Urban Waste: Visualizing the Academic Literature through Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well-written and on a timely appropriate concept with proper reasoning and explanation. However, there are very few typos and grammatical errors that need to be addressed. Additionally, there are some concerns found by the reviewer that need more attention. Details are below.  

Line 131: It is confusing to understand the connection between Figure 1 and line 131. Please confirm the keyword “Urban Waste” or “Solid Waste”.

 

Line 217 to 224: According to figure 3, there are 5 major topics. The ‘Engineering’  topic is vast and other topics are too. The solid waste sector falls under all 5 major topics. Proper management of solid waste requires scientific justification, engineering solutions, public awareness, social awareness, etc. It would be great if the authors can further subdivide the solid waste research that has significant engineering applications for waste management (disposal to landfills, incineration, recycling, waste to energy, or other treatment).

Table 7: It is interesting not to see the keywords like “Bottom Liner” or “Liner”, “Groundwater”, and “Final Closure” in the group Technique and Environmental, or any group. Groundwater contamination is one of the major concerns in urban solid waste landfills and the liner is the technique that is prominent in landfills. Additionally, a significant number of research have been conducted on the final closure of landfills nearly after 2000. Though the final closure keyword may be taken over by the keyword pollution, it is somewhat surprising that none of the thematic areas has groundwater, or anything related to groundwater as the keyword.

Line 432: Heading: 4. Literature Review.

The reviewer particularly does not see the necessity of the Literature Review provided in heading 4. The major objective of this research as the reviewer understands is to understand the progressive advancement in urban waste management by analyzing the research topic, research country, cited papers, etc., or in general bibliometrics. The idea of this article is appropriate in the context of global urbanization and its impact on waste generation and its proper management. However, the reviewer finds the organization of the article may be modified and can be limited to bibliometrics only. The 4 sub-headings under Literature Review of Heading 4 may be carefully abridged and presented under Heading 1: Introduction.

The authors explained the justification for analyzing the Scopus database. The reviewer understands that this article is limited to bibliometrics of the Scopus database only which is of course a huge data source. However, it is the reviewer’s concern that there are many articles that the reviewer knows are published on urban waste/solid waste management concepts specific to countries that may not be reflected in the current article. Which, in turn, may not grab some important aspects of urban solid waste management. The reviewer strongly recommends that the authors add a paragraph: “Limitation of the Study” and mention the limitations described above.

Line 687: Please correct the typo. There are a few more. Please correct all these.    

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the authors appreciate the rigorous comments you have made to the original manuscript. Undoubtedly, these are questions that were not initially carefully considered, and your comments contribute to improving the quality of the original manuscript. All the modifications were introduced in red in the updated version of the manuscript, and we present the responses to their comments below.

Comment 1. Line 131: It is confusing to understand the connection between Figure 1 and line 131. Please confirm the keyword “Urban Waste” or “Solid Waste”.

Response 1. Indeed, the keyword in figure 1 was not correct. In its place, “urban waste” now appears. The authors regret this typographical error. In the new version of the manuscript, the information in Figure 1 corresponds to the information provided in the text. We would like to inform you that figure 1 was modified to make it more suitable for the current version of the methodology.

Comment 2. Line 217 to 224: According to figure 3, there are 5 major topics. The ‘Engineering’ topic is vast and other topics are too. The solid waste sector falls under all 5 major topics. Proper management of solid waste requires scientific justification, engineering solutions, public awareness, social awareness, etc. It would be great if the authors can further subdivide the solid waste research that has significant engineering applications for waste management (disposal to landfills, incineration, recycling, waste to energy, or other treatment).

Response 2. The authors show the information provided by the Scopus database. Unfortunately, Scopus does not allow subject areas to be subdivided, and for authors to do so can be fraught with subjectivity and errors. However, the authors agree that Figure 3 could be confusing for the reviewer and future readers. Consequently, we have modified it, presenting the 26 thematic areas in which all the articles on urban waste are located, while in the text we have only discussed the results of the 5 most relevant ones. Additionally, we clarify that the 1,897 that we analyzed do not correspond to the 3,401 that appear in Figure 3, which is due to the fact that a single document can be located in one or several subject areas. We think that now the information is presented in a clearer way and may not be confusing for any reader.

Comment 3. Table 7: It is interesting not to see the keywords like “Bottom Liner” or “Liner”, “Groundwater”, and “Final Closure” in the group Technique and Environmental, or any group. Groundwater contamination is one of the major concerns in urban solid waste landfills and the liner is the technique that is prominent in landfills. Additionally, a significant number of researches have been conducted on the final closure of landfills nearly after 2000. Though the final closure keyword may be taken over by the keyword pollution, it is somewhat surprising that none of the thematic areas has groundwater, or anything related to groundwater as the keyword.

Response 3. Initially, the authors did not include these keywords in Table 7 because the objective of the table was to present the most used keywords in each of the sections that we consider relevant in our manuscript: environmental, society and techniques. However, we believe that your comment may raise questions for readers in the future, so we have decided to incorporate them. As the results obtained are small, we have also explained it in the text. The authors think that now the information is clearer, thus eliminating possible questions for other readers later.

Comment 4. Line 432: Heading: 4. Literature Review. The reviewer particularly does not see the necessity of the Literature Review provided in heading 4. The major objective of this research as the reviewer understands is to understand the progressive advancement in urban waste management by analyzing the research topic, research country, cited papers, etc., or in general bibliometrics. The idea of this article is appropriate in the context of global urbanization and its impact on waste generation and its proper management. However, the reviewer finds the organization of the article may be modified and can be limited to bibliometrics only. The 4 sub-headings under Literature Review of Heading 4 may be carefully abridged and presented under Heading 1: Introduction.

Response 4. The authors want to express that in the original version of the manuscript the structure was not correct, which could lead to confusion. Our objective in this section was to enrich the quantitative indicators exposed in the previous sections. Consequently, we carry out a review of the main contributions in each of the research topics detected according to the analysis of co-occurrence of keywords. We consider this to be relevant, since it complements the quantitative information and adds value to the manuscript. To avoid confusion, we have restructured the new version of the manuscript. Section 4 is now “Keyword analysis”, since what we really propose is a review of the keywords, both quantitative and qualitative. From there, research trends were identified, developed in section 4.1. and successive the methodology used is the same, especially in the selection of research documents, so we believe that this new structure could help to present the information more clearly and avoid confusion for readers. Additionally, the authors improved the methodology section to make the information provided here more understandable.

Comment 5. The authors explained the justification for analyzing the Scopus database. The reviewer understands that this article is limited to bibliometrics of the Scopus database only which is of course a huge data source. However, it is the reviewer’s concern that there are many articles that the reviewer knows are published on urban waste/solid waste management concepts specific to countries that may not be reflected in the current article. Which, in turn, may not grab some important aspects of urban solid waste management. The reviewer strongly recommends that the authors add a paragraph: “Limitation of the Study” and mention the limitations described above.

Response 5. The authors share this recommendation. In fact, we have incorporated a paragraph at the end of the manuscript in which we acknowledge the limitations of the time horizon, type of documents analyzed, Scopus database and software used for network maps, as well as making recommendations so that these limitations can be considered. in future research.

Comment 6. Line 687: Please correct the typo. There are a few more. Please correct all these.   

Response 6. The manuscript was sent back for language review. Consequently, we hope that the current version has benefited.

 

Once again, the authors would like to thank their careful review work. We hope that we have been careful enough and have responded appropriately to all recommendations.

Our best wishes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The goal of the paper is to provide an overview of the research trends in the urban waste. The paper presents an interesting research, but which needs to be more precise and developed.

1.      The title of the paper is confusing, it should be more focused.

2.      The following statement in the abstract is too strong: “the SCOPUS database was used, being the most important that currently exists and which is a ref- 18 erence for high-level research”

3.      The second part of the following sentence is not a valid conclusion: This study has considered a total of 1896 scientific articles published 19 in a period of 41 years (from 1981 to 2021) so that the bibliometric analysis is consistent and recovers extensive information that will provide us with data to be able to correlate and obtain important conclusions on this topic. There are many similar examples and the paper needs to be completely revised in terms of language.

4.      It is not clear why some years are excluded from the search.

5.      It is not clear why authors used only articles.

6.      The found articles should be additionally evaluated to identify the focused research, in line with the SLR approach.

7.      The titles of Figures are not precise, e.g. Figure 3. Evolution of the number of articles and exponential variation between periods. This figure actually presents the scientific fields of articles, which is not clear from the figure title. Besides, one paper can be classified in more than one field, which is not mentioned.

8.      Table 2 is hard to follow. It should be divided in two separate tables.

9.      It is not clear why authors first mention bibliometric analysis and then systematic literature review. These are overlapping concepts, and cannot be considered as separate. The second part of the paper presents topic mining with VosViwer, and the papers are selected by the SLR approach. Both should be mentioned in the methodology.

10.   The following paper presents an elaboration of SLR: (2019). Planning, Conducting and Communicating Systematic Literature Reviews. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 14(3), 1-4.

11.   In the introduction, authors should elaborate similar reviews in order to present their contribution, e.g. (2019). System dynamics models for the simulation of sustainable urban development: A review and analysis and the stakeholder perspective. Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems & Cybernetics, 49(2), 460-504.

12. Extensive language and grammar corrections should be conducted. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the authors appreciate the rigorous comments you have made to the original manuscript. Undoubtedly, these are questions that were not initially carefully considered, and your comments contribute to improving the quality of the original manuscript. All the modifications were introduced in red in the updated version of the manuscript, and we present the responses to their comments below.

Comment 1. The title of the paper is confusing, it should be more focused.

Response 1. The authors have modified the title of the manuscript. We believe that this one better reflects the research that we have proposed and, consequently, that it is more appropriate than the original.

Comment 2. The following statement in the abstract is too strong: “the SCOPUS database was used, being the most important that currently exists and which is a ref- 18 erence for high-level research”

Comment 3. The second part of the following sentence is not a valid conclusion: This study has considered a total of 1896 scientific articles published 19 in a period of 41 years (from 1981 to 2021) so that the bibliometric analysis is consistent and recovers extensive information that will provide us with data to be able to correlate and obtain important conclusions on this topic. There are many similar examples and the paper needs to be completely revised in terms of language.

Responses 2 and 3. The authors consider both comments very accurate. The abstract was not correctly written, beyond the recommendations made. Consequently, we propose a new version for the abstract that we consider much more suitable for our manuscript.

Comment 4. It is not clear why some years are excluded from the search.

Comment 5. It is not clear why authors used only articles.

Comment 6.  The found articles should be additionally evaluated to identify the focused research, in line with the SLR approach.

Comment 10. The following paper presents an elaboration of SLR: (2019). Planning, Conducting and Communicating Systematic Literature Reviews. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 14(3), 1-4.

Responses 4, 5, 6 and 10.

The authors would like to inform the reviewer that the section on research methodology has been rewritten. We share that it was not appropriate for the methodology used, as there were some criteria for selecting the documents (for example, time and type of documents), which had not been clearly described. Now, the authors have explained the methodology of bibliometric analysis and systematic review of the literature, using the reference identified by the reviewer. Additionally, we have updated Figure 1, which we now believe is more in line with the described methodology.

Regarding the inclusion criteria, the authors have further detailed our criteria. There is no single criterion in the academic literature, so we have further justified the decision. Additionally, we understand that this implies a limitation to the study, so we have incorporated a paragraph at the end of the manuscript in which we acknowledge the limitations of the time horizon, type of documents analyzed, Scopus database and software used for network maps, as well as we make recommendations so that these limitations can be considered in future research.

Consequently, we think that now the methodology is exposed in a clearer and more congruent way with the research objective, as well as we recognize the limitations and propose solutions so that they can be considered in the future.

Comment 7. The titles of Figures are not precise, e.g. Figure 3. Evolution of the number of articles and exponential variation between periods. This figure actually presents the scientific fields of articles, which is not clear from the figure title. Besides, one paper can be classified in more than one field, which is not mentioned.

Response 7. The authors share this concern. That is why we have updated the title of tables 3, 4, 5 and 6. We have also updated the titles of figures 3 and 4. In addition, we have updated the information provided in figure 3, in which we now show the results of all subject areas. In the text we explain that the 1,897 articles that met the search requirements do not correspond to the 3,401 identified in Figure 3 because a single research article can be located in one or several subject areas.

Comment 8. Table 2 is hard to follow. It should be divided in two separate tables.

Response 8. The authors share this recommendation. Accordingly, we have updated all the tables contained in the manuscript, as well as those that were too large were placed in landscape orientation for easier reading.

Comment 9. It is not clear why authors first mention bibliometric analysis and then systematic literature review. These are overlapping concepts, and cannot be considered as separate. The second part of the paper presents topic mining with VosViwer, and the papers are selected by the SLR approach. Both should be mentioned in the methodology.

Response 9. The authors fully agree with this recommendation. The structure of the original manuscript could cause confusion. Thus, we have restructured the structure in the new version of the manuscript. Section 4 is now “Keyword analysis”, since what we really propose is a review of the keywords, both quantitative and qualitative. From there, the research trends were identified, developed in section 4.1., which aim to enrich the quantitative indicators exposed in the previous sections. The methodology used is the same, especially in the selection of research documents, so we believe that this new structure could help to present the information more clearly and avoid confusion for future readers.

Comment 11. In the introduction, authors should elaborate similar reviews in order to present their contribution, e.g. (2019). System dynamics models for the simulation of sustainable urban development: A review and analysis and the stakeholder perspective. Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems & Cybernetics, 49(2), 460-504.

Response 11. The authors agree with this recommendation. Accordingly, we have revised the document provided by the reviewer, as well as others of its kind, and incorporated it into the introduction section.

Comment 12. Extensive language and grammar corrections should be conducted.

Response 12. The manuscript was sent back for language review. Consequently, we hope that the current version has benefited.

 

Once again, the authors would like to thank their careful review work. We hope that we have been careful enough and have responded appropriately to all recommendations.

Our best wishes.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, the paper is significantly improved, and I suggest only a few minor suggestions.

Please, consider to address the issue of urban waste in the context of specific sector, such as automotive, food waste, and production:

(2022). Internal Logistics Process Improvement using PDCA: A Case Study in the Automotive Sector. Business Systems Research: International journal of the Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, 13(3), 100-115.

(2021). The impact of blockchain technology on food waste management in the hospitality industry. ENTRENOVA-Enterprise Research Innovation, 7(1), 419-428.

(2019). The impact of intelligent manufacturing elements on product design towards reducing production waste. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 11, 1847979019863955.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors appreciate their recommendations incorporated into this
second round of review. Undoubtedly, these bibliographical references
are relevant to understand the relevance of urban waste management in
the different sectors of economic activity. Consequently, the authors
have incorporated these and other references to refer to this matter
in lines 74-76. The authors have incorporated the modifications in
purple.

Accordingly, the authors now hope to comply with your concerns.
Once again, the authors would like to thank their meticulous review
work, as well as the very important recommendations to improve the
quality of the original version of the manuscript.

Our best wishes.