Paulownia spp.: A Bibliometric Trend Analysis of a Global Multi-Use Tree

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 27-29: correct typos and errors. 

Line 55 also. 

Line 56: presents in a different part of the plant

Line 128: 'worked with that' change to 'analyzed them further'

Figure 1: change fonts to provide full words on the chart. 

Rephrase this part: someone has published in this item.

Table 2 is very difficult to follow, please reorganize. 

Lines 207 and 211: The table title should always be at the top.

Line 208: 'with 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 fields of 208 research of WoS category and Research Area' please be specific to what those numbers refer. In table footnotes provide an adequate explanation 

Line 345: treated change to considered. 

Line 350: 'probably because people started' is it probably, or the research titles do tell that the interested shifted from merely morphological characters to more specific objectives? 

Line 434: correct Figg. 9

The conclusion section is just a mere repetition of the main results. Please provide what is the benefit of your research, and how will it influence the future directions...

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs to be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper performs an analysis considering bibliometric tools on paulownia.

 

The paper is interesting and well organized, however, there are the following opportunities for improvement:

 

The work is not necessarily a systematic review, for that there are other methodologies. It is necessary to review the category of the work.

In the list of authors avoid the use of gmail type emails, preferably use corporate emails.

It would have been interesting that in the search formula for the input of the work they had used some of the common names of Paulownia as mentioned in l59, in addition to only the scientific name.

In the objective of the paper you could also add the concept of analyzing trends in publications.

Paragraph l106 to 114 is really needed, that information is somewhat obvious.

In some parts it talks about program and in others about software to standardize the use of words.

The information in l152 has already been mentioned, avoid repeating it.

Improve figure 1.

In addition to presenting the data sometimes there is no discussion/analysis, it is necessary to revise the discussion of the whole manuscript.

In Figure 2 Do not use autoscaling, it does not make sense to show 2025...?

And why not from 1971??????

You could also calculate the growth rate of publications and add a secondary axis with the citations of those articles in each year.

Revise the name of table 1, it is necessary to be more specific with the name of the tables.

 

Table 2 needs to be redone, it contains duplicates and its form/presentation is not very neat.

 

Table 3 is not clear, review its relevance.

It would be interesting to add information to the tables such as citation structure, h-index in the respective contexts, among other possible metrics to be included.

In the bibliometric relationships obtained by vosviewer the discussion can be improved, the software provides much more information such as total clusters, link strength and others.

It would be interesting to add to the discussion of Table 5 information such as the affiliations of the authors and their H-indexes for the universe of data considered for the study.

It is necessary to improve the presentation of Figure 7.

It is necessary to revise the font formats throughout the document, for example in Table 5 there are different fonts.

Suggestion in l142 it is mentioned to have used the default values of the software, it is recommended to explore the different settings provided by the vosviewer interface to improve the presentation of all the bibliometric relationship graphs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are numerous typos and errors, that need to be corrected during the copy editing. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Corrections are required. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made most of the suggested changes and the quality of the article improved considerably. Based on the above, I recommend accepting the article in its current form.