Bibliometric Analysis of Research Hotspots and Frontiers in Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TITLE: Bibliometric analysis of research hotspots and frontiers in progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals

ABSTRACT: The abstract is well structured, contextualises the study, explains the method and points out some initial results.

INTRODUCTION. An adequate contextualisation is provided, although it reiterates the definition of the SDGs and their evolution in their treatment, pointing out general political guidelines.

It ends by talking about the research and refers to SCOPUS, although it then relies on WOS.

The research questions are not well defined; they should be more explicit.

A series of objectives are stated at the end of the Introduction, which should also be written more clearly.

METHODS: the procedure in section 2.1. Data sources could be schematised in a Prism scheme.

 All the explanations about the nodes do not contribute anything as they are key concepts in bibliometrics.

At the end of this section we return to the objective of the study, when in the introduction several were mentioned and it is not clear which documents are presented, as previously reference was made to WOS articles. This should be better explained

RESULTS. The results are well presented. They are of interest and make an interesting contribution in relation to the core areas of interest and emerging themes.

It would be interesting to analyse the texts of the most cited authors and make a more qualitative analysis.

CONCLUSIONS: Well structured and clearly synthesise the results.

All in all, it is an interesting and well-worked study, only the wording should be adjusted in some of the points mentioned above.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English wording needs to be revised. Some paragraphs are not understood

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #1:

Comment 1: INTRODUCTION. An adequate contextualisation is provided, although it reiterates the definition of the SDGs and their evolution in their treatment, pointing out general political guidelines.

It ends by talking about the research and refers to SCOPUS, although it then relies on WOS.

Reply: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing. We've added the rationale for choosing WOS as the searching database in Section 2. Please refer to Line 96-102. Scopus is also an authoritative and significant database. Conducting a literature analysis of the different databases and comparing the results to complement the current findings will be part of our future work.

 

Comment 2: The research questions are not well defined; they should be more explicit. A series of objectives are stated at the end of the Introduction, which should also be written more clearly.

Reply: Thanks for your suggestions. We have revised the last paragraph of the introduction to make the research question more explicit and the research objectives clearer. Please refer to Line 85-94.

 

Comment 3: METHODS: the procedure in section 2.1. Data sources could be schematised in a Prism scheme.

All the explanations about the nodes do not contribute anything as they are key concepts in bibliometrics.

Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. As you suggested, we schematized the Research design and methodology to make the data collection, data processing and analysis sections clearer. Please refer to Figure 1. We deleted the basic concepts of knowledge graphs in Section 2. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 4: At the end of this section we return to the objective of the study, when in the introduction several were mentioned and it is not clear which documents are presented, as previously reference was made to WOS articles. This should be better explained.

Reply: Many thanks for this comment. In addition to the literature analysis of SDGs, this paper also analyzes and summarizes the published progress reports on SDGs. The analysis of the reports is reflected in section 3.2. We have adopted a clearer presentation of data sources and methods in Section 2. Please refer to Figure 1 and Line 115-117.

 

Comment 5: RESULTS. The results are well presented. They are of interest and make an interesting contribution in relation to the core areas of interest and emerging themes. It would be interesting to analyse the texts of the most cited authors and make a more qualitative analysis.

Reply: Thanks very much for your suggestion. In the analysis of each cluster in section3.2.2, we analyzed and summarized some of the key insights of highly cited articles. To some extent, this contribution to the articles is consistent with analyzing the key themes of the highly cited authors' articles.

 

Comment 6: CONCLUSIONS: Well structured and clearly synthesise the results.

All in all, it is an interesting and well-worked study, only the wording should be adjusted in some of the points mentioned above.

Reply: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions. Hopefully, the revised version could be qualified and acceptable.

 

Comment 7：The English wording needs to be revised. Some paragraphs are not understood.

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The English has been improved in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors clearly state the purpose of this article, which is to analyze the scientific knowledge mapping of SDGs research, sort out the general characteristics, scientific cooperation, cutting-edge  hotspots and future research trends of SDGs research.

 

2. I found the methodology section contains details to allow the replication of data. This requirement is usually not completely covered in most of the submissions.

 

3. There is no literature analysis, but this is acceptable because usually, in a bibliographic study, the analysis does not come from literature but from the outcomes.

 

4. Though the manuscript is coherently written and outcomes are well presented, the scientific interest is low because they represent nothing other than statistics. The conclusions have little or no implications for future studies since they only analyze preference trends to be considered premises in future studies. In addition to this observation, the proliferation of bibliometric studies during the COVID era has meant that recent studies contribute little to knowledge.

 

5. I have no comments about the methodological design; this study has been done according to the overall procedures for conducting a bibliographic study, and those procedures are correctly shown.

 

6. I found the conclusion consistent with the results, which is not surprising given that the results and discussion section is a descriptive statistical analysis that is shown with the help of diagrams and tables. The figures shown are the classic maps presented in a study of this type.

 

7. References are updated, mainly ranging from 2015 to 2022.

8. The figures shown are the classic maps presented in a study of this type.

 

Finally, I made the following suggestions to improve the paper:

 

Dear authors, thank you for your submission, which I found is coherently presented. Yet, the following assertion drew my attention to

“There is a lack of systematic understanding of SDGs research and diagnosis of problematic gaps from a macro perspective, in particular, the analysis of core issues and cutting-edge hotspots is still insufficient to adequately support the needs of assessing the progress of the SDGs globally and the means of implementing the SDGs”.

Could you elaborate in detail on which you base this statement?

 

This issue is important due to the amount of studies stating that their results are based on a systematic analysis of SDG´s literature.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is indispensable to proofread the document for spelling and grammar, preferably by a native English proofreading service. 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #2:

General Comment: 1. The authors clearly state the purpose of this article, which is to analyze the scientific knowledge mapping of SDGs research, sort out the general characteristics, scientific cooperation, cutting-edge hotspots and future research trends of SDGs research.

2. I found the methodology section contains details to allow the replication of data. This requirement is usually not completely covered in most of the submissions.
3. There is no literature analysis, but this is acceptable because usually, in a bibliographic study, the analysis does not come from literature but from the outcomes.
4. Though the manuscript is coherently written and outcomes are well presented, the scientific interest is low because they represent nothing other than statistics. The conclusions have little or no implications for future studies since they only analyze preference trends to be considered premises in future studies. In addition to this observation, the proliferation of bibliometric studies during the COVID era has meant that recent studies contribute little to knowledge.
5. I have no comments about the methodological design; this study has been done according to the overall procedures for conducting a bibliographic study, and those procedures are correctly shown.
6. I found the conclusion consistent with the results, which is not surprising given that the results and discussion section is a descriptive statistical analysis that is shown with the help of diagrams and tables. The figures shown are the classic maps presented in a study of this type.
7. References are updated, mainly ranging from 2015 to 2022.
8. The figures shown are the classic maps presented in a study of this type.

Finally, I made the following suggestions to improve the paper:

Reply: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions. Hopefully, the revised version could be qualified and acceptable.

 

Comment 1: Dear authors, thank you for your submission, which I found is coherently presented. Yet, the following assertion drew my attention to

“There is a lack of systematic understanding of SDGs research and diagnosis of problematic gaps from a macro perspective, in particular, the analysis of core issues and cutting-edge hotspots is still insufficient to adequately support the needs of assessing the progress of the SDGs globally and the means of implementing the SDGs”.

Could you elaborate in detail on which you base this statement?

This issue is important due to the amount of studies stating that their results are based on a systematic analysis of SDG´s literature.

Reply: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing. We agree the abundance of studies claiming to conduct systematic analyses of SDGs literature, and this paper provides a more detailed analysis of the core issues and cutting-edge hotspots. We have revised and refined this sentence to make it more academically rigorous. Please refer to Line 81-85.

 

Comment 2: It is indispensable to proofread the document for spelling and grammar, preferably by a native English proofreading service.

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The English has been improved in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper employs the bibliometric method to analyze the literature related to SDGs research. All around, the authors clearly elaborate on the topic, research methodology, and conclusion. The topic itself is very. Interesting and relevant. The key findings revealed inequality in the research of SDG across different fields and topics.

Furthermore, in the whole paper, the authors used different citation systems. Sometimes, they used the Sustainability citation system, sometimes no.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer #3:

General Comment: This paper employs the bibliometric method to analyze the literature related to SDGs research. All around, the authors clearly elaborate on the topic, research methodology, and conclusion. The topic itself is very. Interesting and relevant. The key findings revealed inequality in the research of SDG across different fields and topics.

Reply: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions. Hopefully, the revised version could be qualified and acceptable.

 

Comment 1: Furthermore, in the whole paper, the authors used different citation systems. Sometimes, they used the Sustainability citation system, sometimes no.

Reply: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing. The citation on the text has been revised in the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim is to clarify the gap between China's current state of sustainable development and its goals, and to provide benchmarks for in-depth research and decision-making to implement the SDGs.

The aim of the research is to comprehensively analyze the progress of the SDG implementation, including organizing the state of research, identifying problematic gaps, determining future research trends, and linking scientific research with practice by linking it to their main reports on the progress of the SDG implementation.

The SDGs require monitoring capabilities to assess progress, identify priority targets and detect implementation issues to ensure we are always moving in the right direction. The problem is the diversity of national contexts.

There is still little research that uses bibliometrics to explain existing advances in the field of SDG research. There is a lack of systematic understanding of SDG research and diagnosis of problematic gaps from a macro perspective, in particular, analysis of fundamental issues and novel hotspots is still insufficient to adequately support the need to assess progress towards the SDGs globally and means of implementation sustainable development goals.

Appropriate research methods were used for the research.

The analysis of the empirical material resulted in important recommendations for deepening research in the implementation of sustainable development goals.

A comparative analysis of keywords in research and SDG reports indicated that "data" is the most frequently used keyword in the report, but not in the literature, reflecting the fact that data is a key issue for real progress towards the SDGs, but not they receive the attention they deserve in scientific research.

The authors broadly present the issue of measuring the implementation of sustainable development goals and point to many methodological problems that imply future research directions.

 

I. In my opinion, the introductory part lacked a reference to the Planetary Boundaries concept eg.:

1. Richardson, J., Steffen W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S.E., et.al. 2023. Earth beyond six of nine Planetary Boundaries. Science Advances, 9, 37.

2. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J. & Cornell, S.E., et.al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347: 736, 1259855

II. Is it possible to graphically present the research model?

Author Response

General Comment: The aim is to clarify the gap between China's current state of sustainable development and its goals, and to provide benchmarks for in-depth research and decision-making to implement the SDGs.

The aim of the research is to comprehensively analyze the progress of the SDG implementation, including organizing the state of research, identifying problematic gaps, determining future research trends, and linking scientific research with practice by linking it to their main reports on the progress of the SDG implementation.

The SDGs require monitoring capabilities to assess progress, identify priority targets and detect implementation issues to ensure we are always moving in the right direction. The problem is the diversity of national contexts.

There is still little research that uses bibliometrics to explain existing advances in the field of SDG research. There is a lack of systematic understanding of SDG research and diagnosis of problematic gaps from a macro perspective, in particular, analysis of fundamental issues and novel hotspots is still insufficient to adequately support the need to assess progress towards the SDGs globally and means of implementation sustainable development goals.

Appropriate research methods were used for the research.

The analysis of the empirical material resulted in important recommendations for deepening research in the implementation of sustainable development goals.

A comparative analysis of keywords in research and SDG reports indicated that "data" is the most frequently used keyword in the report, but not in the literature, reflecting the fact that data is a key issue for real progress towards the SDGs, but not they receive the attention they deserve in scientific research.

The authors broadly present the issue of measuring the implementation of sustainable development goals and point to many methodological problems that imply future research directions.

Reply: Thank you very much for your careful reviewing and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments and suggestions. Hopefully, the revised version could be qualified and acceptable.

                                                           

Comment 1: I. In my opinion, the introductory part lacked a reference to the Planetary Boundaries concept eg.:

1. Richardson, J., Steffen W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S.E., et.al. 2023. Earth beyond six of nine Planetary Boundaries. Science Advances, 9, 37.
2. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J. & Cornell, S.E., et.al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347: 736, 1259855

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added a description of the planetary boundaries in the introduction. Please refer to Line 47-52.

 

Comment 2: II. Is it possible to graphically present the research model?

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. As you suggested, we schematized the research design and methodology to make the data collection, data processing and analysis sections clearer. Please refer to Figure 1.