1. Restricting to “kriging” in titles almost certainly misses a ton of relevant work where it appears only in abstracts or keywords. That’s a massive blind spot, especially for interdisciplinary earth-science applications. How can you claim a comprehensive overview with that filter?
2. You pulled data in 2023 but included 2020 publications—which had only 3 years to accumulate citations vs. decades for older papers. Yet you compare citation peaks across years without any normalisation. Doesn’t that make your temporal citation trends essentially meaningless?
3. Reporting an h‑index and g‑index for an aggregated corpus of 3,515 publications is not how those metrics are meant to be used—they’re for individual authors or journals. What does that number actually represent, and why include it at all?
4. Your own data contradicts your earth‑science narrative. Engineering (44%) and Computer Science (28%) dominate; Earth & Planetary Sciences rank fourth (23%). But your abstract and conclusions repeatedly stress kriging’s “strong integration” with earth sciences. Don’t you think that framing is overblown given the evidence?
5. You excluded non‑English publications, yet you acknowledge there are 373 Chinese‑language papers in Scopus. Since China is already the top contributor, excluding its own language outputs likely underestimates its true share—and distorts the whole global distribution map.
6. You used a fixed threshold of ≥5 occurrences for all four decades, even though publications grew from 175 in 1980–1990 to 2,348 in 2011–2020. With such a massive increase in keyword volume, how can you claim the thematic evolution is genuine rather than just an artifact of more papers?