Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following are some personal suggestions to help the authors improve the revised manuscript.

1. The manuscript could also have more clearly defined its differences and novelties from existing studies. For example, the authors mention open science databases in comparison to Scopus and Web of Science, but do not adequately explain how these open resources provide unique perspectives or improve existing research methods.

2. The manuscript was systematically reviewed using the PRISMA method, which is a standard practice. The quality of the research would have been higher if the authors had elaborated on how the included open science databases were selected and evaluated, how they ensured the comprehensiveness of the search strategy and the transparency of the exclusion criteria, as well as the specific methodology and criteria used in the comparative analyses of the various databases.

3. The authors could have considered better in-depth interpretation and critical evaluation of the results of the analyses. For example, the authors note that the AMiner database may have advantages over other databases in some areas, but do not elaborate on how these advantages affect the results of the study.

4 It is recommended that the authors analyse the potential advantages and limitations of open scientific databases in more depth in the discussion section. For example, the authors mention that the low barrier to entry for open databases may lead to quality control problems, but do not provide specific suggestions for improvement or a vision for future research directions.

5. The article cites a number of studies on open science, but appears to lack a comprehensive review of key literature in these areas. For example, the discussion of the definition and scope of open science and how it affects research practices in different disciplines could be further expanded.

6. Overall, the writing quality of the manuscript is good, but some parts may need further embellishment to improve clarity and flow. For example, some sentences may be too long and could be simplified to improve readability.

7. The title of the manuscript is ‘is there an alternative to Scopus and Web of Science’, so why does the full text of the analysis seldom refer to Web of Science.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the writing quality of the manuscript is good, but some parts may need further embellishment to improve clarity and flow. For example, some sentences may be too long and could be simplified to improve readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Great paper, very useful for scientific research and well organized

I suggest some improvements and some slight changes.

See enclosed file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very interesting and useful article. A very good overview of the good and bad features of certain open databases, as an alternative to Scopus and WoS. Really useful information for everyone in the scientific community.

A few (primarily) technical objections:

1. there are many typographical errors (joined words), which often make the text difficult to read.

2. although the figures are illustrative, they should be clearer, this primarily refers to figures 1 and 4 (it is unclear what data is shown on them, it is necessary to add a legend or at least an explanation).

3. the tables should be clearer, especially Table 2 which is very difficult to follow.

4. Line 126 says ... Thomson Reuters and Elsevier provide.... Are you sure you mean Thomson Reuters, or Clarivate?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The auhtors have revised the manuscript. It is recommended that the content of the paper be rechecked and the quality of the English language be improved.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I'm not in a position to make a full assessment of the author's English language skills, but I think there are areas of negotiation in some of the paper's English expressions. For example, in the title "OPEN SCIENCE ALTERNATIVES TO SCOPUS AND THE WEB OF SCIENCE: A CASE STUDY IN REGIONAL RESILIENCE" , is it necessary to put "the" in front of "Web of Science"?

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

great work of revision with correction of errors and acceptance of comments and suggestions