Combined Searches of Chinese Language and English Language Databases Provide More Comprehensive Data on the Distribution of Five Pest Thrips Species in China for Use in Pest Risk Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

On the one hand, authors publish their articles where it is more convenient for them (less time and effort spent on reviewing), and on the other hand, where it is more prestigious. The language barrier is important in modern science. It is easier for authors to print an article on the ecology of thrips in their native Chinese language in a journal that is not widely known, or in English (payment for the translation of the manuscript and, most importantly, long-term correspondence with reviewers and the editor). Not all authors can overcome this barrier. Thus, the purpose of the article is to establish the relationship between the language level of Chinese researchers studying thrips and the effectiveness of their publications on a particular topic. I'm not entirely sure if this is a hot topic. However, the relevance and objectivity often do not correspond to our ideas about them.

The analyzed five species of thrips certainly deserve attention. The article will be of interest to experts on these insects. On the other hand, it has long been known that the Web of Science base sets its main goal as a rating assessment of a journal, rather than providing an opportunity for users to get more or less complete access to scientific information. The authors investigate a topic that is generally understandable without lengthy analysis. The local database of a specific country will index several times more publications on entomology in the local language than the international database.

Another aspect of the research topic: what are the goals of authors who publish articles in prestigious journals, and authors who publish articles in provincial journals. Surely, information about the distribution of a particular species is less attractive to more professional authors with significant publishing experience. Such authors will most likely be interested in molecular mechanisms that allow thrips to expand their range, thrips genetics, their interaction with fodder plants, predators and parasites.

Therefore, the conclusion of the authors of the article is expected, I have no doubts about it "This study illustrates the importance of searching in Chinese databases, in combination with standard searches in international databases, to gain a comprehensive understanding of invasive species for biosecurity risk assessment."

I think that the authors of the article need to more clearly outline the object of their research. What are they learning? The number of entomologists in China dealing with the spread of thrips in relation to the total number of entomologists in China? What is the scientific level and volume of research (average article size, expressed in the number of words) for the target group of entomologists? What is the research topic (percentage of articles in the CNKI and Web of Science database, Crop Protection Compendium for thrips, in which the distribution of the five model species is studied)? It is necessary to indicate the percentage of publications about thrips from the total number of publications in the CNKI database and Web of Science, Crop Protection Compendium. It is necessary to indicate the percentage of publications about invasive insect species in the CNKI and Web of Science databases, Crop Protection Compendium to the total number of publications in these databases. It is advisable to conduct research on these issues by year, and present the answers in the form of graphs (on the abscissa - years, on the ordinate - the percentage of the total number of publications). I think that the answers to these questions will supplement the presented manuscript, allow us to take a broader look at the problem.

Similar studies, such as "Pathways to Net Zero: The Impact of Clean Energy Research" https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1214979/net-zero-2021.pdf can serve as a model for presenting results over the years. I believe that authors need to add 5-7 figures to the article, like figure 40, 50, 52 or others from "Pathways to Net Zero ...". Then the discussion of the results about thrips will be more conclusive.

In the manuscript, I consider Table 1 the most unfortunate, since it is minimally informative and at the same time difficult to understand.

The maps in the manuscript are clear and conclusive.

In general, the manuscript needs to be illustrated with digital material and, after supplementing with several tables and graphs can be recommended for printing.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript “Combined Searches of Chinese Language and English Language Databases Provide More Comprehensive Data on the Distribution of Five Pest Thrips Species in China for Use in Pest Risk Assessment”. I have to say that the map of China (lacks Southern Sea and Taiwan province). must be right before publication.

I have the comments as follows:

1) The researchers explore the distributions of harmful species based on the Chinese laws. The authors should be clarified in the manuscript.

2) The authors should provide a workflow for the similar researches.

3) The authors should provide the relevant references for the similar researches used in other datasets (e.g., GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIES DATABASE; http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/).

4) The authors should put forward the scientific issues in the last paragraph of Introduction.

5) The authors should provide the comparison analysis with the significance for the differences among different datasets. 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Chinese maps are not correct because of the lack of South Sea at least. I suggest that the authors should use the official map for China. 

Author Response

We are having great difficulty with the map for China.  The very small scale and dispersed nature of the South Sea (South China Sea) territories do not fit well with the larger map of the China mainland, Hainan and Taiwan.

We cannot find a map (map with relevant software for adding data) which is suitable for publication.

And, as we have noted - there are no data for these territories - which we have indicated in the title of our updated maps.  The relevance of adding the South Sea island territories adds little to the scientific content of the manuscript.