A Bibliometric Analysis of the Impact of Ecological Restoration on Carbon Sequestration in Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would suggest the authors to describe the methods part in more detail. It is not clear at all. You can refer to and cite the following publications:

AKIN, M., Eyduran, S. P., & KRAUTER, V. (2023). Food Packaging Related Research Trends in the Academic Discipline of Food Science and Technology: A Bibliometric Analysis. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy, 100046.

I will also suggest to provide more information on the bibliometric approaches used. You can find the related information on the aforementioned citations.

To retrieve the data you have used the following search in WoS:

TS=“(Ecological restoration and (Ecosystem OR Ecosystems) and (Carbon sink OR Carbon sequestration OR Carbon stock OR Carbon storage OR Carbon)) OR (Restoration ecology and (Ecosystem OR Ecosystems) and (Carbon sink OR Carbon sequestration OR Carbon stock OR Carbon storage OR Carbon)) 

When I enter this on the Topic search field, I am getting an Error on the search. So, please provide the search in an exact way you have used it.

After I made the required corrections on the search, I ended up with 1352 papers not 1566, after removing Review papers published until 2022 year. Check this also.

Line 191: If the earliest publication is from 1996, why the time span is set to 1991-2022?

Moderate corrections required.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments on “A bibliometric analysis of the impact of ecological restoration on carbon sequestration in ecosystems” (forests-2455967)

Your comments are very much appreciated and helped improve the manuscript significantly. We responded to all the comments and made all the requested changes. Those changes are highlighted with yellow color in the revised manuscript. In the following section, we explained in detail how we responded to each of the comments by repeating the comment and then give a response (blue color) just below it.

I would suggest the authors to describe the methods part in more detail. It is not clear at all. You can refer to and cite the following publications:

AKIN, M., Eyduran, S. P., & KRAUTER, V. (2023). Food Packaging Related Research Trends in the Academic Discipline of Food Science and Technology: A Bibliometric Analysis. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy, 100046.

Response: Thank you for the reviewers' recommendations. We have duly considered the cited literature in the methodology section and have made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Px: “Typically, bibliometrics is employed as a systematic review method to conduct statistical analysis of scientific literature(Akin et al., 2023). "Research progress and hotspots on the impact of ecological restoration on the carbon storage of ecosystems" is an area that has mainly employed the method of "scientific knowledge mapping" to present its research progress and hotspots. ”

I will also suggest to provide more information on the bibliometric approaches used. You can find the related information on the aforementioned citations.

To retrieve the data you have used the following search in WoS:

TS=“(Ecological restoration and (Ecosystem OR Ecosystems) and (Carbon sink OR Carbon sequestration OR Carbon stock OR Carbon storage OR Carbon)) OR (Restoration ecology and (Ecosystem OR Ecosystems) and (Carbon sink OR Carbon sequestration OR Carbon stock OR Carbon storage OR Carbon)) 

When I enter this on the Topic search field, I am getting an Error on the search. So, please provide the search in an exact way you have used it.

After I made the required corrections on the search, I ended up with 1352 papers not 1566, after removing Review papers published until 2022 year. Check this also.

Response: The method I employ to conduct journal searches is as follows :TS= “(Ecological restoration and (Ecosystem OR Ecosystems) and (Carbon sink OR Carbon sequestration OR Carbon stock OR Carbon storage OR Carbon)) OR (Restoration ecology and (Ecosystem OR Ecosystems) and (Carbon sink OR Carbon sequestration OR Carbon stock OR Carbon storage OR Carbon))”The time span covered is from 1996 to 2022, and the publication dates range from January 1, 1996 to December 21, 2022. I exclusively search for scholarly literature of the research paper genre. Simultaneously, I will incorporate the raw data utilized in the research paper as supplementary material for the reviewers' perusal.

Line 191: If the earliest publication is from 1996, why the time span is set to 1991-2022?

Response: All authors have thoroughly examined the revised manuscript, carefully reviewing and rectifying similar errors and issues.

Px: “The time span was set to 1996-2022 with a time slice of "1". The node type was set as "Keyword" and other parameters were kept as default.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I feel this paper is more appropriate as a commentary rather than as a peer-reviewed research paper.   As a review- it is more a review of the metadata for the papers considered than a review of the state of knowledge in the field.  There is far less discussion of the advances made in understanding or the ability to measure and monitor impacts on the carbon cycle than one would expect from a review.                      

Overall the English was quite strong.  There were some minor issues ie spelling and odd word choices for example 2 Data sources and Rsesarch methods. 

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments on “A bibliometric analysis of the impact of ecological restoration on carbon sequestration in ecosystems” (forests-2455967)

Your comments are very much appreciated and helped improve the manuscript significantly. We responded to all the comments and made all the requested changes. Those changes are highlighted with yellow color in the revised manuscript. In the following section, we explained in detail how we responded to each of the comments by repeating the comment and then give a response (blue color) just below it.

I feel this paper is more appropriate as a commentary rather than as a peer-reviewed research paper.   As a review- it is more a review of the metadata for the papers considered than a review of the state of knowledge in the field.  There is far less discussion of the advances made in understanding or the ability to measure and monitor impacts on the carbon cycle than one would expect from a review. Overall the English was quite strong.  There were some minor issues ie spelling and odd word choices for example 2 Data sources and Rsesarch methods.                    

Response: Ecological restoration, as a vital means of effectively enhancing the carbon sink of ecosystems, is currently the subject of active research by scientists. In this study, the CiteSpace literature visualization software was employed to conduct data mining on 1566 research articles from 1996 to 2022, focusing on the impact of ecological restoration on ecosystem carbon reservoirs, as recorded in the Web of Science core database. the development of research findings on the impact of ecological restoration on the carbon reservoirs of ecosystems is progressing rapidly.

Some spelling and word corrections have been made in the English language aspect. If necessary, a specialized institution will be engaged for proofreading and polishing after finalizing the manuscript.

Px: “2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Materials

2.2 Methods”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The review comments were addressed.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

English language touch-ups have been performed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx