The Research Interest in ChatGPT and Other Natural Language Processing Tools from a Public Health Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis
, Andrea Maugeri, Roberta Magnano San Lio and Antonella Agodi *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript describes a bibliometric analysis to investigate ChatGPT research in the context of public health. Entering a new era of artificial intelligence, applications of emerging technologies in public health is a hot topic drawing significant interest and attention over the recent years. Among the new technologies, ChatGPT is one of the most popular tool in the context of large language models. Further research studies and development of the applications in health is critical to sustainable development. The authors’ come as a timely contribution for a systematic assessment of existing literature, which are of particular values to the future work in this evolving landscape. Overall, I have the following suggestions and comments for the authors to consider.
1.
The introduction has some well supported and incorporated literature and background illustrations. I suggest that, to further enhance the section, e.g. in ln 74-88, while describing the significance of bibliometric analysis is necessary, would authors consider adding further explanations and relevant recent studies that adopted bibliometric analysis or review in other disciplines or perspectives. How is ChatGPT being used in other disciplines, a brief summary of recent studies in other perspectives would also help for readers reference on the current work in the perspective of public health.
2.
Ln 96, would it be better to specify the year after 4th November.
3.
The figures need to be enhanced with clarity or resolution. In Figure 1 (p.4), the last part of the name of item 2 is hidden, it should show the complete wordings including the names of the subseries. Similarly for the 7th item, the whole name of the journal is broken, the current one reads “INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AN”, the full name should be provided.
4.
Ln 152 (and also abstract, ln 18), please help check if 719 is the accurate number. To me from the relevant figure 2, should the value be over 800 in year 2023?
5.
Ln 181, according to Table 2, for contributions ranging from 20 to 44 articles, the corresponding fractionalized articles should be from 3.8 to 8.3 instead of 4.1 to 8.3. Please also check.
6.
Ln 379, I suggest giving here a separate section as limitation of the current study, while there are some illustrations from ln 379, more specific explanation and details would help providing a complete reference of the current study limitations.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
this document is intended to facilitate the work of the editor and reviewers by presenting a comprehensive list of requested modifications. We are pleased to submit a revised version of the manuscript that incorporates all received comments and suggestions. The following is a detailed list outlining the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments (highlighted in yellow).
Reviewer 1
This manuscript describes a bibliometric analysis to investigate ChatGPT research in the context of public health. Entering a new era of artificial intelligence, applications of emerging technologies in public health is a hot topic drawing significant interest and attention over the recent years. Among the new technologies, ChatGPT is one of the most popular tool in the context of large language models. Further research studies and development of the applications in health is critical to sustainable development. The authors’ come as a timely contribution for a systematic assessment of existing literature, which are of particular values to the future work in this evolving landscape. Overall, I have the following suggestions and comments for the authors to consider.
1.The introduction has some well supported and incorporated literature and background illustrations. I suggest that, to further enhance the section, e.g. in ln 74-88, while describing the significance of bibliometric analysis is necessary, would authors consider adding further explanations and relevant recent studies that adopted bibliometric analysis or review in other disciplines or perspectives. How is ChatGPT being used in other disciplines, a brief summary of recent studies in other perspectives would also help for readers reference on the current work in the perspective of public health.
Authors (A): We agree with your suggestion. As requested, we have enhanced the introduction to provide a more comprehensive description of the bibliometric methodology and its scope of applications.
- Ln 96, would it be better to specify the year after 4thNovember.
A: We agree with this comment and thus we have added the specific reference to the year after the month.
- The figures need to be enhanced with clarity or resolution. In Figure 1 (p.4), the last part of the name of item 2 is hidden, it should show the complete wordings including the names of the subseries. Similarly for the 7thitem, the whole name of the journal is broken, the current one reads “INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AN”, the full name should be provided.
A: As requested, we agree with this comment and thus we have replaced the Figure 1 to enhance clarity and resolution.
- Ln 152 (and also abstract, ln 18), please help check if 719 is the accurate number. To me from the relevant figure 2, should the value be over 800 in year 2023?
A: As requested, we have verified the number and can confirm that 719 is the correct value. Thus, we have made modifications to Figure 2 to enhance clarity and comprehension.
- Ln 181, according to Table 2, for contributions ranging from 20 to 44 articles, the corresponding fractionalized articles should be from 3.8 to 8.3 instead of 4.1 to 8.3. Please also check.
A: We agree with your suggestion. As requested, we have reviewed the Table 2, by replacing 4.1 value with 3.8
6.Ln 379, I suggest giving here a separate section as limitation of the current study, while there are some illustrations from ln 379, more specific explanation and details would help providing a complete reference of the current study limitations.
A: To the best of our knowledge, the journal does not require a separate section for limitations. However, a full explanation of the main limits of our study is reported at the end of the discussion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of chatbots within the public health domain, spanning from 2010 to 2023, utilizing the Scopus database. It adheres to the conventional reporting style for such analyses, offering a comprehensive review of the research landscape surrounding chatbots. It highlights principal themes, uncovers emerging trends, and proposes directions for future studies. Nonetheless, the manuscript's relevance to its stated title raises significant concerns.
A bibliometric analysis focusing on chatbots in public health research is both relevant and timely. This paper potentially addresses the gap in understanding the specific contributions of chatbots to the field of public health.
The study aims to contribute by focusing on chatbots within public health. However, the broad search strategy risks including more than just ChatGPT’s contribution to public health, as suggested by the title.
The title implies a specific focus on ChatGPT, yet the methodology section reveals a broader search strategy encompassing various chatbots and NLP applications. This may lead to the inclusion of articles that do not directly contribute to a focused understanding of ChatGPT's role in public health, introducing irrelevant or redundant content. To address this discrepancy, the authors are advised to either
refine their search criteria to more accurately target ChatGPT-specific research within public health, or adjust the title to accurately reflect the broader scope of chatbot and NLP application research. This would enhance the study's focus and relevance. Additionally, updating the study to encompass the entirety of 2023 would ensure a complete annual dataset, as the current data coverage for 2023 is not comprehensive, ending on November 4, 2023.
In the discussion section, rather than focusing solely on ChatGPT-related papers, the authors should engage in a detailed analysis of the most cited works identified in Table 1. This would not only enrich the manuscript but also offer readers valuable insights into the field's development and current standing.
Considering "ChatGPT" only became a recognized term around 2023, employing it as a search term for a period starting in 2010 may not be justifiable. Thus, the article's title should be revised to accurately represent the search terms utilized, preventing potential misinterpretation by readers.
The references are appropriate, but the citation style did not follow that of Informatics. Please revise.
Two of the journal names in Figure 1 are truncated. Please revise.
Full journal titles should be provided instead of their abbreviated forms in Table 1.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
this document is intended to facilitate the work of the editor and reviewers by presenting a comprehensive list of requested modifications. We are pleased to submit a revised version of the manuscript that incorporates all received comments and suggestions. The following is a detailed list outlining the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments (highlighted in yellow).
Reviewer 2
The manuscript presents a bibliometric analysis of chatbots within the public health domain, spanning from 2010 to 2023, utilizing the Scopus database. It adheres to the conventional reporting style for such analyses, offering a comprehensive review of the research landscape surrounding chatbots. It highlights principal themes, uncovers emerging trends, and proposes directions for future studies. Nonetheless, the manuscript's relevance to its stated title raises significant concerns. in the field does the paper address?
A: We agree with this comment and modified the title accordingly.
A bibliometric analysis focusing on chatbots in public health research is both relevant and timely. This paper potentially addresses the gap in understanding the specific contributions of chatbots to the field of public health. The study aims to contribute by focusing on chatbots within public health. However, the broad search strategy risks including more than just ChatGPT’s contribution to public health, as suggested by the title. The title implies a specific focus on ChatGPT, yet the methodology section reveals a broader search strategy encompassing various chatbots and NLP applications. This may lead to the inclusion of articles that do not directly contribute to a focused understanding of ChatGPT's role in public health, introducing irrelevant or redundant content. To address this discrepancy, the authors are advised to either refine their search criteria to more accurately target ChatGPT-specific research within public health, or adjust the title to accurately reflect the broader scope of chatbot and NLP application research. This would enhance the study's focus and relevance. Additionally, updating the study to encompass the entirety of 2023 would ensure a complete annual dataset, as the current data coverage for 2023 is not comprehensive, ending on November 4, 2023.
A: As suggested, we revised the title to provide significant concerns regarding the manuscript's relevance and the specific field it aims to address. However, we acknowledge the timeframe considered as a potential limitation of the study, and we have addressed this in the corresponding limitation section. Regarding the period of publication under consideration, we also agree that it could be extended to the entire 2023. However, we are aware that many articles already available are not yet indexed in the databases under review. Therefore, it will be useful in the future to provide an updated analysis of this work
In the discussion section, rather than focusing solely on ChatGPT-related papers, the authors should engage in a detailed analysis of the most cited works identified in Table 1. This would not only enrich the manuscript but also offer readers valuable insights into the field's development and current standing.
A: As suggested, we have discussed the most cited works included in Table 1 within the Discussion section.
Considering "ChatGPT" only became a recognized term around 2023, employing it as a search term for a period starting in 2010 may not be justifiable. Thus, the article's title should be revised to accurately represent the search terms utilized, preventing potential misinterpretation by readers.
A: We have commented the period employed as a limitation of the study.
The references are appropriate, but the citation style did not follow that of Informatics. Please revise.
A: We revised the citation style by selecting MDPI.
Two of the journal names in Figure 1 are truncated. Please revise.
A: Done.
Full journal titles should be provided instead of their abbreviated forms in Table 1.
A: Done.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed my comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.
