Global Bibliometric Analysis of Research on the Application of Biochar in Forest Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written and organized paper. Please revise the minor issue mentioned in the paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

THE PAPER IS SUFFICIENTLY INTERESTING TO BE PUBLISHED, BUT A MAJOR REVISION OF THE INTRODUCTION, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS IS RECOMMENDED, MAINLY IN THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

1.- It is recommended to reduce the most descriptive paragraphs, which deal with the concepts and properties of biochar (lines 40 to 78) but which do not provide new hypotheses or research questions on the current state of the art of biochar and its use in forest soils to increase its effect on carbon sequestration.

2.- If the article focuses on the use of biochar as a carbon sink in forest soils, it is recommended to take into consideration the literature (if available) that assesses the C footprint of biochar synthesis processes, as well as the possible carbon footprint of the application of biochar amendments to forest stands.

3.- It is recommended to reduce and move the third paragraph (lines 79 to 94), which is merely descriptive about the bibliometric analyses, to the Material and Methods section. However, it is recommended to add a paragraph in which the advantages and disadvantages of bibliometric analyses in ecology and forest soil studies are presented. So, hypotheses and research questions on the pros & cons of applying bibliometric analyses to solve possible hypotheses and research questions on using biochar in forest soils can be raised.

4.- It is recommended to reduce the fourth paragraph (lines 109 to 136) on the problem of fertilization and using biochar as fertilizer since it is very descriptive and poorly understood if it refers to agricultural or forest fertilization. Bibliographic references must be added to this paragraph (as it does not contain a single bibliographic citation). This paragraph needs to provide new hypotheses and research questions that can be related to the bibliographic analyses described.

5.- In lines 138 to 141, there is no apparent connection between the objectives of the article and the previous paragraphs of the Introduction.

DISCUSSION

6.- The first 3 paragraphs (lines 384 to 425) have a very descriptive character related to the Results obtained. It is recommended to integrate them in the Results Section.

7.- Paragraph 4 (lines 426 to 440) on the top 10 most substantial bursts of keywords and references provides significant information on biochar and forest soil's primary knowledge and fundamental research needs. It is recommended to expand it much more, considering the great effort of bibliographic analysis carried out.

8.- Paragraph 5 (lines 426 to 440) on the thematic evolution map for the keywords involved in the research on ABFS provides significant information on the primary knowledge and fundamental research needs on these topics. It is recommended to expand it much more, considering the great effort of bibliographic analysis carried out.

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

9.- This section is similar to the Results and Discussion sections. It is recommended that an effort be made to highlight the differences between all these sections.

10.- Between lines 467-473, interesting conclusions are presented, but they are very limited in relation to the great effort of bibliographic analysis. The whole section on Conclusions and Limitations needs to be expanded and intensified. It is also necessary to create more explicit connections between the objectives of the work (Introduction) and the Conclusions and Limitations of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-presented and easy to follow.

Line 20: It will be better to say software rather than tool

Line 158: Correct as Statistical

State also which software was used for each Figure. For example, which software was used to generate Figure 1?

Could you also add international colloboration map showing the international colloboration rate? You can refer to and cite the following literature:

Akın, M., Bartkiene, E., Özogul, F., Eyduran, S. P., Trif, M., Lorenzo, J. M., & Rocha, J. M. (2023). Conversion of Organic Wastes into Biofuel by Microorganisms: A Bibliometric Review. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy, 100053.

Line 220: Revise as “China showed the highest…

Line 225: Provide information also on the total number of journals in which the documents were published.

Line 264: Delete t

Line 291: Correct “zoology ology, 

Line 365: Could you support your interpretations with the relevant literature on this specific topics?

Line 380: Could you support your interpretations with the relevant literature on this specific topics?

Line 479: What do you mean by the word “coined”?

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language quality of the manuscript is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the publication of this manuscript.