Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors sought to investigate the global public search and research on dentists through a combination of infoveillance and bibliometric research approaches. They intended to provide insights needed for the evidence-based development and planning of interventions targeting information dissemination and consumption practices on dentists in order to subsidize future research and policies relevant to the scope and practice of dentistry. The authors stated that inequalities in the global distribution of dentists may have a telling effect on the global trends and patterns of information search and research interests on dentists however the rationale for this nexus was not informed. As the content of the publications is not expected to be described in a bibliometric research it is difficult for the reader to capture this connection. The hybrid research design through a combination of infoveillance and bibliometric research approaches seemed to be appropriate to meet for describing the global trends and patterns of information search and research interests on dentists, however it is not clear how the intention to provide insights needed for the evidence-based development and planning of interventions targeting information dissemination and consumption practices on dentists would be reached. The study design was restricted to a survey describing changes related to global public search and research on dentists. The procedures for data extraction and the results were well described in general. A minor remark refers to the column “Rank” of the Table 9 that needs to be revised. The sentence “None of these authors was from a South American country” (line 232) is not supported by the results. One researcher is from a South American country. The major remark refers to the articulation between the study’s rationale and the content of the Discussion. The authors stated that the findings are of huge relevance because the overall growth trends in the volume of global search and research on dentists corroborate existing reports on the increasing rate of global awareness, demand, and utilization on dentists and oral healthcare services. First the theoretical basis of this nexus should be built. Second knowledge on the neglect of global oral health would need to be considered (DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31133-X). Moreover it seems important to take into consideration that the growth trends in the volume of global search on dentists can express the expansion of use of digital resources by global population. Authors may be facing a mirage if they think that the results corroborate reports on the increasing rate utilization of oral healthcare services. It is more plausible that the findings are linked to the more widespread use of digital resources than to the increased use of dental services, which continues to benefit groups better positioned in social stratification that have ability to pay for them. I am afraid that the more plausible hypothesis for discussing the results would be the expansion of use of digital resources by global population. The authors only marginally acknowledged that the advent and global spread of the internet facility may have encouraged information seeking and dissemination practices in dentists (line 279) rather than broadening this line of discussion. The limitations and conclusions were well written. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 1:

 

The authors sought to investigate the global public search and research on dentists through a combination of infoveillance and bibliometric research approaches. They intended to provide insights needed for the evidence-based development and planning of interventions targeting information dissemination and consumption practices on dentists in order to subsidize future research and policies relevant to the scope and practice of dentistry. The authors stated that inequalities in the global distribution of dentists may have a telling effect on the global trends and patterns of information search and research interests on dentists however the rationale for this nexus was not informed.

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now revised the sentence in a way that will not generate such notion.

 

As the content of the publications is not expected to be described in a bibliometric research it is difficult for the reader to capture this connection. The hybrid research design through a combination of infoveillance and bibliometric research approaches seemed to be appropriate to meet for describing the global trends and patterns of information search and research interests on dentists, however it is not clear how the intention to provide insights needed for the evidence-based development and planning of interventions targeting information dissemination and consumption practices on dentists would be reached.

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now revised the sentence.  

 

The study design was restricted to a survey describing changes related to global public search and research on dentists.

RE: Thank you. We used bibliometric approach to analyse the global research interest while we used infoveillance approach to analyse the global search interest.

 

The procedures for data extraction and the results were well described in general. A minor remark refers to the column “Rank” of the Table 9 that needs to be revised. The sentence “None of these authors was from a South American country” (line 232) is not supported by the results. One researcher is from a South American country.

RE: Thank you very much for observing the typographical error. We have now changed the “South American” to “African”.

 

The major remark refers to the articulation between the study’s rationale and the content of the Discussion. The authors stated that the findings are of huge relevance because the overall growth trends in the volume of global search and research on dentists corroborate existing reports on the increasing rate of global awareness, demand, and utilization on dentists and oral healthcare services. First the theoretical basis of this nexus should be built. Second knowledge on the neglect of global oral health would need to be considered (DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31133-X). Moreover it seems important to take into consideration that the growth trends in the volume of global search on dentists can express the expansion of use of digital resources by global population. Authors may be facing a mirage if they think that the results corroborate reports on the increasing rate utilization of oral healthcare services. It is more plausible that the findings are linked to the more widespread use of digital resources than to the increased use of dental services, which continues to benefit groups better positioned in social stratification that have ability to pay for them. I am afraid that the more plausible hypothesis for discussing the results would be the expansion of use of digital resources by global population. The authors only marginally acknowledged that the advent and global spread of the internet facility may have encouraged information seeking and dissemination practices in dentists (line 279) rather than broadening this line of discussion.

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now revised the manuscript in a way that it will not generate such notion.

 

The limitations and conclusions were well written. 

RE: Thank you for this comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors.

Thanks for your interesting work and the opportunity for me to review it. The followings are some important tips that will improve the quality and readability of the article:

1- Please mention the "infoveillance and bibliometric approach" in your topic/title.

2- The significance of conducting this bibliometric analysis is vague and needs to be clarifies. Also, a clear description of the aim of the study is appreciated. 

3- Please try to focus on the novelty, contribution to the knowledge and the value added by this article.

4- Method sections need to be re-written. While some sort of redundancy is observed in the method and the descriptions of the terminology, the main method, approach and designed used by the authors aren`t describe well including the SCOPUS search strategy syntax, the analysis method as well as the relationships among the nodes and the Network visualisation. For instance, I am wondering if the authors applied VOSviewer software or any similar one and how the initial data was imported, finalized and interpreted?

5- While 9 tables and 7 figures are illustrated, there is a serious necessity for describing and interpreting the results specially for those readers whose background is completely clinical and are not aware with the science-meterix and bibliometric analysis.

6-Although the discussion section is developed well it needs more focus on the implications of this study for the clinicians, dental researchers and oral health communities. 

7- Please clarify the main limitations of the study. 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2:

Dear Authors.

Thanks for your interesting work and the opportunity for me to review it. The followings are some important tips that will improve the quality and readability of the article:

1- Please mention the "infoveillance and bibliometric approach" in your topic/title.

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now included it in the title

2- The significance of conducting this bibliometric analysis is vague and needs to be clarifies. Also, a clear description of the aim of the study is appreciated. 

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now revised the manuscript to reflect this. Please see the INTRODUCTION section.

3- Please try to focus on the novelty, contribution to the knowledge and the value added by this article.

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now revised the manuscript to reflect this. Please see the INTRODUCTION and the DISCUSSION sections.

4- Method sections need to be re-written. While some sort of redundancy is observed in the method and the descriptions of the terminology, the main method, approach and designed used by the authors aren`t describe well including the SCOPUS search strategy syntax, the analysis method as well as the relationships among the nodes and the Network visualisation. For instance, I am wondering if the authors applied VOSviewer software or any similar one and how the initial data was imported, finalized and interpreted?

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now addressed these issues. We have included the search strategy syntax (please see Box 1 in the manuscript), and we have explained in detail the network visualisation, nodes and other issues raised (please see the METHODS section). Thank you.

5- While 9 tables and 7 figures are illustrated, there is a serious necessity for describing and interpreting the results specially for those readers whose background is completely clinical and are not aware with the science-meterix and bibliometric analysis.

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have tried our best to ensure that the results are reported in simple and standard reporting terms. In case you have further concerns, please kindly specify with examples. Thank you.

6-Although the discussion section is developed well it needs more focus on the implications of this study for the clinicians, dental researchers and oral health communities. 

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have now revised this section in a way that it has more focus on the study’s implications for clinicians, dental researchers and oral health communities.

7- Please clarify the main limitations of the study. 

RE: Thank you for this comment. The main limitations of this study had been stated in the second-to-the-last paragraph of the DISCUSSION section.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, an interesting topic and of relevance. 

Author Response

REVIEWER 3:

Overall, an interesting topic and of relevance. 

RE: Thank you for this comment.