Zinc Deficiency in Calcareous Soils: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1989 to 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper summarizes studies on Zn deficiency in calcareous soils during the last 36 years. It is a very interesting and comprehensive manuscript, ‘a source of sources’ of studies of this topic. The biggest issue is the ‘discussion’ section which should be more profound, now half of is a repetition of results description (more detailed comments below).

1.      Line 16 (and further): What do you mean by ‘scientific production’? A peculiar term. Maybe ‘scientific research’ would be more suitable? Same with terms like ‘producing papers’. It is not a process of producing. It is a research process. Calling it’ production’ diminish the scientific aspects.

2.      Lines 42-43: “This soil type (…) is commonly found in arid and semi-arid regions due to its low leaching capacity” – so the content of soil CaCO3 depends mainly on soil low leaching capacity? And not, for example, the content of CaCO3 in the parent material?

3.      Line 50: What do you mean by ‘Zn efficiency in crops’? Please be more specific. Especially that too high levels of Zn are toxic, so one should be very careful with managing this element.

4.      Lines 51-51: Malnutrition of what?

5.      Lines 65-71: I suggest redefining the aim of the study. It looks like you did this research only because there was no bibliometric studies of Zn deficiency in calcareous soils. But why Zn? And why only in calcareous soils? Is it important? Who could use your results?

6.      Line 125: Please be more specific. A constant growth on literature in general? Or on the topic?

7.      Figure 1: Please be more specific with the captions, so maybe something like ‘number of publications per year’.

8.      Table 2: footnote (line 172): it should be between ‘50 and 99’. Could you add countries to all institutions?

9.      Line 205: In which list? It’s not included neither in table 3 nor figure 3.

10.   Line 214: Which exactly? 17 with 100 and more citations? Or with uncited ones? It is important to be precise here because later you describe an average citation per article, so which numbers did you take into the calculations?

11.   Lines 219-220 and table 3: The proper name of the journal is “Environmental Geochemistry and Health” (no comma after environmental).

12.   Lines 220-222: And what is the connection with Zn deficiency in calcareous soils?

13.   Figure 4: Please use a proper form for names and surnames (first letter of name/surname should be a capital letter). Also, sometimes you use the full name and sometimes only the first letter, sometimes there are followed by dots, sometimes not. It should be unified.

14.   Lines 293-303: While listing the names of the scientists from a cluster I suggest starting with the name included in the fig. 4. It would be easier to follow the graph.

15.   Fig. 5: Please use capitalise the first letters of the countries’ names.

16.   England is not a country.

17.   Lines 349-387: It looks more like a discussion of your results than description. You are referring here a lot of other studies, which is good, but does not match this section.

18.   On the other hand, much of the discussion section is a results description (lines 400-419, 427-438), most repeated from the section ‘results’. In the ‘discussion’ section you should give a context to the results and try to explain relationships showed in the ‘results’ section.

19.   Lines 447-448: You should cite here a figure you are referring to. Same in line 457.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and suggestions 1-19

1. Page 1, Line 16 (and further): What do you mean by ‘scientific production’? A peculiar term. Maybe ‘scientific research’ would be more suitable? Same with terms like ‘producing papers’. It is not a process of producing. It is a research process. Calling it’ production’ diminish the scientific aspects.

Author Response. Page 1, Line 16. The term 'scientific production' is deemed correct because the bibliographic records of the collected documents include reviews, which are not typically considered scientific articles. In contrast, the term 'scientific research' encompasses scientific articles, scientific notes and essays, but not review articles. Therefore, 'scientific production' is used to refer to both review articles and scientific articles.  

2. Page1, Lines 42-43: “This soil type (…) is commonly found in arid and semi-arid regions due to its low leaching capacity” – so the content of soil CaCO₃ depends mainly on soil low leaching capacity? And not, for example, the content of CaCO₃ in the parent material?

Author Response. Page 2, Lines 49-52. In this section, the necessary precision was added in response to the comment observed in the text.

3. Page 2, Line 50: What do you mean by ‘Zn efficiency in crops’? Please be more specific. Especially that too high levels of Zn are toxic, so one should be very careful with managing this element.

Author Response. Page 2, line 67. In this section, the necessary precision was added in response to the comment observed in the text.

4. Page 2, Lines 51-51: Malnutrition of what?

Author Response. Page 2, line 68. The necessary precision was added in this section in response to the comment observed in the text.

5. Page 2, Lines 65-71: I suggest redefining the aim of the study. It looks like you did this research only because there was no bibliometric studies of Zn deficiency in calcareous soils. But why Zn? And why only in calcareous soils? Is it important? Who could use your results?

Author Response. Page 2, Lines 87-92. The objective was modified as shown in the revised text.

6. Page 3, Line 125: Please be more specific. A constant growth on literature in general? Or on the topic?

Author Response. Page 4, Lines 147-148. In this section, the necessary precision was added in response to the comment observed in the text.

7. 7. Page 4, Figure 1: Please be more specific with the captions, so maybe something like ‘number of publications per year’

Author Response. Page 4, Line 164. The caption of the Figure 1 was modified, as shown in the manuscript.

8. Page 5, Table 2: footnote (line 172): it should be between ‘50 and 99’. Could you add countries to all institutions?

Author Response. Page 5, Line 188. Suggested observations were addressed, as shown in the table and in the table footer.

9. Page 6, Line 205: In which list? It’s not included neither in table 3 nor figure 3.

Author Response. Page 6, Lines 220-221. Suggested comments were addressed, as shown in the manuscript.

10. Page 7, Line 214: Which exactly? 17 with 100 and more citations? Or with uncited ones? It is important to be precise here because later you describe an average citation per article, so which numbers did you take into the calculations?

Author Response. Page 7, Lines 229-231. Suggested comments were addressed, as shown in the manuscript.

11. Page 7, Line 219-220 and table 3: The proper name of the journal is “Environmental Geochemistry and Health” (no comma after environmental).

Author Response. Page 7, Line 235 and Table 3. The name of the journal was modified to “Environmental Geochemistry and Health” as shown in the manuscript.

12. Page 7, Lines 220-222: And what is the connection with Zn deficiency in calcareous soils?

Author Response. Page 7, Lines 237-238. The connection between the most cited document and Zn deficiency in calcareous soils was added to the manuscript in this results section.  

13. Page 10, Figure 4: Please use a proper form for names and surnames (first letter of name/surname should be a capital letter). Also, sometimes you use the full name and sometimes only the first letter, sometimes there are followed by dots, sometimes not. It should be unified.

Author Response. Page 10, Figure 4. The name of each author was modified to an appropriate form in Figure 4. The VOSviewer software normalizes all names or phrases to lower case. 

14. Page 10, Lines 293-303: While listing the names of the scientists from a cluster I suggest starting with the name included in the fig. 4. It would be easier to follow the graph.

Author Response. Page 10, Lines 307-313, Figure 4. The names of the authors were modified and mentioned in the text as shown in Figure 4.

15. Page 11, Fig. 5: Please use capitalise the first letters of the countries’ names.

Author Response. Page 11, Figure 5. The VOSviewer software normalizes all the names or phrases to lower case letter.  

16. Page 11, England is not a country.

Author Response. Page 11, Line 333. England is not a sovereign state, but it appears in the authors' affiliations in the literature retrieved, and the United Kingdom does not appear, so we considered keeping the term. Also regarding the name of the countries, Turkey was changed to Türkiye in the manuscript.

17. Lines 349-387: It looks more like a discussion of your results than description. You are referring here a lot of other studies, which is good, but does not match this section.

Author Response. Page 12, Lines 364-387. The suggested comment was addressed. Modifications were made in section ‘3.10’ of the ‘results’ section and in the ‘discussions’ section.

18. On the other hand, much of the discussion section is a results description (lines 400-419, 427-438), most repeated from the section ‘results’. In the ‘discussion’ section you should give a context to the results and try to explain relationships showed in the ‘results’ section.

Author Response. Page 13, Lines 389-393, 403-415, 427-429; Page 14, Lines 430-460, 463-472, 475-478; Page 15, Lines 485-491, 493-498, 499, 503-506, 510-529. The suggested comment was addressed, modifications were made in the ‘discussions’ section.

19. Lines 447-448: You should cite here a figure you are referring to. Same in line 457.

 Author Response. Page 13, Line 429; Page 14, Lines 434, 449, 470; Page 15, Lines 500, 525. The title of the figures was indicated in the ‘discussions’ section, as suggested in this comment.

In this new version of the manuscript, the modifications made are shown in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written by the authors, but upon closer reading I do not believe that the scope of the paper fits the journal in question. I justify this analysis of mine because the paper only lists publications related to the topic and does not delve into the topic of Zinc Deficiency in limestone soils. In my understanding, this bibliometric analysis does not present the state of the art on the subject.

 

There are also some suggestions attached for improving the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and suggestions 20-25

1. Page 1, Line 7: Translate to English.

Author Response. Page 1, Line 7. The authors consider keeping the name of the institutional affiliation in the Spanish language, as in other publications of the same journal (https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040564).

2. Page 1, Lines 34-38: I don't see the need for this section, since it is not the focus of the work. I suggest detailing the Zn-Soil-Plant interaction in more detail.

Author Response. Page 1, Lines 32-39, 42-45: Page 2, Lines 46-47. Modifications were made to the ‘introduction’ section based on suggested observations and aspects on Zn-soil-plant interaction were added.

3. Page 2, Lines 60-64: There is a lack of detail on bibliometrics, which is the object of study.

Author Response. Page 2, Lines 76-77, 81-86. Modifications were made to the ‘introduction’ section based on suggested comments and aspects of bibliometrics were added.

4. Page 11, Line 327: Authors should explore these results further, as they are the ones that generate the most interest among readers.

Author Response. Page 14, Lines 430-483, Page 15, Lines 484-529. The results of the item ‘3.10’ were explored in more detail in the ‘discussions’ section.

5. Page 13, Line 388: I believe that the authors failed to discuss item 3.10 of the results in more detail, as in my understanding it is the item of greatest interest in the work.

Author Response. Page 14, Lines 430-483, Page 15, Lines 484-529. The results of the item ‘3.10’ were explored in more detail in the ‘discussions’ section.

6. Page 15, Line 478: The conclusions seem to be an extension of the results obtained from the literature review for the most part. The authors should highlight the most significant convergences between the papers.

Author Response. Page 16, Lines 547-564. The ‘conclusions’ section was modified based on the suggested observations, highlighting the most significant convergences of the literature retrieved.

In this new version of the manuscript, the modifications made are shown in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a detailed bibliometric analysis of research on zinc deficiency in calcareous soils over a 36-year period. The authors aim to quantify and analyze global scientific production related to this topic, identifying key trends, influential authors, institutions, countries, and research hotspots. Using 198 relevant publications extracted from the Web of Science (WOS) database, the study provides a thorough bibliometric evaluation, offering insights into research trends, influential contributors, and emerging topics. The study highlights the contributions of various countries and institutions, providing a global overview of the research topic. Based on the previous findings, the authors recommend future studies on innovative Zn fertilizers (e.g., nanofertilizers and aminochelates) and the management of Zn-phosphorus interactions in cereals. The bibliometric analysis provides a valuable reference for researchers and policymakers addressing this global challenge. The paper was well written and organized, making the contents easy to follow and understand. While the paper identifies research gaps, I suggest that the authors could provide more direct and actionable recommendations for addressing Zn deficiency in calcareous soils in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

General comment of the Reviewer 3

The paper provides a detailed bibliometric analysis of research on zinc deficiency in calcareous soils over a 36-year period. The authors aim to quantify and analyze global scientific production related to this topic, identifying key trends, influential authors, institutions, countries, and research hotspots. Using 198 relevant publications extracted from the Web of Science (WOS) database, the study provides a thorough bibliometric evaluation, offering insights into research trends, influential contributors, and emerging topics. The study highlights the contributions of various countries and institutions, providing a global overview of the research topic. Based on the previous findings, the authors recommend future studies on innovative Zn fertilizers (e.g., nanofertilizers and aminochelates) and the management of Zn-phosphorus interactions in cereals. The bibliometric analysis provides a valuable reference for researchers and policymakers addressing this global challenge. The paper was well written and organized, making the contents easy to follow and understand. While the paper identifies research gaps, I suggest that the authors could provide more direct and actionable recommendations for addressing Zn deficiency in calcareous soils in the conclusion section.

Author Response. Page 16, Lines 547-564. The suggestion was addressed, in the ‘conclusion’ section recommendations were made on future studies to address the problem of Zn deficiency in calcareous soils.

In this new version of the manuscript, the modifications made are shown in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf