The Use of UAVs for Morphological Coastal Change Monitoring—A Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I never really came across such research, very interesting indeed and well presented, I enjoyed the journey. 

  This paper highlights that the use of UAVs for monitoring changes in coastlines has gained significant traction and proven to be highly effective. This research study utilized a bibliometric analysis of 160 research articles published over the past 20 years. The findings reveal that countries like the United States, France, South Korea, and Spain have emerged as leaders in studying coastline changes through the application of UAVs. The study also identifies influential publications, authors, and research trends in this field. Additionally, it emphasizes the valuable contributions made by UAVs in monitoring and understanding coastline changes caused by factors such as rising sea levels, reduced sediment loads, and the impact of engineering infrastructure.

Here are some general comments (not all need to be addressed but more as suggestions/recommendations)

satellite and satellite imagery may be included also as  this toppic is very relevant to coastal change monitoring. Because this is a very specific topic the authors may want to include more types of publication. The authors may investigate very early literature beyond the 20 years' scope, just for the historical perspective.

The authors should acknowledge the relatively small “sample” size of the bibliography they have and let the readers know how this can affect the impact of these conclusions (it will be relevant to just this field).

The selected methods, the bibliometrics package, and VOSviewer, are great for bibliometric analysis. They enable the assessment of performance, pattern detection, and visualization connections. Bibliometrix provides a comprehensive examination of bibliographic data, revealing insights into research field indicators. VOSviewer enables a graphical representation of networks, uncovering the intricate web of connections between all the fractions studied. Together, these methods enhance validity and provide valuable insights for researchers.

one thing though, lines 116 to 121 should be in a form of a table, it will make it much easier to follow.

In summary,  I enjoyed your manuscript.  the fact that incorporation of LiDAR technology, as well as developing monitoring methods to optimize results is also what I realize during my research  and is exactly what your study shows augmented my joy.  

no significant errors but it can use a polish. 

Author Response

We value the important input the reviewers provided to our work. All questions raised by reviewers were answered individually in the attached document. We hope the questions have been adequately addressed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have with interests you paper but from my point of view the review needs to address different issues before being accepted for publication.

Regarding the introduction regards the “definition of coastline” considering that your review does not focus on the coastline but mainly on the coastal zone, so please address.

You should also further illustrate the traditional methods, (l48-49)

The first paragraph of section 1.3 is hard to understand, please adjust, as well as the second paragraph. Please specify Is knowledge l.72

Method

Please simplify the second paraph, not clear and add the description of the cluster analysis and citation analysis

Could you also better explain the VOS viewer, thank you

Results

In this section, you should just describe the results, while discussion and conclusion elements should be put in the relative section (l 207-208 for instance)

I believe that the influence of the authors is not necessary and consequently this section may be removed.

Similarly, is the section related to academic institution is relevant. For my point of view, the geographical information is more relevant.

Instead, you should better analyse the bibliographic references since you only analyse two papers for the period 2002-20017 and tow papers for the period 2018-2020. Maybe you could first describe the results of the cluster analysis and then analyse the papers in relation to the 4 clusters

Regarding the geographical location, you should mention that Australia, France and Canada have more citations compared to the other countries

Discussion

Discussion is the main issue, indeed this section is scarce and should be improved, since you only discuss the limitation of the method used to identify the papers for the review.

For my point of view, you should also discuss the advantages or limitations of the UAV for coastal monitoring. For instance, do the authors identify different advantage or limitations in using UAV. What are the main topics/problems addressed in their studies…

As a consequence, conclusion should be rewritten.

Best regards

Some parts of the manuscript are difficult to understand and I suggest to check English.

Author Response

We value the important input the reviewers provided to our work. All questions raised by reviewers were answered individually in the attached document. We hope the questions have been adequately addressed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “The Use of UAVs for Coastal Monitoring – A Bibliometric Analysis” is an interesting read and quantitative view of the state of the UAS for Coastal Monitoring Application in research. Upon review, the manuscript is fairly well written and well organized. Some statements have awkward phrasing and not all were identified in my comments below. Overall, the manuscript provides an interesting analysis of the state of the discipline and I believe should be published after revisions. One major concern I have is the focus on beach and dune research in your coastal monitoring subject and ignoring coastal wetlands or vegetation research. Perhaps including keywords to ensure that type of paper was including would make the scope of your analysis too large, but then maybe your title should be a bit more specific. Otherwise, nice job. I highlight a few other  concerns below with some of my comments.

Lines 47-48: awkward phrasing

Lines 47-50: why two paragraphs here? Combine with others.

Line 51: a very bold statement to say it is the best.

Lines 61-63- incorporate this into the paragraph above. The section should end on UAS are a valuable and growing option, not how Lidar is another option. The paper is not focused on LiDAR.

Lines 66-69: run on sentence.

Line 160: (and) is missing.

Lines 116-125: There is a growing sentiment in literature to refer to UAS as unoccupied aerial systems rather than unmanned. While I am not particularly draw one direction or another in my own research (I likewise use unmanned), if a paper were to refer to UAS as unoccupied rather than unmanned, would it have gone unnoticed?

Lines 181-183- LiDAR has predated UAS technology in terms of its relevance in coastal studies. This statement is weak and should be removed or made stronger.

Line 211- do you have evidence that LiDAR is now “Often” coupled with drones? I believe it might still be hard to find many researchers with access to a UAS with LiDAR. However, you may have evidence otherwise.

Lines 214-218: This paragraph is phrased awkwardly. DSAS is a good tool. “can be used for other applications would fit best in 218. 215-217 is particularly poorly worded and confusing for the reader. Please rewrite to focus on the point you would like to make about DSAS.

Figure 2: I like figure 2, though a clearer image would help readability.

Lines 311-313: which paper are you referring to? If the paper from the paragraph above, combine paragraphs.

English is fairly well written with some awkward phrasing and run-on grammatical errors. Otherwise nice job.

Author Response

We value the important input the reviewers provided to our work. All questions raised by reviewers were answered individually in the attached document. We hope the questions have been adequately addressed. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Well done

best regards