Extended Bibliometric Review of Technical Challenges in Mariculture Production and Research Hotspot Analysis
, Marija Koričan 1, Manuela Vukić 1, Ivan Ćatipović 1 and Ailong Fan 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following modifications are suggested:
1. Introduction: The amount of aquaculture production and other quantities should be supported with reports such as UN, WHO or USEPA.
2. Provide the source of data for Figure 1.
3. A list of abbreviations can be provided at the end.
4. Please confirm that the author has permission to use any figure or table directly from other references such as Figure 3 and others.
5. The format of all tables and figures should be consistent throughout the manuscript.
6. The conclusion part is too long. It should be revised and presented with important statements. Please remove general statements from this part.
7. A separate section of “Future prospects” should be added for better understanding.
Author Response
Our replies are given in the enclosed file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the studies on offshore aquaculture technology. Such an analysis is achieved based on the data on Web of Science platform according to the keywords, citations, journals, and other factors. This study does help to point out the hotspot issues and challenges encountered by the offshore aquaculture industry. However, although plenty of references have been reviewed and studied, it is still difficult to reflect the real research status just according to the keywords, citations, etc. Some important trends are either missing or not fully covered in this study, such as the emerging trend for powering the offshore aquaculture facilities using the offshore wind or wave energy. This is also the sustainable and green aquaculture production at sea. One example can be found in the following references:
(1) Liu, H., Chen, M., Han, Z., Zhou, H., & Li, L. (2022). Feasibility study of a novel open ocean aquaculture ship integrating with a wind turbine and an internal turret mooring system. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(11), 1729.
The following specific comments need to be addressed before its possible publication at Applied Sciences:
(1) The content before line 146 appears overall chaotic, with poor correlation between paragraphs.
(2) The format of images, tables, and their titles should be centered, such as Figure 2, Figure 4, Table 1, etc.
(3) The key quantitative selection in the article was not fully explained, such as "2.2 Data collection "refers to" a surveyed and comprehensive bibliographic database ".
(4) The image data description is not appropriate, for example, the 2017 citations in Figure 8 are 0.
(5) The abstract is incomplete, and the article spent a lot of time on CiteSpace and VOSviewer, but it was not mentioned in the abstract.
(6) The abstract of this manuscript has many details about the research methodology, but doesn't illustrate the purpose, results and conclusion of the study；
(7) The meaning of Figure 4 is very limited, which may be deleted.
(8) Content overlapping, too much introduction about CiteSpace and VOSviewer；
(9) The title of Figure 8 should clearly point out the theme object of the content of the picture.
The english can be improved for this manuscript. Indeed, the important things are not the english grammar problem but the stylistic and structural issue of the whole article.
Author Response
Our replies are given in the enclosed file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have already fully addressed my concerns. Personally speaking, I think the revised version is fine for publication.
