Bibliometric Analysis of the Research (2000–2020) on Land-Use Carbon Emissions Based on CiteSpace

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The title of the manuscript should be revised as "Bibliometric Analysis of the Research (2000-2020) on Land Use Carbon Emissions based on Citespace".

2. The abstract need to be revised and improved by excluding unnecessary statements such as "Collaborative research across institutions and regions needs to be further strengthened." and "Finally, the research and development of land use carbon emissions are discussed,"

3. Keywords: add the following keywords for global multidisciplinary readership: research hotspot; research frontiers; cluster analysis.

4. check some of the typo and spelling errors in the manuscript for example in introduction section line 40 "hign" is written which should be replaced by "high".

5. Data acquisition and Methods: enlist the parameters of screening 7877 pieces of literature and limit them to 7409. what filters and shortlisting criteria were applied to exclude more than 400 articles of literature?

6. Section Data acquisition and Methods: sentence structure and grammar error: sentence must be rephrased and it should not be started with "through". revise the statement accordingly.

7. section Results: how many are the few papers published from 2000 to 2009? write the accurate number to present the results in the best way and also support your data with a table or graph.

8. Results: What is flattened? write the range of the number of published papers from 2011 to 2020. support your results with exact numerical data. Additionally, mention the relevant figure in your results like (Figure 1).

9. Results: Mention the details of early cooperative research and the range of recent years. The results are presented in a vague manner. Clearly highlight and write the exact numbers and range of data.

10. Results: it is better to compare the number of published papers and write the year rather than using terms of recent years and more papers.

11. Results: The recent year terminology is frequently used and it doesn't reflect the range of years. Try to write the range of years from year -----to ------ to specify the time period.

 12. Results: Figure 5. I can not see any label for the two clusters which are located on the left of the figure. label or tag them accordingly to enhance the understanding of the collaboration network.

13. Results: Figure 6: Some of the font sizes are too small to be visible. redraw or resize the figure to improve the data visibility.

14. Results: repetition of statement. Try to avoid repeating data in the results section, especially in subsection 3.3.1. see the annotated file for details.

15. Results: Figure 7. Revise the figure cluster located at the top of the cluster. There are numerous points that are not mentioned about the keywords co-occurrence. 

16. Results: Figure 9 and Figure 10 draw the figures separately, place them vertically above and below (not side by side) and increase the font size as the text in the cluster map is not visible clearly.

17. Discussion: poorly written discussion section. it must relate and be coherent with the results and must be done comparative outcome of the study.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. They are constructive and helpful to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript. We have now revised our manuscript accordingly.  All the changes have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.  Please refer to the attachment for point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments:

Thank you for giving an opportunity to review the following article- Analysis and Visualization of Research on Land Use Carbon 2 Emissions from 2001 to 2020 Based on Cite Space, however the following minor corrections were notices during my observation.

(1)    Abstract- Focused particularly object based. No need to number wise output. Overall gist already given- good findings

(2)    Introduction- Authors have used qualitative and quantitative selected data. Please try to more if possible with some more recent references.  

(3)    Methodology-  Clear methodology provided by authors

(4)    Results- Please improves figures. Figures should be clear visible in the manuscript. It is reflecting overall findings of manuscript. Figures no. 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

(5)     All data have been taken on the basis 10 key-words. Please again check carefully your clusters and improve it.  Overall findings are good.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. They are constructive and helpful to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript. We have now revised our manuscript accordingly.  All the changes have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.  Please refer to the attachment for point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have significantly improved the manuscript.  However,  minor revision and enhancements are still required in abstract and discussion sections.

Please include subsections of discussion to highlight the key areas of discussion and abstract section should include global significance of the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your kind and constructive comments on our manuscript. They are helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the abstract and added the global significance of the study, and we have supplemented subsections to highlight the key areas of discussion. All the changes have been highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx