Analysis of Knowledge Graph: Hotspots and Future Trends in Environmental Education Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a bibliometric analysis of environmental education, identifying key trends and hotspots, which contributes valuable insights to the field. The work's analysis of trends and hotspots in environmental education research offers new perspectives and underscores emerging areas of focus, providing a roadmap for future studies and interventions. The interest level on the topic is emergent.

The paper is methodically structured, detailing the methodology, analysis, and findings clearly, making it a comprehensive study on the subject.

Employing robust bibliometric tools and a systematic approach, the work presents a scientifically sound analysis of the field's evolution and current trends. Could also benefit from approaching ideas like The university role in developing the human capital for a sustainable bioeconomy.

The study extensively cites relevant literature, demonstrating a thorough engagement with existing research and situating its contributions effectively within the field. But still the topic is rather general and results are relative.

The document is written in clear, understandable English, with minor issues that do not significantly detract from its readability or comprehension.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper provides a bibliometric analysis of environmental education, identifying key trends and hotspots, which contributes valuable insights to the field. The work's analysis of trends and hotspots in environmental education research offers new perspectives and underscores emerging areas of focus, providing a roadmap for future studies and interventions. The interest level on the topic is emergent.

The paper is methodically structured, detailing the methodology, analysis, and findings clearly, making it a comprehensive study on the subject.

Employing robust bibliometric tools and a systematic approach, the work presents a scientifically sound analysis of the field's evolution and current trends. Could also benefit from approaching ideas like The university role in developing the human capital for a sustainable bioeconomy.

The study extensively cites relevant literature, demonstrating a thorough engagement with existing research and situating its contributions effectively within the field. But still the topic is rather general and results are relative.

The document is written in clear, understandable English, with minor issues that do not significantly detract from its readability or comprehension.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we deeply appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the changes made in this revision with red. Please refer to the attachment for specific modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a bibliometric study proposing a graphical analysis of knowledge.

1. The summary must be revised to make it more objective for the reader. What is the objective of the work? What is the motivation for the study? Its importance in the scientific context...

2. In the Introduction section, the penultimate and last paragraphs address the objective of the research, however, indirectly. It would be interesting if the objective was clearly stated.

3. Section “2. Data Source” needs to be revised and expanded. If the idea is to use a systematic literature review, the protocol used must be described (PRISMA, for example...). Furthermore, there is a lack of description of the filtering steps of the bibliometric review.

4. Figures 3, 4 and 5 should not be considered differentiators of the research in relation to other studies. Since the evolution of bibliometric software (for example, VOsViewer), this type of representation has become protocol-based.

5. Figure 6 is ineligible.

6. Instead of Figure 6, it would be more interesting to build a Table with the presentation of the relationships between the findings.

7. In the conclusions, the contributions of the research should be clearer. What were the objective results of the bibliometric research? What is the predominant theoretical alignment today?

8. In terms of limitations, in addition to the software limitation, it would be important to expose the scope limitations of the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we deeply appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the changes made in this revision with red. Please refer to the attachment for specific modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a great manuscript that represents an enormous amount of very detailed work, which will be helpful to those providing environmental education. The analysis of the data is comprehensive and teases out important themes.  Having said that there are limitations of my review because I am not a statistician so cannot comment on some aspects of the manuscript eg lines 145-156.

More specific comments:

1. Line 12 – if anyone cares about this anymore – split infinitive “ to visually represent and analyze”

2. Not sure who the target audience is, but is it possible to explain terms such as "The Web of Science". "CiteSpace" and "Timezone" - but ultimately, the editors can make that decision.

3. I really like the paragraph lines 19-24 which explains current trends and emerging trends.

4.  In some parts there are  broad statements (with which I personally agree) but it would probably be better to have citations eg 

·       line 32 – about uncontrolled utilization of natural resources

·       line 33 – where were these early calls – treaties, conferences (?)

·       line 38 – which education systems – some of the literature needs to be cited – perhaps the ones cited from line 40 onward.

·       line 61 – where is this research

5. Authors refer to “environmental education” – does this refer to education at all levels eg primary, secondary and tertiary. Not clear in some places. Eg Lines 227 onward – are the authors referring to higher education, high school, primary school. Also line 274 when referring to Sweden. Line 299 – what type of students are these?  Ditto line 343  

Does it make a difference to their analysis.  Eg the 12 schools in UK – were they high schools? Elsewhere authors referred to the type of student eg line 268 college students.  Line 306 K-year 12.

6. I really like the concept of interdisciplinary collaboration – very important line 453.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we deeply appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We have highlighted the changes made in this revision with red. Please refer to the attachment for specific modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper is accordingly improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to all requests for corrections and incorporated the suggestions made by the reviewer.