Towards a Bibliometric Mapping of Network Public Opinion Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript claims in the Abstract to be focused on 'emergencies'; the Conclusions mention 'crisis research'. This surfaces at several points in the paper. However the search terms used make no mention whatsoever of emergencies or crises. The analysis is therefore meaningless. 

Examples of editorial commentary inappropriate in a research paper:

'the research directions are too concentrated and the frontier branches are 23 too few'

'Secondly, it has a wide range of influence. NPO breaks the geo- 37
graphical and spatial-temporal limitations of public opinion dissemination, so that its influence can spread to any corner of the world'. This is of course nonsense; many countries and huge populations face  firewall censorship and only have opinions about topics they are permitted to see; the recent case of tennis star Peng Shuai is a perfect example, as Chines citizens know nothing about this case. 

'At this stage, China is in a period of social transformation, and the imbalance 190 of economic development and the redistribution of social interest relations have exacerbated the conflicts in Chinese society, public emergencies have also occurred frequently': what exactly are these "Chinese emergencies" and what actual relevance do they have to this study?

'China is a developing country with the highest volume of publications, which shows that my country's emphasis on NPO research is no less than that of developed countries'. And what is the purpose of this statement other than to make an editorial point?

'China 265 is the most active in the field of NPO research'; which as noted would be interesting if China possessed an informed public; 

and finally the most egregious example of editorial commentary: 'While making full use of the convenience and efficiency 307 brought by technology, we must also use laws to regulate social order'. Nothing to do with research, just a chilling observation; also to be seen lines 350-355.  

Comments noted in reading the manuscript:

the abstract is too long. 

it is procedurally silly to double count papers and proceedings as the latter will often appear as published papers;  

the discussion of growth of the field needs to compare growth in this field with the overall trend in publication, taken as a baseline;  

'CiteSpace was used to 276 count the distribution of literature in the field across 97 different disciplines' followed by, in the next paragraph,  
'CiteSpace was used to count the distribution of literature in the field across 111 different disciplines'

and finally, is this inserted as a joke, or to see if anyone is awake: compare these two entries:

'Angermeyer, M.C., Matschinger, H., Riedel-Heller, S.G., 1999. Whom to ask for help in case of a mental disorder? Preferences [920]
of the lay public. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 34(4), 202-210.
'Whom to ask for help in case of a mental disorder? Preferences of the lay public Angermeyer et al.[38] Tunnelling And Underground Space Technology'

Less...

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thanks very much for your kind and careful comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Towards a bibliometric mapping of network public opinion studies” (No.: information-1513465). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important guiding significance to us. We have studied the comments carefully and made revision which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion of the manuscript is marked in RED in the manuscript submitted. We appreciate for Editor and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly.

Yours Sincerely,

Hui Liu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• Line 17. Is an “and” missing?

 

Introduction

• “scholars have addressed this problem by constructing a web-based simulation system for 64 epidemic dynamics”. Citations are missing
• “Other studies have pointed out that by modeling the regulatory network of SARS,”. Citations are missing
• “Other scholars have mainly investigated the correlation and causality between opinion frames 70 and media frames[8]”. More than one citation is necessary if you mention scholars in a plural form.
• “the main research direction of researchers is to analyze the opportunities and challenges faced by NPO in the era of big data”. Citation is missing
• “it seems that researchers have done in-depth”. This expression is not suitable for an academic paper.
• “there are few discussions on knowledge”. Citations are missing
•  

 

Materials and Methods

• A space is missing in line 117.
• It is necessary to expand the theoretical framework of co-citation analysis

 

Results

• Which criteria was used to divided these three stages? If it is only the number of publication, another division is more appropriate, given that, for instance, 2004 and 2005 have less publications than a previous year.
• “Centrality is the centrality, if the centrality of a node is not less than 0.1. It is considered that this node is the key hub (turning point) in the network; Percent represents the proportion of the literature of the subject. The disciplinary distribution of the research literature helps to understand the disciplinary structure of the research field.” There is room for improvement in the writing of this paragraph.
• The same sentences are copied in the next paragraph
• Co-citation analysis of papers by means of Citespace was not carried out properly. The identification of clusters, the papers with the highest centrality as well as the burst papers are not identified. Please, analyse and cite these papers:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020774

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.629951

Conclusions

• Include a research agenda
• What are the limitations of this paper? Future lines of research should be included to fixed them.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thanks very much for your kind and careful comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Towards a bibliometric mapping of network public opinion studies” (No.: information-1513465). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important guiding significance to us. We have studied the comments carefully and made revision which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion of the manuscript is marked in RED in the manuscript submitted. We appreciate for Editor and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly.

Yours Sincerely,

Hui Liu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting for the reading, however, the scientific results can not be easily highlighted. The authors present a lot of pictures, however, the methodology of research is unclear.

Please take into account the following comments:

1) What is the meaning of this sentence " In this paper, we visualized and analyzed the literature related to NPO by bibliometric methods with the help of Vosviewer[15]and Citespace[16] to visually analyze the literature related to NPO"?

2) formula 4 - if it is Euclidian norm, why the sum is equal to 1? Do you use circled space? Why?

3) how do you estimate the number of clusters?

4) Do you use LDA?

5) Please add information about future plans.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thanks very much for your kind and careful comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Towards a bibliometric mapping of network public opinion studies” (No.: information-1513465). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important guiding significance to us. We have studied the comments carefully and made revision which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion of the manuscript is marked in RED in the manuscript submitted. We appreciate for Editor and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly.

Yours Sincerely,

Hui Liu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

.

Author Response

 Thank you very much for your kind comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the quality of the paper according to the feedback given

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors improved the papers. However, my opinion is that it would be better to add future plans directly into conclusions

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thanks very much for your kind and careful comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Towards a bibliometric mapping of network public opinion studies” (No.: information-1513465). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as important guiding significance to us. We have studied the comments carefully and made revision which we hope meet with approval. The revised portion of the manuscript is marked in RED in the manuscript submitted.  Please see the attachment.

  We appreciate for Editor and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Hui Liu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx