Bioprospecting Microalgae: A Systematic Review of Current Trends
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors tried to cover major words used for microalgae search.
It would increase the impact of the paper if discussed more about the uses of microalgae in pharmaceuticals and secondary metabolites products.
Discuss more about commercial products from microalgae present in market
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Quality of English is average
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Comments 1: It would increase the impact of the paper if discussed more about the uses of microalgae in pharmaceuticals and secondary metabolites products.
Response 1: We further discussed microalgae's uses in pharmaceuticals and secondary metabolites products in lines 476-492. We included some references to better support our discussion on this topic. A few microalgal species and specific applications were included.
Comments 2: Discuss more about commercial products from microalgae present in market
Response 2: On the other hand, regarding commercial products from microalgae, we consider that our review does not focus on this scope, but we include a consideration in lines 509-512 about current limitations in their commercialization.
We improved sections of results and conclusions. We also include some clarifications in the methodology sections. A general revision of the language was performed, attending to your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this interesting manuscript. The subject is worth of investigation and relevant to the field. The methodology is sound and the results are clear. My only concern is related with table 4, as highly cited papers from world-renowned researchers are not mentioned.
Please find below my comments:
Figure 1: How can you explain the difference between WoS and Scopus numbers?
Figure 4: Is there a color legend for the map?
Table 3: For what period of time? The numbers seem very low. They are from the central search equation, right?
Lines 206-208: I am surprised that some authors who are world-renowned in microalgae studies do not appear in table 4. For example, Prof Yusuf Chisti published an article in 2007 about biodiesel from microalgae that was cited 7887 times (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.02.001). Or Prof Borowitzka, who published an article in 2013 about high-value products from microalgae, with 912 citations (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-013-9983-9). Why those were not mentioned in table 4?
Line 211: How exactly citations were normalized? Papers with high normalized TC are simply more recent than those with lower normalized TC, that does not mean that they are more influential. In my opinion the conclusion about normalized TC is biased and does not reflect reality.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Comment 1: Figure 1: How can you explain the difference between WoS and Scopus numbers?
Response 1: The discrepancy between results from Scopus and WoS in the bibliometric analysis of our study can be attributed to several factors, such as coverage, indexing frequency, and database algorithms. Nevertheless, we observed that our focus on the concept “bioprospecting” strongly restricted the search; this is why we considered an additional database to offset the concept bias. To attend your observations and giving more clarity to readers, we included this consideration in lines 61-63, 143-148.
Comment 2: Figure 4: Is there a color legend for the map?
Response 2: We previously included this meaning in the figure legend: “The blue scale demonstrates the abundance of scientific production. The gray color demonstrates the absence of information about scientific production.” Nevertheless, we edited the figure to include a color scale to encourage a self-explaining attribute of this figure. Line 203.
Comment 3: Table 3: For what period of time? The numbers seem very low. They are from the central search equation, right?
Response 3: Thank you for your observations. The data in Table 3 has been verified and is correct. The study did not impose any time restrictions, and data was collected up until March 26, 2024. The top 10 list was generated from the general search equation. The relatively low numbers might be attributed to the mandatory inclusion of the concept "bioprospecting," as the study aimed to evaluate bibliometric trends specifically within this context. Broadening the search equation would have yielded over 100,000 documents, making analysis challenging. Given computational limitations, the study was designed to handle approximately 2,000-3,000 results, including a citation analysis, to maintain a manageable and rigorous evaluation.
Comment 4: Lines 206-208: I am surprised that some authors who are world-renowned in microalgae studies do not appear in table 4. For example, Prof Yusuf Chisti published an article in 2007 about biodiesel from microalgae that was cited 7887 times (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.02.001). Or Prof Borowitzka, who published an article in 2013 about high-value products from microalgae, with 912 citations (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-013-9983-9). Why those were not mentioned in table 4?
Response 4: Considering that our search strategy focused on the concept of “bioprospecting,” it is normal that several documents would be out of the sample because “bioprospecting” is a concept in growing appropriation. Consequently, our search strategy excluded documents lacking this word in title, abstract, keywords, or references. Nevertheless, we included additional authors in the discussion to strengthen ideas on topics and trends. This is why those mentioned authors do not appear in Table 4. In response to your observation, we included these authors in the discussion to support some aspects and provide a way to recognize their contribution to this field.
Comment 5: Line 211: How exactly citations were normalized? Papers with high normalized TC are simply more recent than those with lower normalized TC, that does not mean that they are more influential. In my opinion the conclusion about normalized TC is biased and does not reflect reality.
Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. The citation normalization was conducted using the default method provided by Bibliometrix. This method accounts for differences in publication year, which can affect citation counts over time. While it's true that more recent papers may have higher normalized citation counts, this adjustment is intended to allow for a fair comparison across different publication years. The conclusion drawn from the normalized total citations (TC) aims to reflect the relative influence of papers within the context of their publication timeframes. However, I appreciate your concern and will consider it in refining the interpretation of the results.
We included clarification of normalization method in methodology and a short discussion about this concern in lines 89-90 and 213-218, respectively.
We improved sections of results and conclusions. We also include some clarifications in the methodology sections.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The work may prove to be a welcome addition to the literature. However, I have a few suggestions:
1. Although the introduction is consistent with the theme, the authors could be more emphatic about the article's innovation. Specify what is new in this systemic review. Furthermore, in line 61 the sentence 'Given the above, the present systematic review aims to review trends in applied..." is redundant. Please rewrite.
2. In Table 4, please include the definitions of abbreviations as a footnote, as shown in Table 3.
3. I missed a greater explanation about the new search trends in ​​microalgae. Authors could insert this information throughout the manuscript.
4. Furthermore, I have a question, why did the authors include reference 53? I ask because there is a brief explanation, however it deals with diets and insects and I don't see its connection with the topic of microalgae/phycology. "In the bibliometric analysis for Most Global Cited Documents in Bibliometrix, two documents are higher in the rank [52,53] than the chosen one [51], but they do not directly treat microalgae topics. These references were included in the database because they are connected to microalgae topics through their reference list and citations."
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language should be improved.
Author Response
Comments 1: Although the introduction is consistent with the theme, the authors could be more emphatic about the article's innovation. Specify what is new in this systemic review. Furthermore, in line 61 the sentence 'Given the above, the present systematic review aims to review trends in applied..." is redundant. Please rewrite.
Response 1: Thanks for you rewriting suggestion in the introduction section. We included the novelty about this review in lines 61-63
Comments 2: In Table 4, please include the definitions of abbreviations as a footnote, as shown in Table 3.
Response 2: Thanks for your observations, we included these abbreviations. Lines 235-236.
Comments 3: I missed a greater explanation about the new search trends in ​​microalgae. Authors could insert this information throughout the manuscript.
Response 3: We included subsections in specific applications to elucidate current search trends. Lines 443, 475-476, 514, 547, 574.
Comments 4: Furthermore, I have a question, why did the authors include reference 53? I ask because there is a brief explanation, however it deals with diets and insects and I don't see its connection with the topic of microalgae/phycology. "In the bibliometric analysis for Most Global Cited Documents in Bibliometrix, two documents are higher in the rank [52,53] than the chosen one [51], but they do not directly treat microalgae topics. These references were included in the database because they are connected to microalgae topics through their reference list and citations."
Responde 4: Although these references are not related to microalgae topics, they were products of our search strategy. These references present query terms from the search equation in the document (methods, references, etc). For example, Henry et al. (2015) discuss using insects for fish feeding, but the document also concluded that feeding fish with microalgae could still be a better option. We consider that this reference should not be excluded from the Bibliometrix’s analysis because it accomplishes the search criteria, but we excluded it from the discussion. In this sense, we clarified the mentioned sentence of lines 237-240.
We improved sections of introduction, results, and conclusions. We also include some clarifications in the methodology sections. A general revision of the language was performed, attending to your suggestions.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comments:
The manuscript presents a comprehensive systematic review on the bioprospecting of microalgae, highlighting their potential applications in various fields such as biofuels, bioremediation, and other biotechnological innovations. The authors have used bibliometric analysis to assess trends and patterns in microalgae research, which adds significant value to the study. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, informative and relevant to the current scientific discussion on microalgae.
specific comments:
Abstract: The abstract provides a good summary, but could be more concise. Consider focusing on the key findings and implications instead of the methodology.
introduction:
In the sentence: "Numerous scientific articles, reviews, and books demonstrate this progress, particularly in the last decade" What references are these?
I suggest adding other important current references, for example: biofuels and bioenergy uses: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174230; food applications (broad review) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100318; agricultural applications (recent trends) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1073546.
The introduction effectively sets the stage for the review. However, it could benefit from a clearer statement of the research questions or objectives. Please, add the novelty of the present study and define the objectives.
The discussion section is well-written but could be strengthened by comparing the results with other relevant reviews or studies in the field.
Ensure that all references are up-to-date and formatted according to the journal's guidelines. Some citations appear to be missing years of publication.
In summary, this manuscript represents a valuable contribution to the field of microalgae research. the use of bibliometric analysis is a strength, as it allows for a quantitative assessment of publication trends and citation patterns, which can guide future research directions. The manuscript is well organized with a logical flow of information. Each section is clearly defined, making it easy for the reader to follow the authors' arguments and findings.
I recommend acceptance of the manuscript after the suggested improvements have been addressed.
Author Response
Comments 1: Abstract: The abstract provides a good summary, but could be more concise. Consider focusing on the key findings and implications instead of the methodology.
Response 1: Thanks. We rewrote some sentences in the abstract, so we pretend to be more concise and specific on the key findings.
Comments 2: introduction: In the sentence: "Numerous scientific articles, reviews, and books demonstrate this progress, particularly in the last decade" What references are these?
Response 2: Thanks for your observation. We tried to explain that previously cited documents in the introduction section suggest this affirmation. Nevertheless, we cited this sentence with several current reviews that can better support it. Line 60.
Comments 3: I suggest adding other important current references, for example: biofuels and bioenergy uses: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174230; food applications (broad review) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100318; agricultural applications (recent trends) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1073546.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestions. We included these references to strengthen our discussion.
Comments 4: The introduction effectively sets the stage for the review. However, it could benefit from a clearer statement of the research questions or objectives. Please, add the novelty of the present study and define the objectives.
Response 4: Thanks for you rewriting suggestion in the introduction section. We included the novelty about this review in lines 61-63.
Comments 5: The discussion section is well-written but could be strengthened by comparing the results with other relevant reviews or studies in the field.
Response 5: We included a pre-final paragraph to compare with current reviews and discuss them, lines 589-601. This also strengthened the section on conclusions.
Comments 6: Ensure that all references are up-to-date and formatted according to the journal's guidelines. Some citations appear to be missing years of publication.
Response 6: We used Zotero to organize references. Nevertheless, we included books, databases, and technique documents cited differently according to the journal format.
Comments 7: In summary, this manuscript represents a valuable contribution to the field of microalgae research. the use of bibliometric analysis is a strength, as it allows for a quantitative assessment of publication trends and citation patterns, which can guide future research directions. The manuscript is well organized with a logical flow of information. Each section is clearly defined, making it easy for the reader to follow the authors' arguments and findings.
I recommend acceptance of the manuscript after the suggested improvements have been addressed.
Response 7: Thanks, your comments encourage us to continue working.
We improved sections of results and conclusions. We also include some clarifications in the methodology sections.
