Artificial Intelligence and Pediatrics: Synthetic Knowledge Synthesis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My recommendations are the following:

In abstract-

Line 16-17 I recommend that (SKS) be mentioned in parentheses at the end of the sentence.

I recommend the concrete detailing of what synthetic knowledge synthesis represents.

I recommend mentioning the conclusion reached after this review.

I recommend expanding the Introduction section with relevant aspects covered in this review.

Line 23-24 - bibliographic index 1 is mentioned, but in the abstract the first sentence is identical without mentioning the index. I recommend reformulating the first sentence from the abstract.

Following the analysis of this article, neither in the title nor in the abstract are the targeted aspects, namely weight loss and motivation, mentioned. The conclusions do not respect the title and the abstract.

I recommend to justify why only the Scopus database was taken into account.

According to lines 43-51 where the questions regarding the purpose of this review are presented, this structuring is not respected in the organization of the study. I recommend that the subsections presented in section 3 Results, be reorganized according to the aim of the review.

The conclusions are too general, I recommend rewriting.

I recommend rewriting the title depending on the aspects concerned. 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and useful comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. They have enabled us to raise the quality of the manuscript significantly. Each suggested revision and comment was incorporated and considered. Please see our changes highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

Line 16-17 I recommend that (SKS) be mentioned in parentheses at the end of the sentence.

Corrected

I recommend the concrete detailing of what synthetic knowledge synthesis represents.

The synthetic knowledge synthesis is presented in lines 36-46

I recommend mentioning the conclusion reached after this review.

The conclusion has been completely rewritten

I recommend expanding the Introduction section with relevant aspects covered in this review.

The introduction has been expanded

Line 23-24 - bibliographic index 1 is mentioned, but in the abstract the first sentence is identical without mentioning the index. I recommend reformulating the first sentence from the abstract.

The first sentence in the abstract was rewritten.

Following the analysis of this article, neither in the title nor in the abstract are the targeted aspects, namely weight loss and motivation, mentioned. The conclusions do not respect the title and the abstract.

The conclusion has been completely rewritten to better reflect the study content

I recommend to justify why only the Scopus database was taken into account.

A paragraph containing justification why Scopus was used as a bibliographic database was added

According to lines 43-51 where the questions regarding the purpose of this review are presented, this structuring is not respected in the organization of the study. I recommend that the subsections presented in section 3 Results, be reorganized according to the aim of the review.

The results section has been reorganized to follow the research questions

The conclusions are too general, I recommend rewriting.

The conclusion has been completely rewritten to be more specific and informative

The manuscript was proof read by MDPI editorial service

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a promising topic. However, the authors need to make extensive revisions to meet the publication requirements.

1.     There are many language problems. For example, the title of Table 1 is “research literature on motivation in obesity and overweight”. Please polish the language carefully and reorganize the contents.

2.     Line 93-95: According to previous studies, both Scopus and Web of Science are widely used in bibliometric analysis. Please use previous studies to justify your choice.

3.     Line 97-104: Please justify your search strategy.

4.     Table 1: the coverage expansion of databases is one important reason for the sudden growth of publications. One latest study in Scientometrics may be useful. You can explain your findings more roundly.

Liu, W., Ni, R. & Hu, G. Web of Science Core Collection’s coverage expansion: the forgotten Arts & Humanities Citation Index?. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04917-w

5.     Line 139-145: one study found the funding data quality problem in Scopus; you should mention this to the readers as one of the limitations of your study.

Liu, W. Accuracy of funding information in Scopus: a comparative case study. Scientometrics 124, 803–811 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03458-w

6.     Line 298-301: what does n=52 mean?

7.     Please state the shortcomings and contributions of your research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Should be polished

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and useful comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. They have enabled us to raise the quality of the manuscript significantly. Each suggested revision and comment was incorporated and considered. Please see our changes highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

There are many language problems. For example, the title of Table 1 is “research literature on motivation in obesity and overweight”. Please polish the language carefully and reorganize the contents.

The paper was edited by MDPI English language editing services

Line 93-95: According to previous studies, both Scopus and Web of Science are widely used in bibliometric analysis. Please use previous studies to justify your choice.

The justification for using Scopus as a bibliographic dataset was added

Line 97-104: Please justify your search strategy.

The justification  was added

Table 1: the coverage expansion of databases is one important reason for the sudden growth of publications. One latest study in Scientometrics may be useful. You can explain your findings more roundly.

Very interesting papers. We took their findings into account.

Line 298-301: what does n=52 mean?

Explained. The n represents the number of countries with which a certain country co-operates.

 Please state the shortcomings and contributions of your research.

Added

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved.

1.     Line 156-160: Why do some agencies attach country of origin information and some don't?

2.     Line 177-184: Why do some funding agencies attach country of origin information and some don't?

3.     Figure 2: Please merge phrases with their variations (such as “mri” and “magnetic resonance imaging”).

4.     Two “3.2” sections exist. Line 188 and Line 309.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

should be polished.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive and useful comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. They have enabled us to raise the quality of the manuscript significantly. Each additional suggested revision and comment was incorporated and considered. Please see our changes highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript.

 

1.Line 156-160: Why do some agencies attach country of origin information and some don't?

The country names were added

2.Line 177-184: Why do some funding agencies attach country of origin information and some don't?

The country names were added

3.Figure 2: Please merge phrases with their variations (such as “mri” and “magnetic resonance imaging”).

Done

4.Two “3.2” sections exist. Line 188 and Line 309.

Corrected