Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Future Directions of Research and Development of Seed Orchards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Language need to be improved.  The basic aim of the study claimed is "to determine the current trends in this field and to contribute to its future directions", has not been accomplished. The conclusion is deviated from seed orchard and basic principles of breeding, mentioning only about irrigation, fertilization, pest control, and biotechnology, unmanned aerial vehicles, remote sensing, artificial intelligence, etc.  Instead, the conclusion must mention about the future of seed orchard studied within the scope of breeding.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language need to be improved. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

2024-05-12

Dear Editorial Office of Forests and Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2975958) entitled “Bibliometric analysis of trends and future directions of research and development of seed orchards”, which is revised following reviewers’ comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript. Comments to the revision is following:

 

Points 1: Are all the cited references relevant to the research?; Is the research design appropriate?; Are the methods adequately described?, and Are the results clearly presented? ⇒ We thank to the Reviewer.

 

Point 2: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Can be improved ⇒ Second paragraph was added in lines 59-69.

 

Point 3: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Must be improved ⇒ The part was tried to be improved by marked corrections.

General comments:

 Language need to be improved. ⇒ Language of the paper was edited professional editing service. However, some spelling mistakes were corrected by marked corrections.

 

The basic aim of the study claimed is "to determine the current trends in this field and to contribute to its future directions", has not been accomplished. ⇒ It was accomplished based on results of keyword and cited references analysis given in Table 6-10 and Figures 6-10. It also emphasized by some marked words in revised version of the paper.

The conclusion is deviated from seed orchard and basic principles of breeding, mentioning only about irrigation, fertilization, pest control, and biotechnology, unmanned aerial vehicles, remote sensing, artificial intelligence, etc.  Instead, the conclusion must mention about the future of seed orchard studied within the scope of breeding. ⇒ Published Wos papers were examined by Bibliometric analysis in our paper. Our paper did not focus on breeding or other aspects of seed orchard. Some study areas, which were not visible or hitting in the analysis, were considered potential and future study aspect in seed orchards. Besides, conclusion part was tried to be improved by marked corrections.

  

 

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

 

Nebi Bilir (Corresponding author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Is it possible to conclude that although the material collected does not contain information about artificial intelligence (AI), it still offers potential for the future use of AI in the study under investigation?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

2024-05-12

Dear Editorial Office of Forests and Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2975958) entitled “Bibliometric analysis of trends and future directions of research and development of seed orchards”, which is revised following reviewers’ comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript. Comments to the revision is following:

 

Points 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?; Are all the cited references relevant to the research?; Is the research design appropriate?; Are the methods adequately described?, and Are the results clearly presented? YES. ⇒ We thank to the Reviewer.

 

Point 2: Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved ⇒ Although, results part is well written to follow, some minor marked corrections could be made.

 

Point 3: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Can be improved ⇒ The part was tried to be improved by marked corrections.

 

 

General comments:

 Is it possible to conclude that although the material collected does not contain information about artificial intelligence (AI), it still offers potential for the future use of AI in the study under investigation? ⇒ Published Wos papers were examined by Bibliometric analysis in our paper. Some study areas, which were not visible or hitting in the analysis, were considered potential and future study aspects in seed orchards such as fertilization, irrigation and artificial intelligence (AI). So, they are suggested potential future studies. Also, conclusion part was tried to be improved by marked corrections.

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

 

Nebi Bilir (Corresponding author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper is resumed and condensed a huge investigation on an important topic, as seed orchards. A comprehensive review on the Current trends of topic may help to researchers, policy makers, and politicians to support their decissions. However, the draft must be improved for publishing. Below, some criticisms are showed. For more details, check the reviewed document. 

Abstract: the information provided must be condensed, adjusting to the rules of Journal. Some of keywords mentioned as important don't appear throughtout the document, as Hymenoscyphus fraxineus.

Introduction: this section isn't a mere citation of facts, but a description of state-of-art of research. It's not clear the scopes, the contribuions and the objectives of research. Use a fluid language.

Materials and Methods: is difficult to follow the methodological procedure of research. It seems that some information is repeated, increasing the confussion. Separate different topics by sub-sections. Explain how the statistical analysis were performed (e.g. correlation), and graphs generated. It's not established if authors were searched for their whole contribution, or according to the position in the list of authors. In my opinion it would be more suitable to use the 10 most cited articles, more than the most cited author, since likely several papers are signed by several authors.  

Use the rules of Journal for citing Latin names.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check for typos

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

2024-05-12

Dear Editorial Office of Forests and Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2975958) entitled “Bibliometric analysis of trends and future directions of research and development of seed orchards”, which is revised following reviewers’ comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript. Comments to the revision is following:

 

Point 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Must be improved ⇒ Second paragraph was added in lines 59-69.

 

Point 2: Are all the cited references relevant to the research? YES. ⇒ We thank to the Reviewer.

Points 3-4: Is the research design appropriate? Can be improved, and Are the methods adequately described? Must be improved ⇒ These parts are well written to follow. However, a sentence was added to the lines 173-174 for correlation analysis.

 

Point 5: Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved ⇒ Although, results part is well written to follow. Some minor marked corrections could be made.

 

Point 6: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Must be improved ⇒ The part was tried to be improved by marked corrections.

 

General comments:

In this paper is resumed and condensed a huge investigation on an important topic, as seed orchards. A comprehensive review on the Current trends of topic may help to researchers, policy makers, and politicians to support their decissions. However, the draft must be improved for publishing. Below, some criticisms are showed. For more details, check the reviewed document. 

Abstract: the information provided must be condensed, adjusting to the rules of Journal. Some of keywords mentioned as important don't appear throughtout the document, as Hymenoscyphus fraxineus. ⇒ Hymenoscyphus fraxineus is showed in Figure 9b.

Introduction: this section isn't a mere citation of facts, but a description of state-of-art of research. It's not clear the scopes, the contribuions and the objectives of research. Use a fluid language. ⇒ Language of the paper was edited professional editing service.

Materials and Methods: is difficult to follow the methodological procedure of research. It seems that some information is repeated, increasing the confussion. Separate different topics by sub-sections. Explain how the statistical analysis were performed (e.g. correlation), and graphs generated. It's not established if authors were searched for their whole contribution, or according to the position in the list of authors. In my opinion it would be more suitable to use the 10 most cited articles, more than the most cited author, since likely several papers are signed by several authors.  ⇒ A sentence was added to the lines 173-174 for correlation analysis. Both analysis of the most cited articles, and most cited author could be helpful for readers.

Use the rules of Journal for citing Latin names. ⇒ While some Latin names could be corrected in the text, some of them are outputs of the analysis, not changeable by authors in Table and Figures.

Check for typos⇒ Some spelling mistakes were corrected by marked corrections.

 

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

 

Nebi Bilir (Corresponding author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted for review, "Bibliometric analysis of trends and future directions of research and development of seed orchards" (forests-2975958), deals with a very unusual study for a biological science publication based on the use of bibliometric analysis.

As known from the description provided on the Forests website:

«Forests (ISSN 1999-4907) is an international and cross-disciplinary scholarly journal of forestry and forest ecology. It publishes research papers, short communications and review papers…»

Examining the main "Subject Areas" it seems to me that this journal does not specialise in bibliometric analysis, although certainly the application of this analysis may be of interest to readers and allow important conclusions to be drawn in the field of forestry.

In general, the title and abstracts are appropriate and reflect the main content of the manuscript. The authors have done a lot of work and analysed quite a large number of publications using bibliometric analysis, but given the specificity of the journal, it is necessary to strengthen the analysis of publications in terms of current scientific trends and biological component in the field of seed orchards.

Remarks and Recommendations:

1. In the Results section it would be desirable to analyse and clarify which major Families and which species were most frequently used as research objects in publications on seed orchards. Have the most frequent objects of research changed over time? Was there any ecological and geographical pattern in species diversity?

2. Conduct a more in-depth analysis of publications in the field of seed orchards by research areas: seed production, biotechnology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. Which directions were encountered most frequently?

3. Analyse research by type of publication: research papers, short communications and review papers

4. Describe more clearly what the current trends were in the time period studied and how they changed.

5. The conclusions drawn by the authors in the Conclusions section, especially Conclusions 4 and 5, should be supported by references to specific contemporary publications in the Results and Discussion sections.

6. Figures 7, 8 and 9b are poorly visible and the quality of the illustrations needs to be improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

2024-05-12

Dear Editorial Office of Forests and Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2975958) entitled “Bibliometric analysis of trends and future directions of research and development of seed orchards”, which is revised following reviewers’ comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript. Comments to the revision is following:

 

Point 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? YES. ⇒ We thank to the Reviewer.

 

Points 2-4: Are all the cited references relevant to the research?; Is the research design appropriate?, and Are the methods adequately described? Can be improved ⇒ These parts are well written to follow.

 

Point 5: Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved ⇒ Although, results part is well written to follow, some minor marked corrections could be made.

 

Point 6: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Can be improved ⇒ The part was tried to be improved by marked corrections.

 

 

General comments:

The manuscript submitted for review, "Bibliometric analysis of trends and future directions of research and development of seed orchards" (forests-2975958), deals with a very unusual study for a biological science publication based on the use of bibliometric analysis. As known from the description provided on the Forests website:

«Forests (ISSN 1999-4907) is an international and cross-disciplinary scholarly journal of forestry and forest ecology. It publishes research papers, short communications and review papers…»

Examining the main "Subject Areas" it seems to me that this journal does not specialise in bibliometric analysis, although certainly the application of this analysis may be of interest to readers and allow important conclusions to be drawn in the field of forestry. ⇒ Cited papers 11 (Gao et al., 2022)) and 16 (Uribe-Toril et al., 2019)) are from Journal of Forests.

 

In general, the title and abstracts are appropriate and reflect the main content of the manuscript. The authors have done a lot of work and analysed quite a large number of publications using bibliometric analysis, but given the specificity of the journal, it is necessary to strengthen the analysis of publications in terms of current scientific trends and biological component in the field of seed orchards.

Remarks and Recommendations:

1. In the Results section it would be desirable to analyse and clarify which major Families and which species were most frequently used as research objects in publications on seed orchards. Have the most frequent objects of research changed over time? Was there any ecological and geographical pattern in species diversity? ⇒ Published Wos papers were examined by Bibliometric analysis in our paper. So, the paper did not focus on family, species or species diversity etc. Some most cited species and key words were presented in Table 6-8 and Figures 6-8 such as Scots pine, Norway spruce and Douglas-fir. Changing over time of objects of research were presented in Figure 8 Timeline analysis. Some study areas, which were not visible or hitting in the analysis, were considered potential and future study aspects in seed orchards such as fertilization, irrigation and artificial intelligence (AI). So, they are suggested potential future studies.

 

2. Conduct a more in-depth analysis of publications in the field of seed orchards by research areas: seed production, biotechnology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. Which directions were encountered most frequently? ⇒ Results of analysis were presented in Table 6-10 and Figures 6-10.

 

3. Analyse research by type of publication: research papers, short communications and review papers. ⇒ It can be subjected by an anther paper. Our paper did not focus on paper type. It is not related to purpose of our paper.

 

4. Describe more clearly what the current trends were in the time period studied and how they changed. ⇒ Results of analysis were presented in Table 6-10 and Figures 6-10 for author, cited papers and key word analyses.

 

5. The conclusions drawn by the authors in the Conclusions section, especially Conclusions 4 and 5, should be supported by references to specific contemporary publications in the Results and Discussion sections. ⇒ Conclusions 4 and 5 were improved. They were supported by results of the paper.

 

6. Figures 7, 8 and 9b are poorly visible and the quality of the illustrations needs to be improved. ⇒ They are outputs of the analysis, not changeable by authors.

 

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

 

Nebi Bilir (Corresponding author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have not significantly tried to improve the manuscript. Most of the recommendations I suggested were not accepted by them. Unfortunately, I have no more suggestions, except those I have already made. The publication in this form can indeed be recommended for printing, but in my opinion it is a very superficial study. 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

2024-05-27

Dear Editorial Office of Forests and Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2975958) entitled “Bibliometric analysis of trends and future directions of research and development of seed orchards”, which is revised following reviewers’ comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript. Comments to the revision is following:

 

Point 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? YES. ⇒ We thank to the Reviewer.

 

Points 2-4: Is the research design appropriate?, and Are the methods adequately described?, Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved ⇒ These parts were tried to improve based on early comments of the Reviewer by following revision.

 

Point 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? YES. ⇒ We thank to the Reviewer.

 

General comments:

The authors have not significantly tried to improve the manuscript. Most of the recommendations I suggested were not accepted by them. Unfortunately, I have no more suggestions, except those I have already made. The publication in this form can indeed be recommended for printing, but in my opinion it is a very superficial study. ⇒ Following revisions were made to improve in parts of the paper based on the present and early comments of the Reviewer.

 

Abstract:

Minor changes were made in lines 12, 20 and 22.

Materials and Methods:

A sentence was added to lines 104-105.

Minor changes were made in lines 109-115, and 121-122, and 158.

A sentence was added to lines 133-135 based on early comments of the Reviewer.

 

Minor changes were made in lines 109-115, and 121-122.

Results:

Minor changes were made in lines 190-192, 195, 215-216.

A sentence was added to lines 236-238.

New sentences were added to lines 261, 264-265.

New paragraph was added to lines 358-368 based on early comments of the Reviewer.

Figures 7, 8 and 9b were renewed or extended for better understanding of readers based on early comments of the Reviewer.

Minor changes were made in lines 383-384.

A sentence was added to lines 396-398.

New paragraph was added to lines 413-418 based on early comments of the Reviewer.

References:

References 23 and 26 were added based on early comments of the Reviewer.

 

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

 

Nebi Bilir (Corresponding author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title:

Bibliometric analysis on trends and future direction of research and development in seed orchads

 

The title is acceptable

 

Abstract:

The problem statement, the methodological approach, the conclusion and recommendation are not clear.

 

Introduction:

• Lack of background, the exact problem statement, and the importance of the bibliographic analysis on trends and future direction on research and development in seed orchards.

 • The gap and the objectives of the study are not explained well in the Introduction.

 

Material and Methods

Research area and sampling:

• The methodological approach is not clear,

 

Results

The results are acceptable.

However, it needs to mention how to get these results in the methodology.

 

Discussion

• Need more in-depth Discussion on how these bibliographies can direct the trends and future of research and development in seed orchards.

 

Conclusion

• Conclusion is the answer of the objectives of the study, meanwhile, the objective of this study is not clearly mentioned on the Introduction.

-       Need to conclude how these bibliographies can direct the trends and future of research and development in seed orchards.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2900641) entitled “Bibliometric analysis on trends and future directions of re-search and development in seed orchards”, which is revised following your comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript togetherwith response to the comments.

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text of the manuscript must be evaluated by expert of English.

I have tried to restructure abstract of the paper (enclosed).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text of the manuscript must be evaluated by expert of English.

I have tried to restructure abstract of the paper (enclosed).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2900641) entitled “Bibliometric analysis on trends and future directions of re-search and development in seed orchards”, which is revised following your comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript togetherwith response to the comments.

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Language must be improved. Few modifications have been suggested.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language must be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2900641) entitled “Bibliometric analysis on trends and future directions of re-search and development in seed orchards”, which is revised following your comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript togetherwith response to the comments.

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

1.    Title, Abstract and Introduction

I would like to see a clearer description of the aims of the paper. Was the exercise done to see whether a bibliometric approach could yield quantitative information that could guide future direction of seed orchard research. If this is the case, it was not followed through in the Discussion as no conclusions are drawn about the future direction that should be adopted for seed orchard research. If on the other hand, was the topic of ‘seed orchard research’ chosen to see how much information a bibliometric search would yield i.e. how many publications, authors, topics covered by keywords, number of citations etc. If this is the case then the Discussion should focus on comparing the values obtained across other research topics or using other search methods. The purpose of the paper needs to be stated more clearly

Why was the search restricted to the WoS when other web based search engines such as CAB Abstracts, Scopus, Google Scholar also exist. It is okay to say this was due to time constraints but I think you need to mention that others exist.

 

2.    Methods The authors claim that this is the first time these methods have been applied to seed orchards or forestry topics i.e. L269 'the analysis has not been studied in seed orchards or forestry yet'. If this is indeed the case then the Methods section needs to provide an improved and more detailed explanation of the methods that have been applied, especially as the paper is aimed at a forestry audience who, by the authors admission, will be unfamiliar with this kind of approach. A flow diagram similar to the one provided by Uribe-Toril et al. (2019 Forest 10 72 DOI 10.3390/fin the recording for generalisation of analysis'10010072) would be helpful to guide the reader.  For example, the less informed reader will not know what is meant by: L71 Core Collection section of WoS was chosen, L74 The WoS category has been selected as Forestry'; L76 English papers were selected, L87 the colour around a node represented centrality High centralized nodes were often considered weighted turning points. A node (from 0-1) with high centrality indicated. The node acted as a key point to connect two or more groups.' A more detailed account of what is meant by these phrases in clear English is required if the reader is to have any idea of what was done. Similarly more details are required of what is meant by Q index, mean silhouette score and betweenness centrality score. 

The authors do not provide details in the Methods of: the time range of the search. They do not explain what a ‘citation burst mean’ is. Their explanation of how the visualization maps were produced could be improved. The Uribe et al. paper should be helpful for this.

I suggest the authors read the following paper to guide them on how to provide details of the methods they use and the definitions of the terms. Gao W, Qiu Q, Yuan CY, Shen X, Cao FL, Wang GB, Wang GY. Forestry big data: A review and bibliometric analysis. Forests. 2022;13(10): 1549.

3.    Results

Minor comments There is a general lack of precision in the presentation of the results. For example, terms are used in the text and the Tables which are not properly explained or defined. The reader is not helped to know what is considered a ‘good’ score for values such as those for Silhouette, Centrality etc so the values presented do not mean much to the reader. There are many example where the meaning of the sentences is very unclear due to poor standard of English and loose terminology. The column heading in the Tables are often poorly defined and the text in the Figures is often unreadable.

Minor comments

Why is it important to know if the number of publications is rising slower than the number of citations. Does this mean that the recent output of papers on seed orchards is slowing down and could this be a point for the Discussion.

L117 Table 1 What does Year mean-is it the year when that author produced his first paper on seed orchards-need to be clarified.

L120 What does ‘The citation burst of authors who changed in literature with sudden frequency’ mean? Liesebach is spelled in a different way in the text and in Tables 1 and 2 -need to be consistent. Table 2 needs a time scale along the bottom. What does Begin and End mean in Table 2? What do the different colours signify?

L125 You mean Table 3 not Table 2.

L130 When describing Figures and Tables it should be in the present not past tense I.e. Shows not showed. Replace sentence with ‘In the Cluster Analysis clusters were designated on the basis of the strength of the silhouette scores which range from 0-1.

L138 Table 3 The cluster number should be in a separate column with its own heading. What does Size mean at the top of the second column? What does ‘Mean Year’ mean at the top of the fourth column? Where do the names of the clusters come from in the Cluster ID column?

L140 Do you mean publications when you say members?

L147 Figure 3 needs more explanation if the reader is to understand what it represents. The red and yellow colours of the circles need to be explained and the text is too small to read.

L157 Table 4 What does ‘Counted’ mean?

L167-176 The wording is very unclear and difficult to understand its meaning. The authors earlier stated that the search was restricted to papers that were written in English. L170 What is meant by ‘This hit’? L171 What is meant by it? L172 What is meant by ‘slightly favoured’?

L178 What does ‘expected’ mean in this context?

L183 Table 5 needs a time scale on the x axis.

L192 Table 6 What does Size mean in the second column?

L203 What does activated/refreshed mean here?

L213 The text in Figure 6 is too small to read.

L218 what is the meaning of ‘Actually ‘key words’ of the papers were mirrors of the researches’?

L231 Text is too small to read.L239 Do you mean that the 1018 publications were cited 23,275 times-the meaning of your sentence is not clear.

L240 I think you mean 10 publications in Table 9.

L243 Legend refers to top 10 publications but there are only only 7 authors labelled in 8a and many more than 10 topics in 8b. What do the colours signify in 8b

L248 Table 9 What does ‘Counted’ mean here? ‘Cited References should be ‘Cited Reference’

L253 I think you mean ‘was the most cited publication’

 

4.    Discussion The aim of the paper is to apply bilbliometric methods to 'analyse current trends in seed orchards for future directions in the orchards'. A great deal of quantitiative analyses is presented in the results but the Discussion fails to consider how these data might help to guide future research into the functioning of seed orchards. The majority of the Discussion is merely a repeat of the Results. A more thorough discussion of how this type of analysis is useful to future seed orchard research is required.

L268 It is not entirely true to say there have been no bibliometric studies in forestry yet. Examples include the following: 

Uribe-Toril, J.; Ruiz-Real, J.L.; Haba-Osca, J.; Valenciano, J.D.P. Forests’ First Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis Overview. Forests 2019, 10, 72.

Gao, W.; Qiu, Q.; Yuan, C.; Shen, X.; Cao, F.; Wang, G.; Wang, G. Forestry big data: A review and bibliometric analysis. Forests 2022, 1549, 19

Xie, J.; Zhang, G.; Li, Y.; Yan, X.; Zang, L.; Liu, Q.; Chen, D.; Sui, M.; He, Y. A bibliometric analysis of forest gap research during 1980–2021. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1994.

These and others could help you to tighten up your definitions and terminology.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The standard of English is poor and needs to be improved considerably before the paper should be considered to be publishable. In some places I have even been unable to discern the meaning of the sentences.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

                                

Herewith I am sending you our manuscript (No. Ms Forests-2900641) entitled “Bibliometric analysis on trends and future directions of re-search and development in seed orchards”, which is revised following your comments. Most comments from the reviewer were accepted and revised in the enclosed manuscript togetherwith response to the comments.

We thank to the reviewer for their valuable comments in improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title:

Bibliometric analysis on trends and future direction of research and development in seed orchads

 

The title is acceptable

 

Abstract:

The problem statement, the methodological approach, the conclusion and recommendation are acceptable. However, please show any changing by color.

 

Introduction:

• There are still not clear regarding the background, the exact problem statement, and the importance of the bibliographic analysis on trends and future direction on research and development in seed orchards. However, please show any changing by color.

 • The gap and the objectives of the study are not explained well in the Introduction.

 

Material and Methods

Research area and sampling:

• The methodological approach is acceptable. However, please show any changing by color.

 

Results

The results are acceptable.

However, please show any changing by color.

 

Discussion

The discussion is acceptable.

However, please show any changing by color.

 

Conclusion

• Conclusions are still not clear to answer of the objectives of the study (to guideline contribution in future directions and planning of potential studies on 73 seed orchards, and to examine bibliometric inventory of published papers in seed or- 74 chards to get reflection for developing of the area).

-       It show the conclusion on how these bibliographies can direct the trends and future of research and development in seed orchards.

-       However, please show any changing by color.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank  for your valuable comments in improving the manuscript.  We made changes by track to track to be visiable. However, We think our  office software is not accordance with yours. We are sorry for that.  

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper can accepted for publication

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank  for your valuable comments in improving the manuscript.  

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The revised version does represent an improvement and the justification for the work and the  description of the Methods are now much better.

2. The standard of English is still poor and it is still sometimes difficult to understand the meaning of some of the sentences.

3. The Discussion remains rather weak and is largely a repeat of the Results.

4. It is not clear how the authors have drawn the conclusions they have-was this by reading the papers themselves or looking at the results of the bibliometric analysis to look for new trends in seed orchard research-they need to clarify the basis on which they have drawn the conclusions they have drawn.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank  for your valuable comments in improving our manuscript. Enclosed is our response to your comments and revised version of the paper.  

Yours sincerely, on behalf of the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf