The Top 100 Most Cited Scientific Papers in the Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Category of Web of Science: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Specific comments and suggestions are included along the paper for facilitating the review process.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
First, I would like to thank the reviewers for their review work, which has undoubtedly allowed the article to be significantly improved.
Next, I proceed to specify the changes suggested by the reviewer.
- The references have been incorporated:
- Gusenbauer, M, Haddaway, NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Syn Meth. 2020; 11: 181– 217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
- Gusenbauer, M. Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases. Scientometrics 127, 2683–2745 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7
- Spelling errors have been corrected and words changed at the reviewer's suggestion.
- Capital letters have been incorporated in the words suggested by the reviewer.
- Commas have been added to numerical values
- In line 69, the paragraph has been put aside.
- In line 112 and 135 the numerical value has been corrected.
- Errors in the name of the institutions in table 4 and lines 248 and 252 have been corrected.
- All the suggestions of the bibliographical references have been modified and corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
The first sentence tries to define 'Bibliometrics' as a 'mathematical-statistical tool'; well, this is not so; it includes mathematical and statistical tools (nota a tool), but it is not a part of Mathematics or Statistics, although it uses quantitative techniques.
Lines: 130-2: There are 632304 items, and 100 selected; thus the number of excluded were 632204 (not 532204)
Line 139: there is a reference to 'quality' of the data based on the number of publication in one time interval. What has this to do with quality?
Line 144 (and some later on): 'rs' should be defined; Spearman correlation?
Lines 144-5: p = 0.229, nor p < 0.229.
Lines 147, 156, 167 (table): Use capital-lower case letters in the names of the journals, as they are published.
Line 176: '100 best articles' surely means '100 most cited articles'
Line 281: The claim about an upward trend is contradictory to what can be seen in figure 3; the trend could be present during the period 1989-2010, but then it dissapears in the last decade. Time series not necessarily show deterministic trends; in fact most of its components are stochastic.
Author Response
First, I would like to thank the reviewers for their review work, which has undoubtedly allowed the article to be significantly improved.
Next, I proceed to specify the changes suggested by the reviewer.
- The first sentence tries to define 'Bibliometrics' as a 'mathematical-statistical tool'; well, this is not so; it includes mathematical and statistical tools (nota a tool), but it is not a part of Mathematics or Statistics, although it uses quantitative techniques.
- The sentence has been redrafted based on the reviewer's input.
- Lines: 130-2: There are 632304 items, and 100 selected; thus the number of excluded were 632204 (not 532204)
- The mistake has been fixed.
- Line 139: there is a reference to 'quality' of the data based on the number of publication in one time interval. What has this to do with quality?
- The sentence has been redrafted based on the reviewer's input.
- Line 144 (and some later on): 'rs' should be defined; Spearman correlation?
- The mistake has been modified.
- Lines 144-5: p = 0.229, nor p < 0.229.
- The mistake has been modified.
- Lines 147, 156, 167 (table): Use capital-lower case letters in the names of the journals, as they are published.
- bugs have been changed.
- Line 176: '100 best articles' surely means '100 most cited articles'
- The sentence has been redrafted based on the reviewer's input.
- Line 281: The claim about an upward trend is contradictory to what can be seen in figure 3; the trend could be present during the period 1989-2010, but then it dissapears in the last decade. Time series not necessarily show deterministic trends; in fact most of its components are stochastic.
- The sentence has been redrafted based on the reviewer's input