Bibliometric Studies as a Publication Strategy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Introduction: The introduction provides a solid foundation for the topic but could benefit from additional references to give a more comprehensive view of previous research on bibliometric studies as a publication strategy. Including more recent studies or diverse contexts would help position the manuscript better within the current literature.

• Research Design: The overall design is appropriate for the research questions posed. However, there is an opportunity to provide more clarity on why the Scopus database was chosen as the sole source for the analysis. A brief discussion of potential biases or limitations due to using a single database would strengthen the methodological rigor.

• Methods: While the methods are generally well described, they could be enhanced by further elaborating on the selection criteria for the authors included in the analysis. It might also be useful to explain the choice of specific bibliometric indicators (e.g., h-index, citation count) in more depth and how they align with the study's goals.

• Results Presentation: The results are clearly presented and well-structured. However, some of the figures, particularly the scatter plots, could benefit from additional commentary to guide readers through the key takeaways. For example, providing more detailed interpretations of the co-authorship networks would enhance the reader’s understanding of collaboration patterns.

• Conclusion: The conclusions are well supported by the results, but the discussion could be broadened to suggest future directions for research. Mentioning the implications of these findings for other fields or suggesting how these insights could inform publication strategies in other disciplines would enrich the manuscript’s impact.

• English Quality: While the English is generally clear, some sentences are overly complex and could be simplified to improve readability. Consider rephrasing certain parts to enhance the flow and make the manuscript more accessible to a wider audience.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is generally good, and it does not hinder the understanding of the research. However, there are some areas where clarity could be improved. Certain sentences are overly complex and could be simplified to improve the overall readability of the manuscript. Rephrasing some sections and using more direct language would enhance the flow and make the text easier to follow for a broader audience.

Author Response

Please, see the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
The text contains some imperfections, which will be mentioned below. My aim is to help you
see these imperfections so that your writing skills are put to use and your work becomes more
interesting, easier to read and more professional.
General evaluation, comments, indications, areas of content addition or content modification:

1. Evaluation of the content and structure of the article.
The article focuses on the phenomenon of publishing bibliometric analysis as a publishing
strategy. In terms of structure, the article is well organized. The introduction combines the
author's personal thoughts with the scientific context, which gives the text an interesting tone.
The “Materials and Methods” section is detailed and precise, describing step-by-step how the
data were collected and analyzed, as well as the tools used to visualize the results. The
“Results” section provides a thoughtful presentation of the data with a breakdown of citation
rates and author collaborations, strengthening the substantive value of the paper.
The “Conclusion” section is too small, indicating that it should be expanded with areas should
be indicated by outlining their importance in the manuscript presented.

2. Assessment of merit.
The article makes a valuable contribution to research on publication strategy, especially in the
context of the growing interest in bibliometrics in Asian countries. The analysis shows that
specialization in publishing bibliometric analysis can bring success, including faster
acquisition of citations.
From a critical point of view, the article highlights a certain routine in the production of
bibliometric analyses, which is an apt observation in an era of widespread access to analytical
tools and methodological guidelines. Emphasizing that bibliometrics for individual journals
often amounts to the mechanical application of well-known methods, it brings an important
commentary on creativity and originality in this type of research.

3. Strengths of the manuscript.
- Topicality of the topic - the growing trend of interest in bibliometric analysis, which is a
response to the current needs of science and scientific publications. The topic has the potential
to interest the reader.
- clear methodology - methods of data collection and analysis are well described, taking into
account selected criteria, indicators and analytical tools.
- results supported by data,
- the manuscript brings important insights into the role of bibliometric analysis in researchers'
publication strategy.
- analysis of international collaborations - the manuscript identifies and maps co-authorship
networks between authors, which is an interesting and valuable element showing the
international nature of bibliometric publications.

4. Recommended additions and weaknesses of the manuscript.
a) add a reflection on ethics - it is worth considering a section discussing the potential dangers
of publishing numerous bibliometric analyses as a strategy - for example, whether mass
publication of such studies leads to dilution of scientific and qualitative values.
b) Emphasize innovative contributions - since the author recognizes that analyzing a single
journal is a routine task, more emphasis could be placed on the importance of the study in
terms of identifying trends and developing co-authorship networks. This would make the
article more innovative.
c) shortening the introduction - the introduction is too long, the author describes his editorial
experience and considerations for acceptability of publication, it should be shortened to make
the manuscript more substantive.
d) no reference to potential limitations - an indication of limitations would increase the
transparency and credibility of the results and make it easier for readers to assess to what
extent the results are representative and whether they can be generalized.
e) poor reference to existing literature - a more extensive literature review on the use of
bibliometric analysis as a publication strategy in different countries should be added.
Examples from the literature could enrich the context in which the author analyzes the results
and help readers better understand the specifics of the phenomenon discussed.
f) lack of practical recommendations - it would be useful to consider how to locate practical
recommendations for researchers and journal editors in the body of the manuscript.
Suggestions on how to use the results of the study in practice could make the work more
useful and valuable. Please complete.
g) too small and poor conclusion - please expand the conclusion with relevant areas indicated
by outlining their significance in the manuscript presented.

5 Conclusion.
The manuscript has a good scientific basis and brings valuable information on publication
strategies based on bibliometric analysis. However, the work needs several additions to make
it more innovative, clear and of practical value.
If the author made modifications that would add a deeper reflection on the ethical and
qualitative implications of such a strategy, the article would be more comprehensive and
useful for both researchers and scientific editors.

Regards,
Reviewer.

Author Response

Please, see the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments. Acceptance of revised manuscript.