. The comments are great, insightful, and valuable. We have seriously and carefully made new updates.

 

Our major revisions include:

• we added an overview at the end of the first paragraph of Section 4 to introduce the purpose and the methods of this section, mainly using literature keywords extraction to find the papers that related F, A, I, R, respectively, and then introduced how OGC specifications help to FAIR geospatial information by case papers;
• we conducted a literature analysis looking for the papers related to “accessible” and found that almost half of the papers studied how to make data, service, or analysis accessible in the earlier years of OGC papers, and then how to access information cross-disciplinary in current research, trying to answer the third question of how OGC specifications work for FAIR;
• we reorganized the Conclusion to make it concise and more organized with three paragraphs that include a brief review of the research and the bibliometric results, answered the first and the second question in the second paragraph, and gave the third question a specific paragraph to introduce and answer it in detail.

 

Also, all modifications are explained in detail with the point-by-point responses to the comments in the Response file (round 2) as attached. The revised manuscript has been highlighted by the Track Changes function.

 

Thank you very much for helping the paper be more focused and logically structured.

 

Kind regards,

 

Corresponding author: Liping Di

E-mail address: ldi@gmu.edu

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf