Overview of STEM Science as Process, Method, Material, and Data Named Entities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting and useful article that has a high level of relevance to current academic publication practices. The article is well structured and follows a logical approach. The article is suitably complete and I could not suggest any changes for the author to make.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your reviewing time.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the document.
I have some small comments:
The figures 1-10 are not meant in the text and I do not see the advantage of showing them.
Later in line 257 I see a reference. But this is very late.
I think one example is enough and show the rest in an appendix.
Also strange to me is the postion of the figures within the reference list.
Author Response
We are very grateful to the reviewer for their reviewing time of our article and their minor comments. Please find the minor comments pointed out in the review discussed below.
- The figures 1-10 are not meant in the text and I do not see the advantage of showing them. Later in line 257 I see a reference. But this is very late. I think one example is enough and show the rest in an appendix.
Our aim is to offer some insights on STEM science at large from a terminology and applications perspectives. Thus taking into consideration the reviewing comment, to make the word clouds an integral and relevant part of the paper, we introduced a new discussion section in lines 257 to 354 offering corpus insights in terms of the commonly extracted entities shown with the help of the word clouds device. We hope this addresses the reviewer’s comment in terms of letting the reader experience an advantage in showing them in the context of the newly introduced discussion.
2. Also strange to me is the postion of the figures within the reference list
We hope the journal editorial team will offer us support for the final version of the article to reposition the figures in Appendix.
