Plastic Waste Management: A Bibliometric Analysis (1992–2022)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The statistics and figures could be updated with more current data, such as the latest numbers from 2022, to present the most recent advancements in the field. 

2. The research methods section could explain the literature search strategy in more detail, such as the specifics of the keyword search, inclusion and exclusion criteria, etc. to make the methods more systematic.

3.  The conclusion could provide more in-depth suggestions for future research directions and highlight knowledge gaps, such as key scientific questions that need more attention going forward. This would be valuable for guiding future studies.

4. The references could be checked for consistency of formats to ensure all references adhere to the same style.  

5. The title and abstract could be refined to more accurately encapsulate the main contents and contributions of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No obvious grammar errors were found

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You can find my comment in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Poor. Extensive copyediting required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, authors focused on bibliometric analysis of plastic waste management from 1992-2022. To achieve this goal, the authors used the web of science database and conducted a thorough analysis and mapping of the retrieved publications using the VOS-viewer software program. It seems results are interesting, and the paper can be published in this journal after major corrections:

1-Many of the results obtained from this study are very basic. Please revise this field. You can find these results in many sources with a quick search.

2-Recent achievement about Plastic Waste Management was missed, for example A) doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.128978, B) doi: 10.3846/jcem.2023.16581, C) doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168155 and D) Synthesis of a novel Zn‐MOF/PVA nanofibrous composite as bioorganic material: Design, systematic study and an efficient arsenic removal. Polymer Engineering & Science, 60(11), pp.2793-2803 and E) "A controllable procedure for removing Navicula algae from drinking water using an ultrasonic-assisted electrospun method for highly efficient synthesis of Co-MOF/PVA polymeric network." Applied Physics A: Materials Science & Processing 128, no. 5 (2022).

3-Image 15 should be transferred to the results and discussion section

4-Quality of figure 12 is very low

5-English writing needs to check by native person.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to check

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Second Comment:           In the second to the last paragraph of the introduction, the authors said

“Nevertheless, further action is imperative to effectively address the global plastic waste challenge. Governments, businesses, and individuals across the globe must persist in their collaborative endeavours to decrease plastic consumption and promote the reuse and recycling of plastic materials.” . . . . why are the authors making recommendations before the conduct of the study?

Reply: Thank you for your feedback. The inclusion of recommendations in the introduction serves to highlight the urgency and importance of addressing the global plastic waste challenge. The recommendations are a general call to action, contextualized within the broader issue of plastic waste, and are not specifically related to the findings of this study. We recognize the lack of clarity in this section and, in response, we have made improvements to ensure a more transparent alignment between the recommendations and the research results in the revised version. Your feedback has played an important role in refining the results of this study, and we greatly appreciate your involvement in this research.

I am not satisfied. You cannot make recommendations before the study. If you can, then the study becomes unnecessary.

 

Comment 5:       in the last paragraph of the introduction section, the authors said “This study aims the ongoing need for additional actions to manage plastic waste. It emphasizes the significance of bibliometric analysis as a valuable tool to examine research trends and identify gaps within the 1992-2022 timeframe using …” What does this mean?

Reply: Thank you for your thoughtful attention. The highlighted paragraphs underscore the need for additional action on plastic waste management and highlight the importance of bibliometric analysis in observing research trends and identifying gaps in the 1992-2022 timeframe. This paragraph explains the purpose of the research and provides context for the research focus on plastic waste management. To improve clarity, we have revised this section to make it easier to understand.

 

I am not satisfied with the reply. I needed the authors to correct the grammatical blunder

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Use of English is Fair

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Corrections were made carefully.

Author Response

Thank you very much for providing your insights into our research. Your feedback has played an important role in improving the depth and genuineness of our research, and we appreciate your wise input.