Theme Mapping and Bibliometric Analysis of Two Decades of Smart Farming
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper entitled “Theme Mapping and Bibliometric Analysis of Two Decade of Smart Farming”, attempts to employ bibliometric analysis and machine learning techniques to explore smart farming trends, identify their potential benefits, and provide insights into smart farming system.
As it appears from studying the paper although its content is quite interesting and addresses to the readership of the Journal, there are some issues in which the authors should put more effort:
1. The introduction section seems to be rather confusing for the readership. It involves several heterogeneous topics related to the field of agriculture but fails to substantiate the importance of this work for the gain of knowledge. What makes this approach “unique” (as stated in line 106) in comparison to other bibliometric analysis works? The authors should provide more information on this issue.
2. Section 2 referring to the “Overview of Smart Farming System” seems to be rather short and superficial listing some of the technologies related to smart farming. Important cutting-edge technologies such as cyber physical systems, communication protocols (e.g. LPWAN and 5G), wireless sensor and actuator networks as well as autonomous robotics and machinery, artificial intelligence and machine learning are left aside. In addition, Figure 1 is presented in rather low resolution and has to be replaced. It is strongly advised that this sector should be further processed and elaborated since it appears to be the main aspect of interest for this study.
3. Since “Smart Farming” tends to be attributed in the international scientific literature also with the terms “Smart Agriculture”, “Digital Agriculture” and “Agriculture 4.0”, the authors should extend their criteria to include these terms as well. It is also noted that tends to be a common practice to attribute the term “Smart Farming” to the livestock sector and this has to be also taken into consideration by the authors.
4. The key-terms in each cluster for the periods 1997-2021 are strongly suggested to be broadened. Terms such as “cloud computing”, “middleware”, “big data”, “decision support systems”, “communication protocols”, “wireless sensor and actuator networks – WSANs), “integrated farm management”, should be included. To this end some works on these aspects may be of help:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/s21175922
- https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030813
- https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIBD.2019.8836982
- https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSCET.2018.8537275
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.10.009
- https://doi.org/10.1109/SmartIoT52359.2021.00053
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.001
5. The conclusion section is rather generic. The findings of the review and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations on the subject of research should be also further highlighted.
6. Figure A4 is of no scientific interest.
7. The paper is written in appropriate English language according to the standards of the Journal, however some moderate spell and syntax checking is required.
Moderate spell and syntax checking is required for this manuscript.
Author Response
Original Manuscript ID: Information-2408353
Original Article Title: “Theme Mapping and Bibliometric Analysis of Two Decade of Smart Farming”
To: MDPI Information
Re: Response to reviewers
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes (Word main document).
In the new manuscript, we rechecked the English and have made a careful revision to ensure that this current paper is clearer and easier for the reader.
Best regards,
<Tri Kushartadi> et al.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper performs a bibliometric analysis using machine learning to explore various areas of Smart Agriculture relative to the current digital revolution Agriculture 4.0.
The motivation of the research come from the projected increase in population, which demands an increase in food production, therefore it is important to drive improvements in the agriculture production rates.
A corpus was constructed from Scopus English papers, then preprocessed and clustered by keywords and key phrases using K-Means. It is unclear how the Naïve Bayes method for refining was applied, please rewrite that section (as it seems inconsistent) and provide more details. Also no metrics are provided for the classification and NLP experiments.
The bibliometric analysis using Richards curve extrapolation projects an increasing trend. In the paper abstract it is stated that IoT saturation is predicted to occur in 2108, but this is not explained in the paper at all. Table 1 seems to present only interpolation results, would need more info on the extrapolation.
Also top 10 productive institution in this field were identified and top 8 journals/publications for this domain, and a top of countries is performed, and other tops are discussed which are very interesting and useful.
The NLP analysis finds the most frequently occurring keywords in the research: 'Internet of Things', followed by 'Agriculture Robot' and 'Blockchain'. VOS graphs are also displayed.
The research findings and overall paper provide significant contributions in the field. However, some clarifications on the claims would be required.
Please check the language, some verbal forms are wrong or incomplete, some works have different meaning and some phrasings are confusing which might lead to misunderstandings of the research.
Examples of typos and other:
- Line 66: and probably extra
- Line 68 (and others) – I recommend to phrase the review paper by Author et al. [10] or similar phrasing rather then review [10] when using references which are numbered.
- Line 70 – review … highlights
- Line 78 – perhaps use the same tense everywhere (examines/examined)
- Line 110 – paper is as follows; section 2 outlines etc.
- Please improve quality of figure 1
- Line 131 – are transmitted ?
- Line 136 intelligence/intelligent manner? (adjective rather than noun?)
- Figure 4 caption is for top articles or journals/publications ?
Author Response
Original Manuscript ID: Information-2408353
Original Article Title: “Theme Mapping and Bibliometric Analysis of Two Decade of Smart Farming”
To: MDPI Information
Re: Response to reviewers
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes (Word main document).
In the new manuscript, we rechecked the English and have made a careful revision to ensure that this current paper is clearer and easier for the reader.
Best regards,
<Tri Kushartadi> et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revision was satisfactory. I have no further remarks on your work.
Author Response
Original Manuscript ID: Information-2408353
Original Article Title: “Theme Mapping and Bibliometric Analysis of Two Decade of Smart Farming”
To: MDPI Information
Re: Response to reviewers
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our work and providing your feedback. We appreciate your positive response and I'm glad to hear that the revision was satisfactory. Your acknowledgment of the improvements made is encouraging.
We would like to express my gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing my work. Your valuable comments and suggestions have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of the paper. Your expertise and guidance have been invaluable throughout this process.
If you have any further questions or need additional information, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'm more than willing to address any concerns or provide any clarification necessary.
Once again, thank you for your thorough review and your kind words. Your feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to have received your guidance.
Best regards,
<Tri Kushartadi> et al.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper performs a bibliometric analysis using machine learning to explore various areas of Smart Agriculture relative to the current digital revolution Agriculture 4.0. The motivation of the research come from the projected increase in population, which demands an increase in food production, therefore it is important to drive improvements in the agriculture production rates.
A corpus was constructed from Scopus English papers, then preprocessed and clustered by keywords and key phrases. The bibliometric analysis using Richards curve extrapolation projects an increasing trend.
Also top 10 productive institution in this field were identified and top 8 journals/publications for this domain, and a top of countries is performed, and other tops are discussed which are very interesting and useful. The NLP analysis finds the most frequently occurring keywords in the research: 'Internet of Things', followed by 'Agriculture Robot' and 'Blockchain'. VOS graphs are also displayed.
The research findings and overall paper provide significant contributions in the field.
General proofreading is advised.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thorough evaluation and positive feedback on our paper. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the research's motivation and its contribution to the field. Your comment about the projected increase in population and the subsequent need for enhanced food production resonates with the core objective of our study. We aimed to explore various aspects of Smart Agriculture in relation to the ongoing digital revolution, Agriculture 4.0, and your acknowledgement of the importance of driving improvements in agricultural production rates reinforces the relevance of our research. The construction of a corpus from Scopus English papers, along with the preprocessing and clustering of keywords and key phrases, formed the foundation of our bibliometric analysis. We are pleased that you found the application of Richards curve extrapolation to project an increasing trend in our analysis noteworthy. Additionally, we are glad that you found the identification of the top 10 productive institutions, top 8 journals/publications, and the top countries in this domain to be interesting and useful. Our intention was to provide a comprehensive overview of the field and the NLP analysis played a crucial role in identifying the most frequently occurring keywords, such as 'Internet of Things,' 'Agriculture Robot,' and 'Blockchain.' The inclusion of VOS graphs further enhanced the visual representation of the research landscape. We are grateful for your acknowledgment of the significant contributions made by our research findings and the overall paper. Your positive feedback validates our efforts and encourages us to continue exploring advancements in Smart Agriculture.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time, expertise, and constructive evaluation of our work. If you have any further suggestions or recommendations, please feel free to share them with us.
Thank you for your feedback and for bringing up the issue regarding the quality of English language in our paper. We appreciate your suggestion for general proofreading.
We acknowledge the importance of ensuring a high standard of English language in our manuscript. We will carefully review and revise the paper to address any grammatical errors, sentence structure issues, and overall language clarity. We understand that these aspects are crucial for effective communication and the overall readability of the paper. To improve the quality of the English language, we will use Grammarly software. Their software will help us refine the language and ensure that the paper meets the required standards. We genuinely appreciate your valuable input in identifying this aspect that requires attention. Your feedback will undoubtedly contribute to enhancing the overall quality of the paper.
If you have any specific suggestions or recommendations for improvement, please do not hesitate to let us know. We are committed to addressing any language-related issues and enhancing the readability of the manuscript.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and for helping us improve the quality of our work.
Best regards,
Tri Kushartadi et all
