Water Safety and Water Governance: A Scientometric Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors of the manuscript Water Safety and Water Governance: A Scientometric Review, your work is outstanding since it uses public databases. The observations are:
Why was only that database used?
It would be better to include the journals that are on the ISI WEB, Clarivate or Elsevier editorial
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The Scopus bibliographic database was used due to the possibility of institutional access, however, all the search results were downloaded along with the references cited within each article, the latter containing information from all databases where a publication related to the topic had been made.
Regards,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments: The English and organization need native language editing. It has many grammatical mistakes and wording problems. I tried to point out some of them, but more needs to be revised.
Detailed comments are listed below.
(1) Page 1, Line 38. “the first review studied” not “the first review study”.
(2) Page 1, Line 39. Add brackets to “WHO”.
(3) Pages 1-2, Lines 45-46. “Additionally, understand the evolution, perspectives, and the behavior of the scientific production.” Grammatical mistake. Please rephrase.
(4) Page 3, Line 105. Should be “… the same pattern. We presented …”.
(5) Page 4, Line 114. I suppose it’s “5,000” rather than “5.000”?
(6) Page 4, Lines 130-131. Should be “… (7992). This aspect is important because it represents an increasing interest in the subject. The most cited …”.
(7) Page 4, Line 136. “44.9%” not “44,9%”.
(8) Page 4, Line 140. Should be “… Human Health. This document …”.
(9) Page 4, Line 144. Similar to Comment (7), it’s “38.7%” and “9.1%”. Also, “with” not “whit”.
(10) Page 6, Line 202. Should be “According to Table 3, the International …”.
(11) Page 6, Line 206. “includes” instead of “include”.
(12) Page 9, Lines 259-264. Any comments on the third component? Also, Ferrero Giuliana, who is among the top ten authors, is not shown in Figure 5. Can you explain that?
(13) Page 9, Line 270. Provide the full name of “UNICEF” as well.
(14) Page 13, Line 423. Is there a Section 4? If not, then this should be “4. Conclusions”.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? --> This paper conducts a literature review on publications regarding water safety and water governance and performs a scientometric analysis to identify key contributions in this field. 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? --> It is relevant in the field. Though there were a few reviews related to water safety and water governance, this paper carries out a systematic review with scientometric approaches. Besides, it includes more up-to-date references.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? --> The highlight of this work is the methodology employed. Specifically, they first provide a general overview of relevant papers on water safety and water governance from various perspectives, including scientific annual production, country, journal, and author. Then they assess the contributions of subfields using the Tree of Science (ToS) metaphor. Through such analysis, they identify the main subfields, which strengthens the understanding of water governance and illustrates the current status of research. 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? --> I think the methods they use are already more advanced compared to previous reviews. Since this is a review paper, controls would not be necessary.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? --> Yes for both questions.
6. Are the references appropriate? --> The references seem appropriate.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. --> All the tables and figures look good to me. They are clear and consistent in format.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
As you mentioned, we are not native English speakers, and therefore we understand the observations made about the grammatical errors and wording problems. In this regard, we have decided to use MDPI English Editing service to significantly improve the article. We hope this will be much more convenient for you.
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The results discussion of Table 2 is lengthy and repetitive of what was presented in the table. Row 156 to 192. Rather focus on the highlights or significant differences.
Row 202, table 3. Table with Capital T
> 1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The available literature and main journals and authors report on water quality management
> 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
Yes
> 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The article highlighted the lack of information on water quality management strategies. It demonstrated the collaborating authors and the journals that cover the research topic.
> 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Wider scope of documents, perhaps including WHO strategies or guidelines
> 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Yes
> 6. Are the references appropriate?
Yes
> 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Figures 3-6 have a lot of information and require time to interpret. Figure 6 is confusing with the 3 blocks that contain research topics.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
In Table 2 Production, Impact and Quality of the Country Network, the intention was precisely to demonstrate where on the planet the subject has been studied the most, where the most research has been generated in reference to the topic, and what is the impact of the journals where it is published. In the text, we aim to present the most significant results, as it is very important for us as Colombians to highlight that the results in Latin America are not representative.
In Table 3, it has been changed to a capital T.
The results presented in tables 3-6 correspond to the type of methodology used, which aims to demonstrate, for example in figure 3, the relationships between research and publications from different countries, with larger sizes indicating greater productivity. Similarly, figure 4 shows which journals have placed more emphasis on publications related to the topic, and figure 5 shows the nodes generated by collaboration among authors. Finally, figure 6 provides an introduction to the analysis of the science tree, indicating the keywords in the roots, trunks, and leaves.
Regarding the recommended control of the possibility of including WHO strategies or guidelines, in this case, it was not taken into account since only scientific publications were considered and not technical documents.
Thank you for your comments.
The authors.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for addressing the comments. I think the revised manuscript is good to be accepted.
