Bibliometric Analysis of River Erosion Control Measures: Examination of Practices and Barriers in Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a review article. The article analyzes research on riverbank erosion and control measures, emphasizing the importance of key terms such as riverbank, erosion, control, and protection. The growth of scientific production since 2000, especially in the fields of environmental and earth and planetary sciences, reflects the growing concern about climate change and sustainable water management. The study also identifies leading countries in scientific research, such as the United States and China, emphasizing their commitment to solving this global problem. (Although I personally have my doubts about this. For example, the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto Protocol on carbon dioxide emissions, etc.) An assessment of mitigation methods in Colombia revealed a lack of implementation of effective methods due to factors such as insufficient knowledge, limited resources, and misperceptions of effectiveness. In the article, the authors especially highlight the need to promote proven methods and improve professional training to effectively address riverbank erosion. In the final part of the article, the authors indicate directions for future research, including the development of more accurate prognostic models, the integration of interdisciplinary approaches, and the assessment of the impact of climate change on riverbank erosion.

 

Notes:

1. Lines 113-123. It is better to present them as a bulleted list. There is one goal, and within this goal it is planned to solve several tasks 1, 2, 3, …

2. Line 177. The text "…………….9 questions, was adminis-177 tered to 110 professionals." And who selected these specialists? Was the consistency of the answers checked? Was both ranking and calculation of the Concordance Coefficient performed? In the attached materials on line 190 this is not presented

3. Line 197, 201, 296, 361 A comma may be missing.

 

Conclusion. The article corresponds to the “Review” status and can be accepted for publication with minor revisions.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: Lines 113-123: It is better to present these as a bullet-point list. There is an objective, and within this objective, several tasks are planned: 1, 2, 3, ...

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree with your observation and have accordingly revised the text that was previously in lines 113-123 to present the tasks in a bullet-point list format. The objective is now broken down into four key activities, and this section has been extended to occupy lines 112 to 135.

 

Comment 2: Line 177: "The text '... 9 questions were administered to 110 professionals'. Who selected these specialists? Was the consistency of the responses verified? Were both classification and the calculation of the concordance coefficient performed? This is not presented in the materials attached on line 190."

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your observation, which has been instrumental in enhancing the methodological rigor of this study. We agree that clarity in these aspects is crucial for the research's development. Therefore, we have made the following modifications to address your valuable suggestions:

• Selection of Specialists: The 110 professionals who were administered the survey were selected through stratified sampling, ensuring representativeness both geographically and professionally. This process included identifying key roles (Designers, Builders, Consultants, and Researchers) within various governmental and private entities in Colombia, ensuring coverage of all critical aspects of riverbank erosion mitigation practices.
• Verification of Response Consistency: To ensure the consistency of responses, Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W) was used. This statistic was calculated to assess the level of agreement among the evaluators regarding the 9 selected questions, reinforcing the reliability and validity of the results. Specific details about the calculation of this coefficient have been added to the document, explaining how consistency in responses was verified.
• Classification and Calculation of the Concordance Coefficient: The methodology for classifying the questions and calculating the Concordance Coefficient has been detailed in lines 190-234 of the final document. This section includes the equation used to calculate Kendall's W, which measures the degree of agreement among the evaluators, ensuring that the questions included in the survey are consistent and relevant.

The revised document now contains all this information in lines 190 to 234, with the relevant sections highlighted in yellow for easy identification.

 

Comment 3: Lines 197, 201, 296, 361: "A comma may be missing."

Response 3: Thank you for your observation, which has been crucial in ensuring the accuracy and clarity of the manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the text and added the necessary commas in the following lines:

• Line 257 (previously 197)
• Line 268 (previously 201)
• Line 354 (previously 296)
• Line 435 (previously 361)

These corrections significantly contribute to the text's fluency, ensuring that the information is presented clearly and coherently. I appreciate your attention to these details, which have notably improved the quality of the document.

Additional Comment:

Additional considerations: For the second table, the Kendall's Concordance Coefficient (W) was incorporated, in addition to improving the discussion of each item.

Additional Response:

We appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have been fundamental in improving the quality of the analysis presented. In the second table, we have incorporated Kendall's Concordance Coefficient (W) to provide a more comprehensive and robust statistical description. This coefficient allows for the evaluation of the agreement among raters, ensuring the validity and reliability of the data presented. Additionally, the discussion of each item in the table has been enhanced to provide a more detailed and technical interpretation, reinforcing the understanding and relevance of the results obtained. These adjustments ensure that the analysis is more rigorous and better grounded in methodological and statistical terms.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:

The study check the Scopus database and VOSviewer software to map the research landscape related to riverbank erosion. Below, I provide a critique of the study, highlighting its strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.

 

Specific comments: 1. The paper mentions that bibliometric analysis is important and essential in the Introduction, but it doesn’t clearly explain the reasons behind this claim. 2.The study analyzes many clusters using a certain program, but without detailed and specific analysis. It doesn't specify which clusters are what color and why. It doesn't demonstrate why certain keywords generally differ or do not differ from others. 3. Another point is that a cluster in Figure 1 shows detailed results of various keywords, but it doesn't explain why these are chosen over others. 4. The paper does not specify how the program used for Network analysis obtained its data or how many publications there were and what the sample size was. 5. The third Figure shows an increase in documents from 2020 to 2024, but it is not justified why there is a high number of documents during this period. 6. The fourth Figure lists countries with the most publications, mainly the United States and China, but it doesn't explain why these countries have the most. Additionally, the article focuses mainly on Colombia without explaining why it has the smallest volume of all works. The reasons for this should be shown. 7.  In Table 1, the advantages and disadvantages are listed; however, the disadvantages are presented too generally. One could argue that every structure shares the same drawbacks. I believe a more detailed and specific breakdown of the disadvantages would be more effective.   Contructive feedback :   Overall, the abstract is good, but it concludes with the statement that international collaboration is important for developing practical solutions. For the second table, add more statistics besides just the mean; standard deviation alone is not sufficient for description. You need to interpret the third table more strongly; categories under the column headings are not explained clearly.

Additionally, you need to create a map, ideally a world map, showing keywords and the literature they come from. You can also create a graph or histogram illustrating the sample size and how many of these keywords come from each country. The discussion is too brief and lacks depth; you should add at least 4-5 different positions/citations.The conclusion is concise, but it can be further shortened by focusing on key points. Scopus is a comprehensive database that ensures high-quality, relevant sources. However, relying on a single database can overlook valuable studies. It’s important to address this limitation and discussing the potential impact of excluding papers from other sources.

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

Comment 1: The article mentions that bibliometric analysis is important and essential in the Introduction, but it does not clearly explain the reasons behind this statement.

Response 1: We appreciate your observation, which has been instrumental in enhancing the justification for using bibliometric analysis in our study. We have revised and expanded the Introduction to clarify how bibliometric analysis is a crucial tool for quantitatively evaluating research trends, identifying leading countries and institutions, and visualizing knowledge structures within the field. Specifically, a section has been added in lines 117-120 of the final document that highlights how this approach not only identifies influential studies and authors but also uncovers knowledge gaps and emerging topics, which are essential for guiding future research and scientific policy development. These changes provide a solid foundation for the importance of bibliometric analysis in the context of our study.

 

Comment 2: The study analyzes many clusters using a specific program, but without detailed and specific analysis. It does not specify which clusters are of which color and why. It does not demonstrate why certain keywords generally differ or do not differ from others.

Response 2: We deeply appreciate your comment, which has been essential for refining the cluster analysis in our study. We acknowledge the importance of providing a more detailed and specific analysis. In response to your observation, we have made the following improvements:

• Identification and Analysis of Clusters: In the final document, a detailed description has been added, specifying the colors associated with each cluster and the rationale behind these groupings, based on the co-occurrence and thematic relevance of the keywords. These observations are now detailed in lines 257-309. These enhancements ensure that the cluster analysis is more robust and technically justified, improving the understanding of thematic dynamics within the study field.

 

Comment 3: A cluster in Figure 1 shows detailed results for several keywords, but it does not explain why these were chosen over others.

Response 3: We sincerely thank you for your observation, which has been key to optimizing the clarity and justification for keyword selection. In response to your comment, we have revised and expanded the analysis corresponding to Figure 1 in lines 263-268 of the document. A detailed technical justification for the keyword selection is now provided, explaining that these were chosen for their high frequency of occurrence and their central role in the co-occurrence network. This selection is based on strict quantitative and qualitative criteria, reinforcing the validity of the analysis presented. Additionally, in the discussion section on co-occurrence analysis located in lines 575-621, the text has been adjusted to enhance the understanding of the information.

 

Comment 4: The article does not specify how the program used for network analysis obtained its data, how many publications there were, and what the sample size was.

Response 4: We greatly appreciate your observation, which has been fundamental in clarifying the data collection and analysis methodology. We have revised the Methods section to include precise details about the use of VOSviewer, specifying that the data were obtained from the Scopus database and that the analysis was conducted on a sample of 160 relevant publications. This information, now present in lines 138-160 of the final document, ensures greater transparency in the data selection and analysis process, providing a solid methodological foundation for the results obtained.

 

Comment 5: The third figure shows an increase in documents from 2020 to 2024, but it does not justify why there is a large number of documents during this period.

Response 5: Thank you for your observation, which has been crucial for contextualizing the observed trends in scientific production. In response to your comment, we have added a comprehensive justification in lines 704-723 of the final document. This section explains that the increase in publications during the 2020-2024 period is due to a growing focus on the impacts of climate change and the urgency to develop sustainable solutions for riverbank erosion. This context is essential for appropriately interpreting the data presented in Figure 3, providing a clear and well-founded explanation for the observed trends.

 

Comment 6: The fourth figure lists the countries with the most publications, mainly the United States and China, but it does not explain why these countries have more. Additionally, the article mainly focuses on Colombia without explaining why it has the lowest volume of all the works. The reasons for this should be shown.

Response 6: We sincerely thank you for your observation, which has been essential for enriching the geographic interpretation of the data presented. We have revised the corresponding section to include a detailed explanation in lines 725-787 of the final document. This section explains that the United States and China lead in publication volume due to their investment in research infrastructure and governmental support. It also addresses the situation in Colombia, explaining that its lower publication volume is due to limitations in research infrastructure and funding, as well as specific geographic and socioeconomic challenges. Additionally, we have incorporated an additional Sankey diagram to visualize international collaborations, as well as case studies that position Colombia as a key area for the development of research on erosion mitigation. These additions provide a more comprehensive and well-founded interpretation of the geographic data, effectively addressing the concerns raised.

 

Comment 7: In Table 1, the advantages and disadvantages are listed; however, the disadvantages are presented in too general a manner. It could be argued that all structures share the same drawbacks. I believe a more detailed and specific breakdown of the disadvantages would be more effective.

Response 7: We deeply appreciate your observation, which has been key to improving the precision and usefulness of the information presented in Table 1. In response to your comment, we have significantly revised and expanded Table 1, providing a more detailed and specific breakdown of the disadvantages of each riverbank protection structure. Now, in the final document, details are included that address the specific limitations of each technique in different contexts, allowing for a more thorough and nuanced comparison. These improvements strengthen the table as a critical tool for making informed decisions in the field of riverbank erosion protection.

 

Additional Comment 1: The abstract is generally good but concludes with the assertion that international collaboration is important for developing practical solutions. For the second table, add more statistics besides the mean; standard deviation alone is not sufficient for description. You need to interpret the third table more strongly; the categories under the column headings are not clearly explained.

Response to Additional Comment 1: We deeply appreciate your constructive feedback. Regarding the conclusion of the abstract, we have revised and adjusted this section to emphasize the importance of international collaboration by providing specific examples of how such collaborations have resulted in practical and effective solutions in the context of riverbank erosion. The updated abstract now more clearly reflects how international collaboration is not just important but essential in addressing the complex and multifaceted challenges presented by riverbank erosion.

For the second table, we have incorporated additional statistics, including Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W), along with the median and interquartile range. These additions provide a more robust description of the data and enhance the understanding of variability and consistency among the evaluators. These enhancements are aligned with best practices in statistical analysis, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate interpretation of the data presented.

Furthermore, the discussion for each item in the table has been improved to provide a more detailed and technical interpretation, ensuring that the results are more understandable and that the categories under the column headings are clearly defined and contextualized within the analysis framework. This revision allows for a deeper understanding of the data and their relevance in the context of the research.

Additional Comment:

Additional considerations: For the second table, the Kendall's Concordance Coefficient (W) was incorporated, in addition to improving the discussion of each item.

Additional Response:

We appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have been fundamental in improving the quality of the analysis presented. In the second table, we have incorporated Kendall's Concordance Coefficient (W) to provide a more comprehensive and robust statistical description. This coefficient allows for the evaluation of the agreement among raters, ensuring the validity and reliability of the data presented. Additionally, the discussion of each item in the table has been enhanced to provide a more detailed and technical interpretation, reinforcing the understanding and relevance of the results obtained. These adjustments ensure that the analysis is more rigorous and better grounded in methodological and statistical terms.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Considerations in the review of the article “Bibliometric Analysis of River Erosion Control Measures: Examination of Practices and Barriers in Colombia” submitted to the journal Hydrology. The article presents a scientometric analysis of articles from the “Scopus”, in VOSViewer. The article is well structured, with good scientific writing and logical sequence, but the title is not well aligned, as it seems segmented, and needs to be revised.

- What filters and corrections were made to the spreadsheet exported in Scopus? It is known that adjustments are needed in the names of authors, institutions, and Keywords, among others. Which ones were made?

- Why were data from “Web of Science Core Collection” data not used, with the same terms? The indexing databases are different, and many journals have “CiteScore” but are not in WoS (JCR). Justify this in the text.

- Figure 3 needs to be associated with the “annual citation totals”. What are the 20 most cited works? Which researchers have the greatest “expertise” in this topic in terms of the number of publications?

- In Figure 4, “Rest of World” is quite representative when compared to other countries; it is important to show data from other countries that are being considered in this “class”. Also, in this Figure, shouldn’t the “Undefined” class be in “Rest of World”?

- Present the Sankey diagram (from VOVViewer itself), considering the 15 countries and institutions and 20 authors, to verify international relationships of joint research.

- To meet the objectives of the work in item 3.5, the works published with Colombia should be addressed, making their interrelations with the items presented previously in the results. This was also not done in the discussion.

The conclusions need to be direct and objective, connected with the article's objectives. As they are, they seem like a discussion.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment 1:

The title is not well-aligned, as it seems segmented and needs to be revised.

Response 1:

Thank you for your observation regarding the article's title. The title, "Bibliometric Analysis of River Erosion Control Measures: Examination of Practices and Barriers in Colombia," was carefully selected to reflect both the methodological focus of the study and its specific geographical context. The first part of the title, "Bibliometric Analysis of River Erosion Control Measures," emphasizes the use of bibliometric analysis to evaluate river erosion control measures, highlighting the relevance of this methodology to the study. The second part, "Examination of Practices and Barriers in Colombia," focuses on the specific analysis of the practices and barriers encountered within the Colombian context, which is crucial for understanding the particularities of implementing these measures in a specific geographical and socio-economic setting. This segmented approach in the title effectively communicates the dual purpose of the study: a detailed bibliometric analysis and a specific contextual examination of Colombia.

Comment 2:

What filters and corrections were applied to the spreadsheet exported from Scopus? It is known that adjustments are necessary for author names, institutions, and keywords, among others. Which adjustments were made?

Response 2:

Thank you for your observation, which allows us to clarify and reinforce the methodology used. In the Methods section (lines 139-160 of the final document), it has been detailed that during the processing of data exported from Scopus, several critical corrections and normalizations were made. These adjustments included the standardization of author and institution names, correction of journal abbreviations, and the unification of keywords using a specific thesaurus. These thesauri were essential to avoid duplications and ensure consistency in the co-occurrence analysis of keywords and in the construction of bibliometric networks. Given the word limit of the document, we chose not to include the detailed table of the applied thesauri within the main text. However, we provide the table below for your review. This decision was made to maintain the clarity and conciseness of the article, avoiding excessive length while complying with the journal's requirements.

Label	Replace By
earth surf. processes landf.	Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
ecol. indic.	Ecological Indicators
j. hydrol.	Journal of Hydrology
geotext. geomembr.	Geotextiles and Geomembranes
hydrol. processes	Hydrological Processes
ecol. eng.	Ecological Engineering
int. j. river basin manage.	International Journal of River Basin Management
sustainability	Sustainability (Switzerland)
river res. appl.	River Research and Applications
nat. hazards	Natural Hazards
sci. total environ.	Science of the Total Environment
wetlands ecol. manage.	Wetlands Ecology and Management
environ. earth sci.	Environmental Earth Sciences
environ. manage.	Environmental Management
hydrol. earth syst. sci.	Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
environ. model. softw.	Environmental Modelling and Software
j. environ. manage.	Journal of Environmental Management
j. earth syst. sci.	Journal of Earth System Science
j. hydraul. eng.	Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
can. j. civ. eng.	Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
wit trans. ecol. environ.	WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

 

Label	Replace By
Da Rocha, Igor P.	Da Rocha, Igor Pinheiro
Deng, Jinyun	Deng, Jiangdi
Hao, R.	Hao, Rong
Holanda, Francisco S. R.	Holanda, Francisco Sandro Rodrigues
Li, Jie	Li, Jiayi
Li, Yu	Li, Yitian
Li, Yuan	Li, Yitian
Li, Yitian	Li, Yihang
Li, Yike	Li, Yitian
Li, Zhiwei	Li, Zhanbin
Loucougaray, Grégory	Loucougaray, Gregory
Piton, Gabin	Piton, Guillaume
Poesen, J.	Poesen, Jean
Rutherfurd, I.D.	Rutherfurd, Ian D.
Wang, J.	Wang, Jianzhu
Zhang, Wei	Zhang, Wenming

Comment 3:

Why were data from the "Web of Science Core Collection" not used with the same terms? Indexing databases differ, and many journals have "CiteScore" but are not in WoS (JCR). Justify this in the text.

Response 3:

Thank you for this important observation. We have reviewed the Methods section to include a more detailed justification for choosing the Scopus database over the Web of Science. As mentioned in lines 142-150 of the final document, the selection of Scopus was based on its broader journal coverage and its ability to offer advanced analytical tools, which were essential for the specific bibliometric analysis required by this study. Additionally, Scopus includes a wide range of publications relevant to the field of riverbank erosion that are not necessarily indexed in WoS. This approach allows for a broader and more comprehensive evaluation of the available literature, ensuring the inclusion of a greater diversity of studies and authors in the analysis.

Comment 4:

Figure 3 needs to be associated with the "annual citation totals." What are the 20 most cited works? Which researchers have the most "expertise" in this field in terms of the number of publications?

Response 4:

Thank you for your observation. We have enhanced the presentation of Figure 3 in the final document by associating it directly with the annual citation totals. Additionally, a supplementary table has been added in lines 713-721, detailing the 20 most cited works and highlighting the researchers with the greatest expertise in the field based on the number of publications and citations received. This addition provides a more comprehensive context regarding the influence and impact of key studies in the field of riverbank erosion, allowing for a deeper understanding of research dynamics in this area.

Comment 5:

In Figure 4, "Rest of the World" is quite representative compared to other countries; it is important to show data from other countries considered in this "class." Additionally, in this Figure, shouldn't the "Undefined" class be in "Rest of the World"?

Response 5:

We appreciate your observation and have adjusted Figure 4 to include a more detailed breakdown of the countries grouped under "Rest of the World." An explanation has been added in lines 734-747 of the final document, clarifying how the data is distributed among the different categories. Additionally, the "Undefined" category has been reassigned to be included within "Rest of the World," providing a more accurate and consistent representation of the data. These modifications ensure that the figure more faithfully reflects the geographical distribution of publications in the field.

Comment 6:

Present the Sankey diagram (from VOSviewer), considering the 15 countries and institutions and 20 authors, to verify international research collaboration relations.

Response 6:

In response to your suggestion, we have included a Sankey diagram in lines 755-767 of the final document, which shows international research collaboration relations. This diagram was developed by selecting the 20 most-cited authors within the field of study, ensuring that the analysis reflects the most significant contributions in terms of academic impact. The selection criteria based on the number of citations ensure that the diagram not only represents the quantity of publications but also the influence of authors in advancing knowledge on river erosion control measures. This approach allows for a clear and focused visualization of the most relevant and effective collaborations at the international level, providing a detailed map of how leading researchers and their institutions are interconnected.

Comment 7:

To meet the objectives of the work in item 3.5, published works involving Colombia should be addressed, making their interrelationships with the items previously presented in the results. This was also not done in the discussion.

Response 7:

We appreciate your observation and have incorporated a more detailed discussion in item 3.5 of the final document (lines 774-787). This section now includes an analysis of publications involving Colombia, highlighting how they interrelate with the general results of the study. Additionally, in the discussion section, a comparative analysis has been integrated, connecting the findings on Colombia with the trends and barriers identified in other international contexts, ensuring a more cohesive discussion aligned with the study's objectives.

Comment 8:

The conclusions should be direct and objective, connected to the article's objectives. As they stand, they seem more like a discussion.

Response 8:

In response to your comment, we have revised and refined the conclusions to be more direct and concise, clearly connecting with the article's objectives. The conclusions now focus on the key points of the study, highlighting the main findings and their practical implications for riverbank erosion control in Colombia and in a global context. This revision ensures that the conclusions provide an effective and relevant closure to the study, directly aligning with the objectives set forth at the outset.

Additional Comment:

Additional considerations: For the second table, the Kendall's Concordance Coefficient (W) was incorporated, in addition to improving the discussion of each item.

Additional Response:

We appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have been fundamental in improving the quality of the analysis presented. In the second table, we have incorporated Kendall's Concordance Coefficient (W) to provide a more comprehensive and robust statistical description. This coefficient allows for the evaluation of the agreement among raters, ensuring the validity and reliability of the data presented. Additionally, the discussion of each item in the table has been enhanced to provide a more detailed and technical interpretation, reinforcing the understanding and relevance of the results obtained. These adjustments ensure that the analysis is more rigorous and better grounded in methodological and statistical terms.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors tried to improve their paper. Most of my comments were incorporated.