The Use of Agricultural Databases for Crop Modeling: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a bibliometric analysis on the topic of crop modelling.

The data is extracted using the ISI Web of Science website and Scopus  - please add a reference to the websites. As ISI Web of Science offers personalized access to the databases based on the subscription and the subscription type, please clearly state in the paper the indexes to which you have had access.

As some of the researches have pointed out in the scientific literature, the type of paper impacts the number of citations a paper is expected to receive. Therefore, please better state the decision regarding the type of papers included in the analysis.

As the number of papers is relatively small, I doubt that a bibliometric analysis is appropriate. Please better state the need for a bibliometric analysis. 

Table 2 is quite long - please move it to the annex of the paper. 

Please discuss from a theoretic point of view how the NTC values is determined for each publication and why it is an important indicator in the bibliometric analysis.

Limitations should be added to the work.

The results obtained in the paper should be better presented in connection with the scientific literature - for example: please provide evidence showing that the same countries have had the same contribution to similar fields, the same for the most prominent authors, universities etc. Please also try that in the text to provide more insight each time you comment the results of a figure or table and try each time to answer to the question "why this is happening? - e.g. why this country is the most prominent in this area? why this university has brought the most important contribution?.. etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

in word

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

不

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is of good significance and is much of scientific interest also the manuscript is well written but requires certain changes which should be taken under consideration:

 

1)      The title is so long, it can be modified for the better understanding

2)      Keywords should contain a uniform style. All should start with the capital letters

3)      The abstract should be improved to be more concise and show the study's novelty.

4)      Overall study is good and has a significant impact on the agriculture sector

5)      The manuscript contains some space, grammatical mistakes, and typo errors, also make correct use of punctuation marks throughout the manuscript.

6)      The authors need to improve the discussion section by creating connections around the area of other reports on the higher plants which is also a basic responsive mechanism to improve crop production and growth therefore the authors are recommended to read and cite the following references:

§  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30625-2

§  DOI 10.1007/s10725-016-0165-z

 

7)      Please specify the name of the chemicals before using their symbols for more clarity at least once in the manuscript

8)      The conclusion needs to be improved to be concise, please just state directly what is the conclusions of this study, what is new, and what needs to be further investigated. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No specific comments 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version. I have no further comments!