Advances on the Photoperiodic Regulation of Plant Flowering: A Bibliometric Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and well structured. The results are well presented. The discussion effectively explains the obtained results and compares them with previous studies. The selection of literature is appropriate. However, I believe that some revisions and improvements could strengthen the manuscript.

The manuscript  is not technically well prepared according to the journal's requirements

Ensure that the keywords and the title are distinct and not repetitive

Figures are blurry and need to be fixed,

All abbreviations should be defined in the figures

Table 3 would be more transparent if a timeline is drawn in the column '2000-2023' instead of the columns 'Beginning' and 'End'.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript with the title “Advances on the photoperiodic regulation of plant flowering: a bibliometric study”, provides a detailed published literature analysis trends of photoperiodic regulation of plant flowering.

 

Abstract

The Introduction part of the abstract is too brief. It needs another 1-2 phrases that convinces the reader about the usefulness of this bibliographic study. Only then, the Results shall be presented but insisted only upon the most relevant findings that are in direct connection with the objectives. The Abstract is too cluttered with results, making the main message to be lost.

 

Introduction

 

Lines 39-76 contains paragraphs which are only presenting definitions and introduce the subject, but are not formulated in a way that gradually reveals the justification of the study. The information itself is good but here and there should be introduced phrases and sentences that hints to the importance of the topic and connects the information together leaving the reader without a doubt of why this bibliographic research is useful, or how it can be useful.

 

Only at Line 96 the justification of the literature study starts to be outlined – this paragraph should have been the first paragraph of the Introduction because is very impactful. The current first part (in large portion) of the Introduction has low impact in keeping the reader interested and anticipating the direction, usefulness and impact of the bibliographic study that is about to be presented.

 

I suggest to condense (reduce the first part between the Lines 39-95 or move it into another chapter), and expand more the paragraph from Lines 111-123. In addition to the good information presented here, a few more phrases could be insisted upon such as: how this work provides a current view on the state of knowledge in the field, how it can indicate the research trends of last few years on the topic and why it could identify gaps in knowledge that might guide future research approaches. Etc.

 

Objectives must be very well defined, as steps proposed for reaching the aim. It is not clear nor from objectives nor from Material and Method Section why author characteristics, affiliated institutions, countries and co-citation were chosen as focus for analysis. I do not see how these are connected to the aim of the study. It rather seems like authors tried to do the most with their data set but not necessary having a clear line of study in their mind.

 

 

I consider that the conclusions numbered 1, 2, 3 do not correspond to any objectives. Because no such objectives have been defined/proposed. I suggest to have clear objectives and conclusions to mirror exactly those.

 

I suggest authors to improve the reader experience that might make the paper more attractive and impactful, and approach in a critical way the findings. Currently, there is no critical voice/examination by the authors.

 

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript could benefit of moderate English style improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

 

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Advances in the photoperiodic regulation of plant flowering: a bibliometric study”. The objective of this article is to study the progress of research on the photoperiodic regulation of plant flowering through bibliometrics and to explore its mechanism and application prospects. By summarizing the results of previous research, we hope to provide useful references and insights for future research and promote further advances in the study of photoperiodic regulation of plant flowering. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be sent to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in the journal Horticulturae and requires the following adjustments:

 

This article should be submitted as a review article. Was this done?

This is

ABSTRACT

 

- Repeated sentences. See Lines 20-23. The results show that the number of publications on the photoperiodic regulation of plant flowering increases every year, with the results of Chinese, American and Japanese research being more prominent. The results show that the number of publications on the photoperiodic regulation of plant flowering is increasing every year, with the results of Chinese, American and Japanese research being the most prominent.

- I suggest replacing or deleting the keywords that are repeated in the title.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

- “nutrient growth”, what does it mean? Does this happen with the action of light? Reverse used terms and replace.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

- In Line 127 it is necessary to insert the bibliographic reference: “Mongeon and Paul-Hus...”

- At the end of the section of Line 127 it is necessary to separate using a point. There is a spelling error. Insert a period after the word Scopus.

- The subtitle “Method” should be modified. The title of the section is “method”. This way you have a title and subtitle with the same name. To reverse.

- In Figure 1, why were the Origin and Excel programs mentioned? Were they used in this study?

- Is there any reference or previous study indicating that the use of PLUS would be the best option for this work?

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

- He is well. I suggest just sending the figures in high quality as per the attached file. Some figures with relationships make it impossible to visualize the entire result.

 

CONCLUSION

- This needs to be reduced. It's very broad.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are small grammatical errors in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I examined the revised version and I consider that changes were made to the best of abilities of the authors. I have no further issues to report.

 

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Corrections have been made.