Knowledge Map of Climate Change and Transportation: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First I would like to appreciate the authors for their work and effort in reviewing scientific literature on climate and transportation and knowledge mapping. It is very well organized with adequate material and is well-written. However, further improvements are required and my decision is “Minor Revision”.
Comments:
01. Use one acronym in the entire document, WOS or WoS
02. Pay attention to the reference style when the author(s) is(are) part of the sentence.
Ex. Line 48 – should be Nalimov and Mulʹchenko (1971) [15]
03. Figures’ resolutions are not at the standard level, ex. Figure 1
04. Line 121 – Which analysis does it show Vietnam is the only developing country with bursts?
05. Figures 2 and 3 - what is this color ramp represented?
06. Pay attention to the sentence formatting and remove repetitive words.
07. Lines 253-254 – What is the main conclusion of Marsdon et al. (2014)’s study? Add it to the text. Just putting what they have done is not worth it.
08. In general, pay attention to the formatting, sentence, and language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper partly corresponds to Journal areas. However, the authors provided not bad bibliometric analysis.
However, some improvements should be done before publishing.
1. Extend the explanation why Citespace is better compared to other instruments. What benefits, features and etc? Please, see the following paper for the idea: https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.2.43.2022.3733 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010108 ; https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202130709002.
2. Please, add the explanation for Figure 2 and 3. What differences? Maybe one of them will be enough?
3. In Line 104, the authors indicated 1991 and 2022. However, Figure 3 contains data only for 1991-2016. Other years 2016-2022?
4. Explain in the text meaning of Table 1 in detail. Again it is similar information to Figures 2 and 3. Clarify the meaning of "Centrality" in Table 1. What are numbers mean?
5. Figure 4. It would be better to show the whole title of universities or present abbreviations or make smaller letters in the parameters of Citespace.
6. Explain what is it mean the distance between circles? You indicated that "The nodes represent the number of publications, and the links between the nodes indicate the cooperation between the institutions." However, what is it mean different distance?
7. Table 2 contains similar information to Figure 5. Sense to leave both of them? or Explain the meaning of each other in detail?
8. Figure 5. Please check the title. The Figure shows the Name of the scholars by title Figure 5. Institution collaboration network.
9. Figure 6 shows the Author co-citation network. However, OECD, EPA, World Bank, IPCC, United Nations, FAO, and EUROCOMISSION are not authors. It is organisations.
10. Figure 7. Reference co-citation network has bad quality. It is difficult to understand.
11. Figure 8, explain what is it mean the colour.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a well-written study; however, there are some issues that need to be addressed further. Here are my comments.
1. The introduction section is not satisfying. The introduction section is not well structured. It is suggested that the introduction section be improved by providing proper justification. For instance, the introduction part should be written based on the following sequences: background of the study, significance of the study, past studies and research gaps, contributions and novelties of the study, and how the rest of the paper is organized.
2. The study did not include search terms used in the study. Please explain it clearly in the materials and methods section in a tabular format (including and excluding criteria with search terms).
3. What are the incremental contributions of this study? Please provide the theoretical and practical contributions of this study separately in the conclusion section. For example, 5.1. Theoretical Contributions; 5.2. Practical Contributions of the Study; 5.3. Limitations and Directions for Further Studies
4. The study limitations provided in the study are not enough. Please add more study limitations for future studies.
5. Proofreading is necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved paper considering my suggestions
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the revised version. It can be accepted in its current form.
