PONE-D-22-09392Rising slopes - bibliometrics of mountain research 1900-2019PLOS ONE

Dear Wolfgang and collaegues,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We have now received two reviewer reports. You will see that both reports are positive and see a need for minor revisions before publication. Their comments can be addressed in a straightforward way. Among the other comments, please consider the points raised by reviewer 1 about the inclusion of an introductory paragraph in the methods section, and adding a map depicting mountain areas globally.

In addition to the reviewer reports I have a few points from an editor’s perspective. The analysis of the vast amount of mountain literature over a long time period is impressive and allows you to produce multiple quantitative analyses. I think the analytical part and interpretation of the results in the bigger mountain research context could still be strengthened in the manuscript. I like how you address several aspects in this context in the Discussion and Conclusion section. However, I think there is more room for analytical text that goes beyond reporting the metrics and numbers of the quantitative analysis. For instance, what does this impressive literature analysis actually tell un in terms of status and development of mountain research? How has mountain research developed over this long time period, based on your results and additional consideration of literature? Is current mountain research fit to address the major challenges of today and the future? I’m aware that there is some limitation of going into much detail in this regard but I think some additional analysis would really strengthen the paper, also in view of the long-term experience and expertise of the author team. In this regard, please also consider and integrate the recently published mountain chapter in the IPCC AR6.

Technically, I think that figure visibility and readability should be improved, e.g. for Figs. 2 and 7 (in the latter one the blue color range is not visible), and possibly also for Figs. 3, 5, 6.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christian Huggel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that Figure 7 and Striking Image in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 7 and Striking Image to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled ‘Rising slopes - bibliometrics of mountain research 1900-2019’.

This well written paper, which was prepared by a group of eminent mountain researchers, provides important insights into the state of mountain research globally. It begins with an accessible overview describing the importance of mountain (eco)systems as well as significant milestones in the evolution of mountain research. This is an appropriate start, given the broad readership of PLOS One. Then, based on a well implemented bibliographic review and associated quantitative analyses, it sheds new light on the nature of mountain research according to a variety of relevant metrics (e.g. publishing activity over time, the distribution of research according to mountain geographies, research activity by institutions and nationalities, leading scientific journals, and primary research approaches and topics). I was particularly struck by the authors’ tactful and well justified approach to determining the cogency of their sample considering nearly 200,000 returns, which precluded a more typical inclusion/exclusion review process. Relatedly, the paper is accompanied by helpful and interesting supplementary materials. The article, which builds upon earlier review efforts by Körner (2009), concludes by describing study limitations (e.g. focus on English language documents) as well as a number of salient research/publishing needs and opportunities.

This impressive review paper makes fundamental contributions to our understanding of the state of mountain research globally. Given the far-reaching socio-ecological importance of mountain (eco)systems, the authors’ findings should be of interests to scholars working across a range of geographies and thematic areas.

I have one substantive recommendation for improvement, as well as a few minor points for the authors’ consideration:

1. The main blind-spot in the manuscript is the lack of an introductory paragraph in the methods section that provides background on the chosen review method. For example, why was a bibliometric analysis selected over a systematic scoping review, how does such an approach differ, and why was it the most appropriate option given your study objectives? Adding such an introductory paragraph will round out an otherwise excellent methods section. This is my substantive recommendation.

2. The methods section does not mention a specific focus on ‘peer-reviewed’ articles/reviews. While this is indicated elsewhere in the manuscript, it seems prudent to state in the methods section.

3. A map depicting mountain areas globally based on the criteria described in lines 222 – 230 would provide helpful geospatial context, particularly for readers not familiar with the global distribution of mountains. Depicting the 40 mountain ranges examined in your analysis would likely be too visually complex but could be considered. Perhaps such a map could be added at line 235.

4. The phrase “economic power”, which appears throughout the manuscript, is slightly off putting. Could another word replace ‘power”, perhaps “capacity”?

5. The observed paucity of research in the social sciences seems highly consequential, yet no specific call for more engagement with the social sciences in mountain research is provided in the Discussion and Conclusion section (lines 416-417). Perhaps it would be germane to include a line about the potential implications of this research gap, as well as the need to support such research in mountainous contexts?

6. Line 420-421 rightly suggest that it “is highly desirable that relevant findings are (also) published in English-language journals.” Should this recommendation also be accompanied by a call for the mountain research community/mountain organizations to provide support for such publishing (e.g. the establishment of a fund to support translation services)?

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled ‘Rising slopes - bibliometrics of mountain research 1900-2019’. I believe that, with minor revisions, the study will be an important contribution to scholarly work published in PLOS One.

Best regards,

Graham McDowell

Reviewer #2: Excellent and highly relevant manuscript with great insights. Suggest to address several minor comments, which have been uploaded as a separate attachment and are also listed below:

p.1, line 24: replace “would be desirable” with “is recommended”.

p.2, lines 63-64: for comprehensive synthesis reports please consider also citing the HKH Assessment report (Wester et al., 2019) and the Cross-Chapter Paper Mountains in IPCC AR6 WGII (Adler et al., 2022).

p.9, lines 274- 276: that only 4 and 2% of the papers were assigned to the fields “Social Sciences” and “Arts & Humanities” is a significant finding. Considering highlighting this in the Abstract.

p.17, line 451: use of the word “local” languages seems inappropriate here. I imagine a lot has been published in Spanish, which is a global language. Would be good to clarify this.

p.17, line 470: For synthesis reports, consider also citing the HKH Assessment report (Wester et al., 2019) and the Cross-Chapter Paper Mountains in IPCC AR6 WGII (Adler et al., 2022).

Note: references need to be carefully checked, e.g., the first reference by Adhikari, Shrestha and Shakya is incomplete.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Graham McDowell

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Peer Review of PONE-D-22-09392.docx

Rising slopes - bibliometrics of mountain research 1900-2019

PONE-D-22-09392R1

Dear Wolfgang Gurgiser,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Christian Huggel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

please check the reference list (some references such as Adler et al. 2022 are incorrect, cf. official IPCC citations for this case).