Global Investigations of Seawater Intrusion (SWI) in Coastal Groundwaters in the Last Two Decades (2000–2020): A Bibliometric Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors revised the paper according to the reviewer's comments. It can be accepted for the publication now.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors revised the paper according to the reviewer's comments. It can be accepted for the publication now.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Enclosed I send you the responses to your comments.
Thank you so much for all the comments to improve our manuscript.
Kind Regards,
Paula Carvalho.
Author Response File: Author Response.zip
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs requested I have reviewed the revised manuscript “Global investigations of Seawater Intrusion (SWI) in coastal groundwaters in last two decades (2000-2020): A Bibliometric Analysis” (sustainability-2600353) for Sustainability. I was able to find my previous review in my files. But I was not able to see other reviewers’ comments nor the authors’ response to reviewers’ comments.
This revision was presented with a track changes view and I was able to see the edits that the authors made. These edits included a few grammatical changes and two additional paragraphs in the conclusions. These additional paragraphs did not truly present any new thought nor contribution to science. Together these edits did not sufficiently address the concerns that I had with the previous version. I therefor maintain my conclusion that this review is not worthy of publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDespite the edits, I was still able to note that a few paragraphs cited only one paper, but used the plural form to discuss more than one paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Enclosed I send you the responses to your comments.
Thank you so much for all the comments to improve our manuscript.
Kind Regards,
Paula Carvalho.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider that the quality of the images can be improved
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Enclosed I send you the responses to your comments.
Thank you so much for all the comments to improve our manuscript.
Kind Regards,
Paula Carvalho.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I appreciate the efforts made by the authors to address comments. I appreciate the revised conclusions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis is improved.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. I consider that the period 2000-2020 is not a keyword
2I suggest changing the format of the table in figure 13. Improve the quality of figures 2 and 6, modify the font size or color
4. Figure 3 does not show which quartile (Q1/Q2) each journal belongs to, as indicated in the figure.
5. What is written in lines 476-477 is not related to figure 5
6. Write the statements as text not as images (line 1022)
7. Include the table within the document
8. Improve image quality 5, enlarge the map or reduce the marker9. The conclusions must be related to the objective of the project (lines 56-59), the mechanisms that regulate sea intrusion. Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of english language required
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs requested I have reviewed the manuscript “Global investigations of Seawater Intrusion (SWI) in coastal groundwaters in last two decades (2000-2020): A Bibliometric Analysis” (sustainability-2600353) for Sustainability
This manuscript aspires to be a review, The topic is pertinent to Sustainability, The English language usage is not good. And the manuscripts contribution to science is minimal.
I do not consider this manuscript to be suitable. for publication in Sustainability. Its English language grammar needs to be improved. But most importantly the literature needs to be synthesized.
The paper mostly presents a literature review. This review of literature goes from line 60 – line 400 and then from line 460- 985. The bibliometric analysis presents simple results which are uninteresting. The manuscript’s conclusions reveal that the authors have not drawn conclusions. The conclusions suggest that the research community can use the review to identify lagging areas. But the authors should do this.
Too many of this manuscript’s paragraphs start with a sentence similar to “This author wrote…” Instead this review should present something that Perumal, Sekar, and Carvalho want to say. The reviewed literature should support this. What should be learned from synthesizing this literature? What are research trends? What are the overall lessons? What are the gaps in understanding? Does a statistical analysis of the literature support any conclusions?
Some of the manuscript’s paragraphs are well-written. Many are not. Frequently one piece of scientific literature is cited but the paragraph reads as if there are plural studies. I have a few examples below but this is not an exhaustive list of errors.
Lines 204 – 208 rewrite. This is grammatically bad. One study is cited but plural is used.
Line 249 rewrite “and local saltpans inadequate”
Line 253 rewrite” Removing soil salts are a source of challenging and ineffective task”
Line 274 rewrite
Line 300 rewrite
Line 304 Rewite “was used”
Line 307 rewrite “There is a responses”
Line 318-319 rewrite
Line 1012: rewrite “This review analyses”
The section on literature 2000-2020 needs synthesis.
The authors names as presented on line 5 is not the same as presented lines 1027-1032. These authors should be more careful.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some of the manuscript’s paragraphs are well-written. Many are not. Frequently one piece of scientific literature is cited but the paragraph reads as if there are plural studies. I have a few examples below but this is not an exhaustive list of errors.
Lines 204 – 208 rewrite. This is grammatically bad. One study is cited but plural is used.
Line 249 rewrite “and local saltpans inadequate”
Line 253 rewrite” Removing soil salts are a source of challenging and ineffective task”
Line 274 rewrite
Line 300 rewrite
Line 304 Rewite “was used”
Line 307 rewrite “There is a responses”
Line 318-319 rewrite
Line 1012: rewrite “This review analyses”
The section on literature 2000-2020 needs synthesis.
The authors names as presented on line 5 is not the same as presented lines 1027-1032. These authors should be more careful.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this work, Perumal et al. reported Global investigations of Seawater Intrusion (SWI) in coastal groundwaters in the last two decades (2000-2020): A Bibliometric Analysis. I can see that considerable work was done by the authors in this review paper. However, I have some points to consider regarding the content and scope of this review on seawater intrusion (SWI) and its impact on coastal aquifers and related water bodies.
A few questions should be considered as follows.
Specific comments
1. What methodologies were used to assess SWI in different global areas? Are there any common approaches or standards in the field?
2. Can you provide more details on the author's contribution to this review? What specific aspects did they focus on, and what were the key findings?
3. How were SWI-affected areas identified across the world using the results from publications? Were there any surprising or unexpected findings in terms of the geographical distribution of SWI?
4. What were the main insights gained from the bibliometric analysis of SWI publications?
5. Did the analysis reveal any trends in research focus or publication patterns over time?
6. Can you elaborate on the significance of the selected journals and the percentage of scientific products they represent in the field of SWI?
7. How do climatic variations, groundwater pumping activities, and sea-level fluctuations interact to create complex hydrological conditions related to the distribution of dissolved salts in coastal aquifers?
8. Were there any notable findings or challenges identified in understanding these interactions and their effects on SWI?
9. What implications does the review draw for coastal zone management in light of the current status of SWI in coastal aquifers, estuaries, and lagoons?
10. Are there any specific research gaps or areas of concern highlighted in terms of managing SWI and its impacts on the environment and freshwater resources?
11. How reliable and comprehensive were the data sources used in this review? Were there any limitations in data availability or quality that should be considered?
12. Based on the findings of this review, what are the suggested directions for future research in the field of SWI, especially in the context of addressing the identified research gaps?
13. Are there any practical recommendations or policy implications arising from this review that could help mitigate the impact of SWI on coastal ecosystems and water resources?
14. Did the review identify any opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and stakeholders to address the complex challenges associated with SWI?
15. Given the selection of specific journals for analysis, did the review account for any potential publication bias, and if so, how was it addressed?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors should pay major attention to the grammar and phrasing of every sentence; polishing is far from enough.
