Review article: A systematic literature review of research trends and authorships on natural hazards, disasters, risk reduction and climate change in Indonesia

Djalante, Riyanti

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1785-2018

Articles | Volume 18, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1785-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-1785-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 6

Review article

|

27 Jun 2018

Review article |

| 27 Jun 2018

Review article: A systematic literature review of research trends and authorships on natural hazards, disasters, risk reduction and climate change in Indonesia

Riyanti Djalante

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 Jun 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Nov 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Nov 2016
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee Comments #1', Riyanti Djalante, 19 Dec 2016
RC2: 'DRR and Climate Change', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Apr 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to Reviewer 2', Riyanti Djalante, 11 Apr 2017
EC1: 'Third review being sought', Bruce D. Malamud, 11 Apr 2017
- AC4: 'Reply to Prof Malamud', Riyanti Djalante, 12 Apr 2017
- AC6: 'Reply to Prof Malamud (2)', Riyanti Djalante, 04 May 2017
- AC7: 'Reply to Prof Malamud (3): Request for change of tittle', Riyanti Djalante, 08 May 2017
SC1: 'Discussion for Research Trend in Indonesia', Marfai Muh Aris, 12 Apr 2017
- AC3: 'Reply to Prof. Muh. Aris Marfai comments', Riyanti Djalante, 12 Apr 2017
  - SC2: 'Ready for Publication', Marfai Muh Aris, 20 Apr 2017
RC3: 'Referee Report', Anonymous Referee #3, 02 May 2017
- AC5: 'Author´s Reply to Reviewer 3.', Riyanti Djalante, 03 May 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (29 Nov 2017) by Heidi Kreibich

AR by Riyanti Djalante on behalf of the Authors (07 Dec 2017) Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (07 Dec 2017) by Heidi Kreibich

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (13 Dec 2017)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (16 Jan 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The author significantly improved the manuscript. However, there is some major work to do before publication.

Abstract: Line 12-13 is a repetition of the previous line. Line 14 “how” and “in which way” are synonyms.

Introduction: I would expect a more detailed, structured and robust introduction of the topics studied in this SLR, a connection to policy implications, risk management and an overview about the importance of local scientists to publish giving a voice to their own country. Only after this, an explication about the aim of the study need to be described, but that should be shortened a bit.

Data collection: I suggest to add some information about the exclusion criteria (e.g. language, type of documents) that could help the reader, instead of referring to the codes in table 1 that are quite complex to be understood.
Page 3 Lines 13-22 is an introduction to a literature review that is quite useless for understanding the methods undertaken.
Page 3 Lines 23-29 there is too much detail that could be avoided. Please consider resuming this part.
Page 4 Line 8 why geology?
Page 4 Line 20-21 a verb is missing
Page 4 Line 24 “third” could be removed

Findings and Analysis: Page 5 Line 5 The first sentence could be removed.
Page 5 Line 14 (caption): “Number of publications selected over the timeframe 1900-2016”. However, why here the sum of the publications is 153 instead of in table 2 is 921?
Page 6 Line 8 I do not think to cite SCOPUS all the time is at all necessary.

Disaster risk management and reduction (DRR), page 6: The author did a very impressive job from the last version. However, he/she misses the storytelling that is the heart of a literature review. In this shape, it seems a list of references (e.g. some paper deal with [...], other with [...]). How could the author assess the hot topics the literature is lacking overall? There are excellent literature reviews that could serve as an inspiration to better shape this paragraph. Also, I cannot understand why an in-depth analysis of the authorship is done (e.g. line 27-30) that should be part of the second set of results. I suggest to remove this detailing, that is out of context and concentrating on the topics, trends, papers that are in contrast each other. I suggest going deeply into some arguments that are the most and the least represented. This is valid for the following paragraph about climate change (Page 8).

Conclusions and recommendations: The paper lacks a discussion. This is the most important part of the paper since could give some recommendations for further researches, rejecting some trends, giving a personal mark and exploring the importance of some topics never explored before or giving some critical perspectives about the ones already published. It could serve as a critic to the geographical regions never explored in literature, or to institutions, set down useful collaborations, and give some advice for policymakers or NGO working/researching in the country. This without repeating the list of references already presented in the results. If appropriate, a discussion could be merged with the results.
Conclusions should not have citations at all and should be presented separately.

Figures and tables:

Table 2: “Definitions”: What about UNFCCC? Please consider to put all the references here and remove them from the description. If the definitions are copied, please remember to quote them appropriately. Number (3) Climate change vulnerability has been not defined appropriately.
Table 3: In the GS column there are four numbers, so in the description, it misses a reference (I think the name). Also, some of the lines have just three numbers and a name. Some others four numbers and a name. This mismatch is not clear. Please revise it for Lavigne, Andreas, Sartola, Hendras, Gadjah. Also, at the line of Gertisser, there is “abover150” that is unclear. Why for Voight there is 507.7? What the decimal stands for? Same inconsistency for the stand-alone-comma for Meilano. Some acronyms of institutions should be explicated in a footnote.
Figures number are not chronologically presented. Be careful about this even in the text.
Figure 1: Is it at all possible to make the figure more readable? It is difficult to appreciate the trends concentrated mainly from 1992-on
Figure 2: What “other” comprise? Please add it to the caption
Figure 8(3?) What cbdrr stands for?
Figure 3(4?) Which types of articles are included in the label “water”? Is about water scarcity? Water budget? Health? This critic is valid for ALL the items. Please be more precise in the text for all the items (not in the figure).
Figure 5 (6?) Which is the meaning of two colours? Can you add the county in parenthesis?

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (20 Jan 2018) by Heidi Kreibich

AR by Riyanti Djalante on behalf of the Authors (24 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (26 Jan 2018) by Heidi Kreibich

AR by Riyanti Djalante on behalf of the Authors (29 Jan 2018) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Indonesia is one of the most vulnerable countries to disasters and climate change. The author did a systematic literature review on research topics and roles of Indonesian researches, indexed within Scopus from 1900 to 2016. Three major topics are found: natural hazard and disaster assessments; disaster risk reduction; and climate change risks, impacts and adaptation. Indonesian researchers still have limited progress in high-quality publications and international scientific collaborations.