Global Evolution of Research on Silvopastoral Systems through Bibliometric Analysis: Insights from Ecuador
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please attend to the observations made in the documentIt is necessary to make the wording more explicit.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
On behalf of all the authors of the article entitled: Global evolution of research on silvopastoral systems through bibliometric analysis: insights from Ecuador; I appreciate your kind comments and suggestions, as they have allowed us to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. Below we present in detail and by number of lines the changes made to the text in italics:
Reviewer 1
Restructure the summary, it does not have the basic elements.
This is part of materials and methods.
(Furthermore, Ecuadorian leaders in this field of knowledge were visualized. To achieve this objective, a two-stage quantitative and qualitative mixed methodology was used. Differences between periods were evaluated (ANOVA) and the evolution of publications was measured by regression analysis). This entire part has been moved to the materials and methods section.
Please rewrite the text to be more explicit
From lines 122 to 126 we have improved the wording of the text based on the suggestions provided.
It was already explained in materials and methods
We remove the suggested text. In addition, in line 182-182 we have made an improvement by considering making a connection to the periods previously defined in the methodology.
Please format the table and justify columns
Table 1 has been justified.
Please rewrite, it confusing
From lines 190 to 192 we have improved the Table 1, and also captions and details:
Make the graphs in a program that allows higher quality, avoid using excel to graph
Please edit the maps, at the top there is a lot of empty space and at the bottom delete the Antarctica
Dear reviewer, the map has been improved based on the suggestions made.
Its a isolated paragraph
From lines 299 to 301 we have incorporated:
“In the United States, the use of timber species such as: Pinus taeda, Ceanothus integerrimus, Acacia koa was also observed”.
Thanks, we have amended all your comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is original and the concept behind it is very interesting. It provides valuable insight into the growing interest in silvopasture in the world and can add valuable information to the literature. The study is well-designed and carried out but there are some errors in grammar and sentence structure that needs to be revised.
Please be consistent in the use of the words "Silvopastoral" or "Agrisilvopastoral" throughout the manuscript. The manuscript needs better organization of subheadings especially in the Results section as there is no consistency in word capitalization, bold, and italicizing.
Some specific comments:
Abstract
L15-L16 This sentence and the findings from the article seem contrary. The sentence needs rephrasing. Please use past tense for the methods used.
Introduction
L59-L62 This should go in the Materials and Methods Section.
Materials and Methods
L134-137 This sentence is very long. Please break it down.
Results
L162 This probably is the "Results and Discussion" section than just the "Results" section
Table 1 It is very hard to understand the findings from the table. Please reformate it in a simplified form
Figure 2 Needs an axis title and proper legends for the figure
L192-193 It is better to write the equation separately not within the paragraph so that it stands out. Maybe using equation function in word
L280 Scientific name of loblolly pine?
L288 Please use the scientific name of Eucalyptus and any others plant species at its first appearance throughout the text.
L359 Table legend should be more explanatory- eg. "Top 10 most cited papers in the silvopastoral system from 1983-2022 with 1023 citations, representing 1.07% of the total citation"
L387 Figure legend should be more explanatory so that it can stand out itself
Author Response
On behalf of all the authors of the article entitled: Global evolution of research on silvopastoral systems through bibliometric analysis: insights from Ecuador; I appreciate your kind comments and suggestions, as they have allowed us to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. Below we present in detail and by number of lines the changes made to the text in italics:
Reviewer 2
The manuscript is original and the concept behind it is very interesting. It provides valuable insight into the growing interest in silvopasture in the world and can add valuable information to the literature. The study is well-designed and carried out but there are some errors in grammar and sentence structure that needs to be revised.
Please be consistent in the use of the words "Silvopastoral" or "Agrisilvopastoral" throughout the manuscript. The manuscript needs better organization of subheadings especially in the Results section as there is no consistency in word capitalization, bold, and italicizing.
We have considered the theme "silvopasture" or "silvopastoral" system throughout the manuscript.
L15-L16 This sentence and the findings from the article seem contrary. The sentence needs rephrasing. Please use past tense for the methods used.
From lines 17 to 19 we have improved the sentence with: “Scientific studies on silvopastoral systems have experienced permanent changes oriented to best silvopasture practices, as well as to policy strategies to respond effectively to the global objectives of restoration and sustainable development”.
L59-L62 This should go in the Materials and Methods Section.
We removed the suggested text from this section.
L134-137 This sentence is very long. Please break it down.
From lines 147 to 150 we have improved the wording of the text based on the suggestions provided.
L162 This probably is the "Results and Discussion" section than just the "Results" section
Line 178 we have improved the wording of the text based on the suggestions provided.
Table 1 It is very hard to understand the findings from the table. Please reformate it in a simplified form
From lines 190 to 192 we have improved the Table 1 according to suggestions:
Figure 2 Needs an axis title and proper legends for the figure
L192-193 It is better to write the equation separately not within the paragraph so that it stands out. Maybe using equation function in word
L280 Scientific name of loblolly pine?
From lines 302 to 304 we have included an overlooked connection and additionally included the scientific name of the requested species.
L288 Please use the scientific name of Eucalyptus and any others plant species at its first appearance throughout the text.
From lines 314 to 315 we have specified the scientific name for the Eucalyptus species mentioned in the documents we have quoted in the manuscript.
L359 Table legend should be more explanatory- eg. "Top 10 most cited papers in the silvopastoral system from 1983-2022 with 1023 citations, representing 1.07% of the total citation"
From lines 386 to 387 we have better explained Table 3 according to suggestion.
L387 Figure legend should be more explanatory so that it can stand out itself
From line 418 we have better explained Table 3 according to suggestion.
Thanks, we have amended all your comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The submitted article is potentially interesting. It is useful to see the trend in publications on silvopastoral systems over the past four decades and how, broadly, the emphasis has evolved. Having said that, I am not convinced that the article is substantial enough to merit publication in a journal. In addition, there are enough flaws in the manuscript for me to question how robust the findings are.
Firstly, some general points. Out of interest I conducted a search using the same terms and Boolean operators as the authors, searching the CABI database, restricted to books, book chapters and journal articles. The curve of results returned per year was initially sigmoid in form, then exponential, agreeing more or less with the fitted regression produced by the authors (Figure 3). However, the CABI search yielded 1,168,756 results, although a cut-off point for relevance would need to be identified. This indicates that the Scopus search used by the authors must have missed out a lot of articles, probably in local and regional journals.
I take issue with the title of the article: “Insights from Ecuador” is simply not appropriate given that there were only 17 articles originating there, which was 0.3% of all results. This means that the section beginning at line 390 and ending with Table 4 is not relevant. That could be published in a local journal, if necessary.
More details are needed about how the country of research or origin of the article is determined. One paper with which I am familiar was categorized as being from the UK, but the research location and address of the first author was Costa Rica and the publisher is based in Switzerland. This leads me to wonder how many other papers are mis-categorized. The same would apply to international linkages. Surely the location of the research is the appropriate information.
The use of ANOVA to determine trends in publications over time is very strange and is inappropriate. The ANOVA adds nothing to the article and the findings are obvious and do not need an analysis. At the least a time course analysis should have been used, but the fitted regression (Figure 3) is the best option.
Secondly, some specific points:
L 15-16: The first sentence of the abstract is terrible. Evidence is needed for the ‘state of crisis’, ‘risk of disappearing’ and ‘permanent change’, and such throwaway claims do not engender confidence in the rest of the article.
L30:Llisting the MDPI journals here is not appropriate.
L59: ‘Visualized’ isn’t the correct word. ‘Characterized’ or ‘identified’ may be better.
L142-143: Isn’t year of publication an independent (determinate) variable?
L170: Table 1 is full of errors. ‘DS’ should be ‘SD’; standard deviation indicates a “typical” deviation from the mean and as such is a value not a range, thus use of ± (+/-) is incorrect; in the body of the table it is changed to +, which is also incorrect; the column headings should include ‘per year’; it is not clear what the CV tells the reader; the use of Table 1 and Figure could be considered as presenting the same data in two different ways.
L208: ‘respectively’ indicates at least two values but only one value is presented.
L227: 45 does not agree with Table 1.
L261: ‘the absence of reported populations’ should simply be ‘zero articles’.
L273: ‘benefit from a cooling’ is confusing. Should it be ‘contribute to’?
L340: ‘concentrated’ is incorrect. ‘Listed’ is better.
L369-370: Germany and UK are both 64, so they are equal second, not second and third.
L397-381: This paper should not be listed as from the UK. The publisher is Springer and the journal is based in Switzerland. Is there something wrong with the method of analysis?
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
On behalf of all the authors of the article entitled: Global evolution of research on silvopastoral systems through bibliometric analysis: insights from Ecuador; I appreciate your kind comments and suggestions, as they have allowed us to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript. Below we present in detail and by number of lines the changes made to the text in italics:
Reviewer 3
The submitted article is potentially interesting. It is useful to see the trend in publications on silvopastoral systems over the past four decades and how, broadly, the emphasis has evolved. Having said that, I am not convinced that the article is substantial enough to merit publication in a journal. In addition, there are enough flaws in the manuscript for me to question how robust the findings are.
Firstly, some general points. Out of interest I conducted a search using the same terms and Boolean operators as the authors, searching the CABI database, restricted to books, book chapters and journal articles. The curve of results returned per year was initially sigmoid in form, then exponential, agreeing more or less with the fitted regression produced by the authors (Figure 3). However, the CABI search yielded 1,168,756 results, although a cut-off point for relevance would need to be identified. This indicates that the Scopus search used by the authors must have missed out a lot of articles, probably in local and regional journals.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING COMMENT, BUT WE JUST DECIDED TO WORK WITH THE SCOPUS BASE WHICH OBVIOUSLY LEAVES OUT SOME LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
I take issue with the title of the article: “Insights from Ecuador” is simply not appropriate given that there were only 17 articles originating there, which was 0.3% of all results. This means that the section beginning at line 390 and ending with Table 4 is not relevant. That could be published in a local journal, if necessary.
In addition to the global implications, we want to elaborate a series of specific recommendations for Ecuador: expert groups and thematic areas of interest. That's why we made this section
More details are needed about how the country of research or origin of the article is determined. One paper with which I am familiar was categorized as being from the UK, but the research location and address of the first author was Costa Rica and the publisher is based in Switzerland. This leads me to wonder how many other papers are mis-categorized. The same would apply to international linkages. Surely the location of the research is the appropriate information.
Dear reviewer, the reference mentioned corresponds to the collaboration network between authors from the United Kingdom and in this case with authors from Costa Rica, and this is written in the section of collaboration networks, as well as a check of all the suggested topics has been made.
The use of ANOVA to determine trends in publications over time is very strange and is inappropriate. The ANOVA adds nothing to the article and the findings are obvious and do not need an analysis. At the least a time course analysis should have been used, but the fitted regression (Figure 3) is the best option.
He is right, the adjusted regression marks the evolution over time. but the use of ANOVA seems adequate in this case, because it marks the differences between periods (latent variable that we have built), and justifies the division that we have made when describing the differences of the agrosystem among periods.
L 15-16: The first sentence of the abstract is terrible. Evidence is needed for the ‘state of crisis’, ‘risk of disappearing’ and ‘permanent change’, and such throwaway claims do not engender confidence in the rest of the article.
From lines 17 to 19 we have changed and improved the first sentences of the abstract, and we have deleted some confusing sentences.
L30: Listing the MDPI journals here is not appropriate.
Considering this suggestion, the listing of MDPI journals was deleted.
L59: ‘Visualized’ isn’t the correct word. ‘Characterized’ or ‘identified’ may be better.
Considering this suggestion, the following sentence was deleted: “Furthermore, Ecuadorian leaders in this field of knowledge were visualized”.
L142-143: Isn’t year of publication an independent (determinate) variable?
If it has been modified in the text.
L170: Table 1 is full of errors. ‘DS’ should be ‘SD’; standard deviation indicates a “typical” deviation from the mean and as such is a value not a range, thus use of ± (+/-) is incorrect; in the body of the table it is changed to +, which is also incorrect; the column headings should include ‘per year’; it is not clear what the CV tells the reader; the use of Table 1 and Figure could be considered as presenting the same data in two different ways.
From lines 185 to 192 we have improved the redaction and the Table 1 considering the reviewer suggestions.
L208: ‘respectively’ indicates at least two values but only one value is presented.
In line 228 we have improved the redaction added: “with 9 scientific articles both years”.
L227: 45 does not agree with Table 1.
From lines 248 to 249 we have we have revised the value considering your valuable suggestions added: “with an average annual production of 139.6 articles”.
L261: ‘the absence of reported populations’ should simply be ‘zero articles’.
From lines 281 to 282 we have improved the wording considering your valuable suggestions.
L273: ‘benefit from a cooling’ is confusing. Should it be ‘contribute to’?
From lines 296 to 297 we have improved the wording considering your valuable suggestions.
L340: ‘concentrated’ is incorrect. ‘Listed’ is better.
In Line 370 the wording has been changed and the word has been improved by modifying the word including your valuable suggestion
L369-370: Germany and UK are both 64, so they are equal second, not second and third.
From lines 401 to 402 we have corrected the wording considering your valuable suggestions.
L397-381: This paper should not be listed as from the UK. The publisher is Springer and the journal is based in Switzerland. Is there something wrong with the method of analysis?
The reference mentioned corresponds to the collaboration network between authors from the United Kingdom and in this case with authors from Costa Rica. Therefore, the wording was changed to read as follows: “United Kingdom has collaborated with research focused on determining growth, production and carbon sequestration with native timber species”
Thanks, we have amended all your comments
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed most of my previous minor concerns. I am still not convinced about the Ecuadorian perspective except that some of the authors are from that country, but I accept that this is a minor issue.
Table 1 continues to be problematic. The column headings should be Publication and Citation per year. Please explain what DSI means. What do the authors mean by ±? Is that one standard deviation (SD) above and one SD below the mean? If so, the values cited after the ± symbol = 2 * SD. Or do they mean 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the (arithmetic) mean? In which case, cite it as a value in a column labelled SD. At the moment it is ambiguous and this must be clarified.
I am still not convinced about the use of ANOVA to compare ten year averages. It is analysing the obvious and the regression is sufficient as a trend analysis. I would be much happier if the ANOVA were omitted as it adds nothing to the article.
Referring to my previous report, I accept that I missed that the analysis of geographical origins of the publications was based on the affiliations of the authors, so those comments should be ignored. My apologies.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The authors have addressed most of my previous minor concerns. I am still not convinced about the Ecuadorian perspective except that some of the authors are from that country, but I accept that this is a minor issue.
Table 1 continues to be problematic. The column headings should be Publication and Citation per year. Please explain what DSI means. What do the authors mean by ±? Is that one standard deviation (SD) above and one SD below the mean? If so, the values cited after the ± symbol = 2 * SD. Or do they mean 0.5 SD above and 0.5 SD below the (arithmetic) mean? In which case, cite it as a value in a column labelled SD. At the moment it is ambiguous and this must be clarified.
The table 1 has been reworked according to your indications and the values of each column have been clarified. Likewise, the subscripts have been placed in the mean in order to avoid confusion. I think it's clearer now.
Table 1. Comparation of publications and citations per year among periods
|
Period (y) |
Publications (y) |
|
Citations (y) |
||||
|
Mean |
SD1 |
CV2 |
|
Mean1 |
SD1 |
CV2 |
|
|
I 1983-1993 |
4.3a |
3.4 |
79 |
103.7a |
72.0 |
69 |
|
|
II 1994-2003 |
25.1a |
15.0 |
60 |
718.2a |
543.6 |
76 |
|
|
III 2004-2013 |
139.6b |
61.4 |
44 |
4,503.5b |
1,496.1 |
33 |
|
|
IV 2014-2022 |
446.4c |
168.9 |
38 |
4,751.2b |
1,965.1 |
41 |
|
a, b Means with different letters show significant differences (p <0.001) among groups within the same column. 1 Standard deviation, 2 Coefficient of variation, %.
I am still not convinced about the use of ANOVA to compare ten year averages. It is analysing the obvious and the regression is sufficient as a trend analysis. I would be much happier if the ANOVA were omitted as it adds nothing to the article.
You are right and regression is enough. But the anova useful us to validate the path we are following. We believe that anova contributed in two ways
1) The stratification by periods that we carried out was correct and at least three groups (a, b and c by Ducan’s test) were validated.
2) Citations behaved differently, with only two contrasted groups (a and b)
These periods were the ones that we have used to explain the differences among period of the silvopasture system concept.
Thanks, we have amended all your comments
