Research Trends and Development Patterns in Microgreens Publications: A Bibliometric Study from 2004 to 2023
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper contains a bibliometric study of microgreens in order to analyze their importance over the years.
Although different microgreens and their bioactive compounds, identification, and potential applications have already been reported, I find the bibliometric study useful to observe the impact of these materials and bring originality to the article.
However, I have some recommendations.
Introduction
Lines 49-50. I suggest homogenizing the cite “Music et al (2022)”
Line 87. Authors only used the Web of Science database for this study; why did they not use Scopus or another database?
Materials and methods
Line 90. Why did the authors use the 2004 to 2023 years in their search? Are the papers published until January 2024 not important?
Results and discussion
Figure 5. I suggest that the authors need to enhance the quality of this figure.
Authors only describe the tendency of the information; however, I recommend that a discussion need to be described to explain the reasons for these results.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your professional comments on our manuscript (sustainability-3112269). We did our best to make changes to our manuscript. These changes will not affect the main content and framework of the paper. Detailed responses are provided below. We will respond to your suggestions in order.
Changes made to the document are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 1: Lines 49-50. I suggest homogenizing the cite “Music et al (2022)”
Authors: The citation format was revised and standardized.
Reviewer 1: Line 87. Authors only used the Web of Science database for this study; why did they not use Scopus or another database?
Authors: The reasons for the selection of the Web Of Science database are on lines 101-106. Two bibliographic references were added to support the selection:
Liu, W. (2019). "The data source of this study is Web of Science Core Collection? Not enough." Scientometrics 121(3): 1815-1824.
Meho, L. I. and C. R. Sugimoto (2009). "Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: A tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(12): 2499-2508.
Reviewer 1: Line 90. Why did the authors use the 2004 to 2023 years in their search? Are the papers published until January 2024 not important?
Authors: Thank you very much for your comment. In bibliometric studies, most of the time it is usual to work with closed years. Undoubtedly, the publications of the current year are important, however, the year 2024 is still in constant change, and that can generate biases and inaccurate representations. For more details on the selection of closed years, please refer to:
Moed, H.F. (2005) Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Reviewer 1: Figure 5. I suggest that the authors need to enhance the quality of this figure.
Authors: The quality of the figure was modified to improve its visualization.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "Research trends and development patterns in microgreens publications: A bibliometric study 2004-2023" presents a detailed and well-structured analysis of the development of the field of microgreens. However, there are some areas where improvements can be made to increase the information's clarity, depth, and usefulness. I have included some suggestions below that I consider essential to improve the manuscript further.
Methodology: Include a detailed workflow and further clarify inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Conclusions: Expand to include practical implications and suggestions for future research.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your professional comments on our manuscript (sustainability-3112269). We did our best to make changes to our manuscript. These changes will not affect the main content and framework of the paper. Detailed responses are provided below. We will respond to your suggestions in order.
Changes made to the document are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2: Methodology: Include a detailed workflow and further clarify inclusion/exclusion criterio
Authors: Figure 1 contains the details of the bibliometric analysis process carried out for the article.
Reviewer 2: Conclusions: Expand to include practical implications and suggestions for future research.
Authors: The conclusions were revised and expanded to include practical implications and suggestions for future research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article provides an overview of scientific publications on microgreens using bibliometric tools. Data from the Web of Science database spanning 2004 to 2023 was analyzed. The USA, Italy, and India lead in publications, with 133, 76, and 38 publications respectively. Key authors include Raphael Y., De Pascale S., and Luo Y. The most prolific journals are HortScience, Horticulturae, and Foods. The findings offer insights and trends to guide future research in the microgreens field. I have some minor comments which are listed below:
L14 publication??
L18 what metrics? publication number or citation or any others? I think listing them here may make it easy for the reader without looking at the body of the manuscript.
L21 publication could be a better choice of the word.
L29-42 I suggest combining these two paragraphs
L29 is a microgreens just a concept?
L30 Can microgreens be just defined as young plants?? that may be misleading
L44-45 I think the small production scale may be due to its low customer demands and high market price which can only be afforded by the “high-income” class of consumer but as it gets popular, the production of microgreens has also been scaled up, and produced by many big greenhouse companies, and short distribution chain mostly could be due to low self-life
L49 Please be consistence with in-text citation style
L56 “it is important to highlight” is used in multiple points of the text, which I noticed at least 4 times throughout the manuscript. I suggest to not use such words in high-frequency
L63 composition of what?? the concentration of the nutritional compounds?
L68 "consumption" at fresh state may increase the chance of food burn disease in human but may not directly relate to the "harbor food-borne pathogen " in microgreen itself.
L74 others mean??
L74-76 Please try not to use these kinds of words (their, these, other) lot in a single sentence. It may confuse the reader.
L83 Other applications??
L233 Please rewrite the sentence.
Table 2 Are these the list of organizations currently involved with?? I think some of the authors left the listed organization a few years ago. for example, Di Gioia F. left the University of Florida in 2019 and working at Penn State since then. I was just wondering if it is an updated or old table.
L258 I think this ( “It is worth mentioning” ) does not add much to the sentence, and I realized this has been used many times throughout the manuscript. I suggest avoiding this kind of sentence repeatedly.
L345 important information on microgreens?
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your professional comments on our manuscript (sustainability-3112269). We did our best to make changes to our manuscript. These changes will not affect the main content and framework of the paper. Detailed responses are provided below. We will respond to your suggestions in order.
Changes made to the document are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3: L14 publication??
Authors: The term sicientific production was replaced by scientific publications.
Reviewer 3: L18 what metrics? publication number or citation or any others? I think listing them here may make it easy for the reader without looking at the body of the manuscript.
Authors: The term metrics was replaced by the highest number of publications.
Reviewer 3: L21 publication could be a better choice of the word.
Authors: The word documents was replaced by publications.
R3: L29-42 I suggest combining these two paragraphs
A: The writing was revised as indicated by reviewer 2
Reviewer 3: L29 is a microgreens just a concept?
Authors: The word concept was changed to the word term
Reviewer 3: L30 Can microgreens be just defined as young plants?? that may be misleading
Authors: The definition of microgreens is explained in paragraphs from L32 through L44
Refiewer 3: L44-45 I think the small production scale may be due to its low customer demands and high market price which can only be afforded by the “high-income” class of consumer but as it gets popular, the production of microgreens has also been scaled up, and produced by many big greenhouse companies, and short distribution chain mostly could be due to low self-life.
Authors: While we partially share your interesting comment on the cultivation and consumption of microgreens, we stand by our initial statement.
Reviewer 3: L49 Please be consistence with in-text citation style
Authors: The reference was reviewed and standardized
Reviewer 3: L56 “it is important to highlight” is used in multiple points of the text, which I noticed at least 4 times throughout the manuscript. I suggest to not use such words in high-frequency.
Authors: The text was revised, and synonyms were used to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 3: L63 composition of what?? the concentration of the nutritional compounds?
Authors: The word chemical was added to the sentence.
Reviewer 3: L68 "consumption" at fresh state may increase the chance of food burn disease in human but may not directly relate to the "harbor food-borne pathogen " in microgreen itself.
Authors: The text was revised
Reviewer 3: L74 others mean??
Authors: The phrase among others has been eliminated.
Reviewer 3: L74-76 Please try not to use these kinds of words (their, these, other) lot in a single sentence. It may confuse the reader.
Authors: The text was revised
Reviewer 3: L83 Other applications??
Authors: The text has been deleted.
Reviewer 3: L233 Please rewrite the sentence.
Authors: The sentence was rewritted
Reviewer 3: Table 2 Are these the list of organizations currently involved with?? I think some of the authors left the listed organization a few years ago. for example, Di Gioia F. left the University of Florida in 2019 and working at Penn State since then. I was just wondering if it is an updated or old table.
Authors: The data of the different authors in the table were revised, the affiliation of the author DI Gioia was updated, we regret the error.
Reviewer 3: L258 I think this ( “It is worth mentioning” ) does not add much to the sentence, and I realized this has been used many times throughout the manuscript. I suggest avoiding this kind of sentence repeatedly.
Authors: The sentence was revised and “It is worth to mentioning “ was replaced with “It should be noted”
Reviewer 3: L345 important information on microgreens?
Authors: The phrase was revised and modified
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The changes I suggested have been thoroughly made, and the questions raised have been fully answered by the authors.
However, I have some additional comments.
Materials and methods
Figure 2. I suggest that authors deleted the gray lines in the border of the figure.
Results and discussion
Figure 3. I suggest that the authors enhance the quality (higher DPI) of the figure.
Figure 6. I suggest that the authors enhance the quality (higher DPI) of the figure.
Author Response
Thank you very much again for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your professional comments on our manuscript (sustainability-3112269). We did our best to make changes to our manuscript.
The following is a response to the comments in this second round of peer review:
Reviewer 1: Figure 2. I suggest that authors deleted the gray lines in the border of the figure.
Authors: The gray border of the figure has been eliminated.
Reviewer 1: Figure 3. I suggest that the authors enhance the quality (higher DPI) of the figure.
Authors: The resolution of the figure was improved as much as possible with specific software.
Reviewer 1: Figure 6. I suggest that the authors enhance the quality (higher DPI) of the figure.
Authors: The resolution of the figure was improved as much as possible with specific software.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have substantially improved the content of the manuscript following the reviewers' suggestions. Therefore, I confirm that the manuscript is suitable for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Thank you very much again for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your professional comments on our manuscript (sustainability-3112269).
