Research Hotspots and Trends of Large-Diameter Trees Based on Bibliometric Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This analysis aimed to identify the research hotspots and trends in large diameter timber trees while providing theoretical support and guidance for developing large diameter timber forests. I think this is a meaningful study, but there are still some questions.

1. From your description, it seems that China is also an important contributor to research on large-diameter timber. But judging from your Figure 2, the United States, Canada, Australia, Poland and France are the main contributors to this paper, and China's contribution is not reflected in Figure 2.

2. Since you drew some conclusions by summarizing the existing literature, I think you have just made some figures and made some analytical descriptions of the figures, which is a bit simple. I think you can look into the future during the discussion, that is, based on these current studies, what should we do in the future?

3. The text in the upper left corner of several of your Figures is too small and difficult for me to read. It is recommended to make the font size larger or delete these unimportant information. Also, the resolution of all pictures is not high, so it is recommended to use high-definition pictures.

4. 2.2 Research methods are too simple to write. I hope to have more details in the next revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire text is written in passive voice. But this way of writing is no longer mainstream. I suggest you refer to papers that have been revised by professors working full-time abroad. For example: Sun, Jiejie, et al. "Potential habitat and productivity loss of Populus deltoides industrial forest plantations due to global warming." Forest Ecology and Management 496 (2021): 119474.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Your valuable feedback and suggestions were instrumental in guiding our revisions.

We have carefully considered all the comments and have made every effort to incorporate them into our revised manuscript. We believe that these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you once again for your support and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors of this manuscript try to reveal the research hotspots and predict the research trend of large diameter trees using a bibliometric method; however, this article is not yet up to the standards of a scientific paper. Therefore, I recommend rejection. Literature analysis can indeed help provide directional advice when first entering a research field, but just using directional advice to compose a scientific paper is not enough.

First, the analysis of this article is not deep enough. A simple list of research institutions and research journals cannot provide theoretical support, similarly, a simple list of keywords for Chinese and foreign papers cannot provide more constructive advice. The potential reasons for these presentative results should be worth paying more attention to, for example, comparing the concerns of domestic and foreign studies and then revealing the reason for this difference.

Second, the language of the article is too hasty. The sentence in line 8-9, what does it mean? The journal name “Forest Ecology and Management” should add quotations. Line 54-56, the sentence “In order to ……” is incomplete. Line 62, CNKI academic journals statement may not be accurate, not journals, but rather a database. Line 78, articles or “Article”? Line 145-146, how many “of” in this one sentence? Line 183, in the middle of the research, what does it mean? Line 221, a capital-case T appears in the middle of the sentence. Line 300-309, the first letter after the semicolon is some in capital case and some in lower case.

Third, the logic of the article is not clear. The aim of article is to provide theoretical support and guidance for developing large diameter timber forests, or for the research of large timber forests? Why does the article distinguish between Chinese research and foreign language research? Are there no Chinese articles published in foreign languages? Line 273, domestic authors, should be Chinese authors? Authors want to publish this paper in a SCI journal “Sustainability”, so domestic should not be use, but China. Line 121, Guangxi and Fujian are the two provinces with the large diameter timber resources, not given evidence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors of this manuscript try to reveal the research hotspots and predict the research trend of large diameter trees using a bibliometric method; however, this article is not yet up to the standards of a scientific paper. Therefore, I recommend rejection. Literature analysis can indeed help provide directional advice when first entering a research field, but just using directional advice to compose a scientific paper is not enough.

First, the analysis of this article is not deep enough. A simple list of research institutions and research journals cannot provide theoretical support, similarly, a simple list of keywords for Chinese and foreign papers cannot provide more constructive advice. The potential reasons for these presentative results should be worth paying more attention to, for example, comparing the concerns of domestic and foreign studies and then revealing the reason for this difference.

Second, the language of the article is too hasty. The sentence in line 8-9, what does it mean? The journal name “Forest Ecology and Management” should add quotations. Line 54-56, the sentence “In order to ……” is incomplete. Line 62, CNKI academic journals statement may not be accurate, not journals, but rather a database. Line 78, articles or “Article”? Line 145-146, how many “of” in this one sentence? Line 183, in the middle of the research, what does it mean? Line 221, a capital-case T appears in the middle of the sentence. Line 300-309, the first letter after the semicolon is some in capital case and some in lower case.

Third, the logic of the article is not clear. The aim of article is to provide theoretical support and guidance for developing large diameter timber forests, or for the research of large timber forests? Why does the article distinguish between Chinese research and foreign language research? Are there no Chinese articles published in foreign languages? Line 273, domestic authors, should be Chinese authors? Authors want to publish this paper in a SCI journal “Sustainability”, so domestic should not be use, but China. Line 121, Guangxi and Fujian are the two provinces with the large diameter timber resources, not given evidence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Your valuable feedback and suggestions were instrumental in guiding our revisions.

We have carefully considered all the comments and have made every effort to incorporate them into our revised manuscript. We believe that these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you once again for your support and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study entitled Research hotspots and trends of large diameter trees based on bibliometric data is an interesting work and fits within the Sustentabilidade magazine. However, some changes must be made in order to improve the presentation of the study, making it more interesting for the target audience. Below I describe my recommendations and only after that will I be able to make my final decision.

The abstract must contain quantitative results and conclude with the challenges and perspectives for the area.

The introduction is very limited in information and does not present a general survey of recent years. Therefore, I recommend a more in-depth literature review, ending with the last paragraph, which should describe the novelty and importance of this study for the area.

In the methodology, authors must justify why they limited themselves to collecting data and information from only 10 newspapers.

Please improve the quality of figure 3.

The discussion of the study is very limited, the authors must compare the planted areas with other regions and countries around the world and not limit themselves only to the country of study.

Please relate forestry commercialization to the circular economy and create a section for this discussion.

The conclusion must contain future perspectives for the area and the limitations of the study.

Create an abstract figure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Your valuable feedback and suggestions were instrumental in guiding our revisions.

We have carefully considered all the comments and have made every effort to incorporate them into our revised manuscript. We believe that these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

Thank you once again for your support and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has made comprehensive changes to the language issues and logic issues raised last time, and the quality of the article is now available for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made all the requested modifications and adjustments, therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.