Exploring the Evolution of Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Exploring The Evolution of Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment Research: A Bibliometric Analysis  

by  Ahmed Safuan A Rashid, Afiqah Binti Ismail, Talal Amhadiy  

Overview

The manuscript concerns an interesting topic. I find the work clear in the aims, but many parts need to be improved such as the Introduction, the Methodology, and Conclusions.  

Detailed comments  

Introduction

The background relating to the research is only mentioned. I suggest better argue the relevance of the topic by referring to the importance of seismic hazard and risk estimates in countries with high seismic hazard.

Line 43. This is not  a classical review, but a bibliometric study.

Lines 51-53. It is not clear to me why the authors cite bibliometric studies in the geotechnical and geomorphological field, but not in the field of seismology. Several bibliometric studies are available in the literature with the topic of earthquakes at their core. Therefore, I advise authors to examine these works with a targeted search of the major databases and reference them to contextualize the study.

Lines 53-63. The discussion regarding the usefulness of bibliometric studies must be supported by the literature.

Where do the data in Figure 1 come from? In any case, the results should not be included in the Introduction, but in the appropriate section.

Methodology

The authors used the Scopus database. Apart from the general considerations relating to the features of the aforementioned database (lines 86-89), it would be interesting to know whether the authors also made a specific comparison with other databases (e.g. WoS), having the results of the queries in mind. Indeed, the choice of the database is crucial to have a picture that is as representative as possible of a research.

Lines 89-90. ...evolution "over time".

Lines 97-99. The authors declared that: "The data collection spanned from 2002 to 2022, with the exclusion of review papers and materials not aligned with the 98 study's objectives." How were the publications not relevant to the research selected? Was a manual reading of the abstracts done? This point is important and needs to be clarified.

In order to allow the results to be reproduced, the authors must indicate (preferably in a table) all the parameters used for building the maps (e.g. the minimum number of occurrences, the cluster resolution, and the minimum cluster size). Furthermore, VOSViewer was already used to analyze research landscapes for specific earthquakes (e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10120482). It is suitable to underline this point.

3.2 Top Contributing Countries

Line 194. The authors will include the magnitude of the earthquake.

Lines 204-205. Considering that readers may not be experts in bibliometrics, the authors will indicate what the co-authorship analysis means and what implications it has for the study. To do this, the authors will make use of specific bibliographical references.

3.5 Keyword Analysis

Line 338. Include the maps for each subperiod.

5. Conclusions

The conclusions are a simple summary of what was discussed in the previous sections. The authors will also have to indicate the weak points of the seismic hazard and risk assessment research by highlighting concrete suggestions for researchers/stakeholders (e.g. improve the collaboration between scientists of different nationalities, increase the research in specific branches). Furthermore, the authors will have to highlight the limitations of their study.

Author Response

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers; comments and concerns.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the file please

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers; comments and concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carried out a mild and insufficient revisions. Most points were not addressed.

Just for example:

1) bibliometric studies on earthquakes are missing;

2) authors declare that "The authors have revised the discussion regarding the usefulness of bibliometric studies to include supporting literature. See page 2 lines 60 to 69."  However, there is no trace of the revisions. Text in lines 60-69 is the same of the original version. What's more, the number of references of the revised version of the manuscript is the same of the first submission;

3) the author declare that "Following your suggestion, we have removed Figure 1 and integrated the relevant data into Figure 2 (formerly Figure 3)". However, Figure 1 is still present;

4) in my first review I made the following comment: "In order to allow the results to be reproduced, the authors must indicate (preferably in a table) all the parameters used for building the maps (e.g. the minimum number of occurrences, the cluster resolution, and the minimum cluster size)... It is suitable to underline this point." However, the authors did not even answer this question, in addition to not making the requested changes. The data must be provided to ensure the reproducibility of the results of the bbliometric study.

5) The authors declare that "[They] have revised and added some explanation on this [co-authorship analysis ]  in the manuscript. See Page 8 lines 225 to 232." Where are the additions? I do not see them.

6) The authors declare that: "The authors have improved the conclusion by suggesting actions like fostering collaboration among scientists from diverse backgrounds. We also recognize the study's limitations, including data scope and biases, aiming for a balanced assessment to encourage further research in this field. See page 22 lines 469 to 472 and lines 476 to 481 and also page 23 lines 49- to 495". Where are the revisions in the Conclusions??? I do not find them.

Concluding, the authors must carefully reread and reconsider the suggestions made by the reviewer in the first report. Without the revisions I will not be able to recommend publication of the work.

 

Author Response

Hello,

We have attached a file for all comments.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made some revisions, but left out two points:

1) in my first and second reviews, I stressed the circumstance that the authors discusses only bibliometric studies in geotechnical and geomorphological fields, but not on earthquakes and seismology (the core of the manuscript). As indicated in the first and second report, several bibliometric studies are available in the literature within the topics. Considering that authors made a blbliometric research, they should be familiar with Scopus or other databases (e.g. Web of Science) to search for these documents. Therefore, I advise authors to examine some of these papers (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0599-z https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10120482 ) with a targeted search on the major databases and reference them in the manuscript to appropriately contextualize their work;

2) in my first and second review I stressed the fact that in order to allow the results to be reproduced, the authors must indicate (preferably in a table) all the parameters used for building the VOSViewer maps (e.g. the minimum number of occurrences, the cluster resolution, the minimum cluster size), but this point was once again omitted. The parameters must be provided to ensure the reproducibility of the results of the bibliometric study by other researchers.

I strongly recommend addressing these two points.

 

 

 

Author Response

Find the attached file 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx