The Role of Credence Attributes in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall:

Please get a native English writer/speaker to review the paper for grammar and sense.  Although not a big problem, the grammar does need improvement and editing.

The paper is limited in scope and, thus, in value.  It needs to be expanded to provide not only more information on the topic, but also much more “analysis” by the authors to provide the reader with ideas of the usefulness of the data. 

 

Specifics:

Introduction:

I would recommend that the authors look for additional references for this section.  I note that the section consists of many short paragraphs with a single reference for each one.  Yet each paragraph touches on a major topic that has been addressed quite extensively in the literature.  The authors should be able to slightly expand each paragraph and add 1-3 more references in each one, which would make for a stronger introduction.  The limitation of only sources related to fish or seafood makes the review of literature quite limited since many of these topics have been covered quite extensively for produce, dairy, or meat products.  Although those are not specific to fish, they certainly are related in terms of sustainability (and its surrogate terms) and willingness to pay or eat by consumers.

 

Methods:

You have a severe limitation based on the words chosen and perhaps in the way in which they were searched that needs to be addressed. 

1. Did your search include variations in the spelling of words? For example, you mention “behaviour”, which is the British English spelling, but did it also include “behavior” the American English spelling?  If not, you missed a number of articles that are less European in focus.  I don’t notice any papers with the American spelling in your reference list so I wonder about this.
2. You mention that you did not use the word “fish” because it brought up fishery or fisheries. Even though you mention that fish and seafood often are used interchangeably that is not necessarily the case.  The word seafood is used almost exclusively when products from the ocean or open waters are included in the set of fish or in the discussion.  Many species of fresh-water fish are commonly referred to as fish, not seafood, in the literature.  This limitation is especially problematic since the major increase in fish consumption has been in freshwater fish according to most reports.  Commonly sold fish around the world such as tilapia (in many countries) and carp (in Asia) are freshwater and not called “seafood” in most available literature.
3. It is unclear if you included shellfish in your review. You mention that seafood includes this, but again this major category of seafood, when discussed alone or as individual species often does not appear under terms such as seafood.  Instead, it is called shellfish, mollusk, or crustacean in the literature. 

These limitations have a rather large impact on your review.  Those issues can be addressed in two ways – 1) going back and making sure they are included in your review and discussion (I don’t know whether this will change any of the results or not) or 2) specifically stating that these were excluded and refocusing the title and objectives so that only ocean/open water fish is included.

 

The authors state 35 papers, list 36 papers in Table 2 (Isn’t that a figure?), which really isn’t needed because that can be determined from Table 1, and show 35 papers in Table 1.  The numbers are not the same.

Table 1 – need to define MSC in a footnote of the table.

Table 4 and paragraph before that – These are not seafood “products” – they are types of fish.  It is not clear at all what actual product (fried fish, broiled fish, breaded fish, fresh fish, etc.) was studied based on this information.

 

Did you do any meta-analysis of these papers or are the findings in the results all based on your qualitative assessment of the papers and their findings.  That is not necessarily wrong, but I would like some statements in the methods on how you evaluated the 35 papers that you are reporting on.  Did you do word clouds? Did you use any diagrams or software to help you relate topics?  How did you decide on the several topics that you separate out (country of origin, organic, animal welfare, eco-label, etc.)?  It is not clear to me how you determined those were the topics that came together from the papers and that you would address in the review.  Based on your table 1, some of these look like self-fulfilling prophecy topics – if you used those as topics to search for or the focus on as surrogates for sustainability, then of course they will be important in your analysis of the papers selected.

Results:

You talk repeatedly about sustainability but have a quite limited set of terms that you use for determining if “sustainability” applies to the study.  Terms you use in Table 1 such as MSC, Eco label, Organic, and Country of Origin may have nothing to do with sustainability in the total chain.  For example, MSC only has to do with the fisheries, not the processing, transportation, storage, etc.  Organic may be completely unrelated to sustainability (scientifically), although consumers often equate the two together.  And of course, the country of origin is completely different from sustainable.  Even if the fish is “locally” sourced that does not mean it is sustainable.  Why did you choose that limited set of terms?  I can think of many other terms such as “natural”, no animal products in feed,  porpoise safe (for tuna), farmed, etc. that could be related (positively or negatively) with sustainability.  I looked quickly and came up with several papers that are not in the review that discuss topics such as those in terms of sustainability. 

You have identified a number of topics and describe some papers related to those topics in your results, but the statements often seem too broad and perhaps misleading.  As one easy example, in the section in MSC, you mention a study by Roheim et al. (reference 52) and say that those authors found a 14.2% premium (note: 14,2% is not the English way to show decimals) for “eco-labeled MSC Alaskan Pollack”.  First, Table 1 does not show that eco-label was a topic of the research so are you assuming eco-labeled when it is given an MSC  certification.  I don’t think that is correct since you have eco-labeled as a separate type of labeling.  However, of more importance is the fact that just because a product is being sold for a 14.2% premium does not show that many people are buying the product at that price premium.  Obviously some are since the study used grocery scanner data, but that simply could show that 1 person in 1000 was paying 14.2% more.  The real story is not just how much more some people are willing to pay, but how many people are willing to pay that premium.  If it is 50% of the population that says a lot more than 1% of the population.  I also don’t know how you do hedonic (liking) analysis of scanner data – that makes no sense.

Two paragraphs after that is another example (there are many such examples in the results section, I just chose these two to be illustrative).  The study by Uchida et al. (reference 54) is a bit more explained and an interesting point is made that information alone is insufficient to result in differences.  OK, nice point.  BUT, what does that mean for the industry?  Why do you believe information alone is not sufficient, what do those authors suggest, what can be explained or extrapolated based on this assessment.  At this point, your review results read like a series of note cards that provide a brief summary of each study and don’t really help to combine and integrate the information to provide us with information across studies (agreements, conflicts, further data that needs to be collected, etc.). 

Your summary of the data is incomplete and makes the results of your review far less interesting and much less impactful.  You need more description and critical analysis of the data.  The Discussion section attempts to do this, but it far too limited in scope to handle the various topics and studies thoroughly.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions are probably one of the better aspects of this review although here again you imply that certain terms can be appropriately used in place of sustainability (any of the labeling options you have mentioned before) to change their behavior.  But what if the labels are incomplete in their use of sustainability information (e.g. the MSC label that is only for fisheries practices and has nothing to do with the rest of the process).  You also mention that country of origin was the most important impact on willingness to pay, but that has nothing to do with actual sustainability – eating locally sourced seafood from areas where agricultural effluent is entering the ecosystem and seafood is being overfished is hardly sustainable, but entirely plausible for many countries.

 

The limitations of your study and conclusions should not be relegated to the last two sentences of the paper.  They need to be given a separate section called “Limitations” and provide a more comprehensive description of the limitations of the review.

 

Author Response

sustainability-967907 - The Role of Credence Attribute in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Seafood Products: a review

 

Detailed answers to Reviewer #1:

 

We would like to thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We have made every effort to address the comments fully. Below you will find your comments with our detailed responses. We have tried to indicate clearly where in the revised manuscript changes have been made to address your comments.

 

Following your suggestion, the tile was changed as follow:

The Role of Credence Attribute in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products: a review

 

Overall:

Please get a native English writer/speaker to review the paper for grammar and sense. Although not a big problem, the grammar does need improvement and editing.

The paper is limited in scope and, thus, in value. It needs to be expanded to provide not only more information on the topic, but also much more “analysis” by the authors to provide the reader with ideas of the usefulness of the data.

Authors’ response: We thanks referee for his overall suggestion that would be helpful to ameliorate the content of paper. The paper has been expanded and improved to provide more information on the topic, but also more “analysis” of the data. We also did the language editing through MDPI website.

 

Introduction:

I would recommend that the authors look for additional references for this section. I note that the section consists of many short paragraphs with a single reference for each one. Yet each paragraph touches on a major topic that has been addressed quite extensively in the literature. The authors should be able to slightly expand each paragraph and add 1-3 more references in each one, which would make for a stronger introduction. The limitation of only sources related to fish or seafood makes the review of literature quite limited since many of these topics have been covered quite extensively for produce, dairy, or meat products. Although those are not specific to fish, they certainly are related in terms of sustainability (and its surrogate terms) and willingness to pay or eat by consumers.

Authors’ response: thanks for this helpful suggestion. We agree with referee and we made efforts to ameliorate the content of the introduction. We added more references in each paragraph of the introduction, but also new references related to wtp for sustainable attributes (and not only related to fish)

1. Del Giudice, T., Cavallo, C., Caracciolo, F., Cicia, G. What attributes of extra virgin olive oil are really important for consumers: a meta-analysis of consumers’ stated preferences. Agricultural and Food Economics 2015, 3(20), 1-15.
2. Cicia G., Colantuoni F. Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 2010, 1(3), 252-263.

 

 

Methods:

You have a severe limitation based on the words chosen and perhaps in the way in which they were searched that needs to be addressed.

1. Did your search include variations in the spelling of words? For example, you mention “behaviour”, which is the British English spelling, but did it also include “behavior” the American English spelling? If not, you missed a number of articles that are less European in focus. I don’t notice any papers with the American spelling in your reference list so I wonder about this.

Authors’ response: thanks for this comment. We also included the American spelling word “behavior” bur the number of papers remains the same. However, we specify the inclusion of this word in the "literature searching criteria" and we highlight it in red colour.

 

2. You mention that you did not use the word “fish” because it brought up fishery or fisheries. Even though you mention that fish and seafood often are used interchangeably that is not necessarily the case. The word seafood is used almost exclusively when products from the ocean or open waters are included in the set of fish or in the discussion. Many species of fresh-water fish are commonly referred to as fish, not seafood, in the literature. This limitation is especially problematic since the major increase in fish consumption has been in freshwater fish according to most reports. Commonly sold fish around the world such as tilapia (in many countries) and carp (in Asia) are freshwater and not called “seafood” in most available literature.
3. It is unclear if you included shellfish in your review. You mention that seafood includes this, but again this major category of seafood, when discussed alone or as individual species often does not appear under terms such as seafood. Instead, it is called shellfish, mollusk, or crustacean in the literature.

These limitations have a rather large impact on your review. Those issues can be addressed in two ways – 1) going back and making sure they are included in your review and discussion (I don’t know whether this will change any of the results or not) or 2) specifically stating that these were excluded and refocusing the title and objectives so that only ocean/open water fish is included.

Authors’ response: Thank you for this appreciated comment. We agree with your suggestion and we decided to use “fish” instead of “seafood” term in the paper in order to refers both to products from fresh water and ocean/open waters. In line of this, we refocused the title and the objective. We also decided to going back to make sure these terms are included in the review and the final records didn't change.

 

The authors state 35 papers, list 36 papers in Table 2 (Isn’t that a figure?), which really isn’t needed because that can be determined from Table 1, and show 35 papers in Table 1. The numbers are not the same.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. We apologize for the mistake and we have made a new one. We also named it Figure, as you suggested.

 

Table 1 – need to define MSC in a footnote of the table.

Authors’ response: We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We agree with the referee and provided a specification of acronym in the paper. We also decided to include this attribute in the eco-label attribute. In addition Table 1 is now in the Supplementary materials.

 

Table 4 and paragraph before that – These are not seafood “products” – they are types of fish. It is not clear at all what actual product (fried fish, broiled fish, breaded fish, fresh fish, etc.) was studied based on this information.

Authors’ response:  We thanks referee for his doubt. We modified the term “products” into “types of fish”. We indicated the type of fish in this table in order to provide an overview of studies in the literature. However, we decide to not discuss the differentiation of type of fish because of in the statistical analysis the type of fish was not significant.

 

Did you do any meta-analysis of these papers or are the findings in the results all based on your qualitative assessment of the papers and their findings. That is not necessarily wrong, but I would like some statements in the methods on how you evaluated the 35 papers that you are reporting on. Did you do word clouds? Did you use any diagrams or software to help you relate topics? How did you decide on the several topics that you separate out (country of origin, organic, animal welfare, ecolabel, etc.)? It is not clear to me how you determined those were the topics that came together from the papers and that you would address in the review. Based on your table 1, some of these look like self-fulfilling prophecy topics – if you used those as topics to search for or the focus on as surrogates for sustainability, then of course they will be important in your analysis of the papers selected.

Authors’ response: thanks for this helpful suggestion. We agree with referee and we made efforts to ameliorate the content of the paper.  We did a meta-analysis of these papers and their findings. We added a new paragraph "2.3 Statistical analysis” with a better description of the method and an analysis of data. In this paragraph we added the Table 2 with a summary of statistics and definition of variables, and Table 3 with the regression results. In addition a comment of this table is provided in the text.

With regard to topics selected, we selected these as surrogates for sustainability and we added these in a new table 1 "Attributes related to sustainability selected for the review" in the Material and methods. We also provide a better description of the literature searching criteria in each single stage, the exclusion criteria adopted and the records founded in each stage, following the PRISMA method and adding it in a flow chart in Figure 1.

 

 

Results:

You talk repeatedly about sustainability but have a quite limited set of terms that you use for determining if “sustainability” applies to the study. Terms you use in Table 1 such as MSC, Eco label, Organic, and Country of Origin may have nothing to do with sustainability in the total chain. For example, MSC only has to do with the fisheries, not the processing, transportation, storage, etc. Organic may be completely unrelated to sustainability (scientifically), although consumers often equate the two together. And of course, the country of origin is completely different from sustainable. Even if the fish is “locally” sourced that does not mean it is sustainable. Why did you choose that limited set of terms? I can think of many other terms such as “natural”, no animal products in feed, porpoise safe (for tuna), farmed, etc. that could be related (positively or negatively) with sustainability. I looked quickly and came up with several papers that are not in the review that discuss topics such as those in terms of sustainability. You have identified a number of topics and describe some papers related to those topics in your results, but the statements often seem too broad and perhaps misleading. As one easy example, in the section in MSC, you mention a study by Roheim et al. (reference 52) and say that those authors found a 14.2% premium (note: 14,2% is not the English way to show decimals) for “eco-labeled MSC Alaskan Pollack”. First, Table 1 does not show that eco-label was a topic of the research so are you assuming eco-labeled when it is given an MSC certification. I don’t think that is correct since you have eco-labeled as a separate type of labeling. However, of more importance is the fact that just because a product is being sold for a 14.2% premium does not show that many people are buying the product at that price premium. Obviously some are since the study used grocery scanner data but that simply could show study used grocery scanner data, but that simply could show that 1 person in 1000 was paying 14.2% more. The real story is not just how much more some people are willing to pay, but how many people are willing to pay that premium. If it is 50% of the population that says a lot more than 1% of the population. I also don’t know how you do hedonic (liking) analysis of scanner data – that makes no sense. Two paragraphs after that is another example (there are many such examples in the results section, I just chose these two to be illustrative). The study by Uchida et al. (reference 54) is a bit more explained and an interesting point is made that information alone is insufficient to result in differences. OK, nice point. BUT, what does that mean for the industry? Why do you believe information alone is not sufficient, what do those authors suggest, what can be explained or extrapolated based on this assessment. At this point, your review results read like a series of note cards that provide a brief summary of each study and

don’t really help to combine and integrate the information to provide us with information across studies (agreements, conflicts, further data that needs to be collected, etc.). Your summary of the data is incomplete and makes the results of your review far less interesting and much less impactful. You need more description and critical analysis of the data. The Discussion section attempts to do this, but it far too limited in

scope to handle the various topics and studies thoroughly.

Authors’ response: thank for your comment. We revised the topic categorization, and we decided to include MSC in eco-label, category. We reviewed the methodology employed in the selected studies: most use scanner data so it is not possible to indicate the percentage of consumers willing to pay a premium price. However, we added this information when present. We also did more description and critical analysis of the data trough statistical analysis and relative comments. The Discussion section and Conclusion section were improved in order to explain what these results means for the industry.

 

Conclusions

The conclusions are probably one of the better aspects of this review although here again you imply that certain terms can be appropriately used in place of sustainability (any of the labelling options you have mentioned before) to change their behavior. But what if the labels are incomplete in their use of sustainability

information (e.g. the MSC label that is only for fisheries practices and has nothing to do with the rest of the process). You also mention that country of origin was the most important impact on willingness to pay, but that has nothing to do with actual sustainability – eating locally sourced seafood from areas where agricultural effluent is entering the ecosystem and seafood is being overfished is hardly sustainable, but entirely plausible for many countries.

 

Authors’ response: thank for your comment. We did an effort to improve this section.

 

The limitations of your study and conclusions should not be relegated to the last two sentences of the paper. They need to be given a separate section called “Limitations” and provide a more comprehensive description of the limitations of the review.

Authors’ response: thank for your comment. We separated this section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study the authors conduct a review of existing literature on sustainable seafood products to assess the effectiveness of sustainable labels by examining the consumer’s willingness to pay.

The topic of the study is current and of interest to the academic community. By implementing the recommendations bellow, the study will bring an important contribution to its field. The study identified the main attributes of sustainable seafood labels and presents the willingness to pay identified in each analyzed study. Nevertheless, the structure and presentation of results should be improved. The data should be aggregated to give a clearer picture on the obtained results. In each result section there should be a table summarizing at least the studies, products, and willingness to pay. It should also be mentioned if the hypotheses tested in each study were accepted or rejected. Then the focus should be on the particulars of each study instead of just reporting WTP values. To give a clear sense of the ranges of WTP values, some basic statistics should be reported such as mean and standard deviation, which should give a clearer picture of the magnitude of how willing a customer is to pay a premium price on each attribute.

87 – The authors claimed to have done a systematic review. There are certain guidelines (e.g. PRISMA) that should be followed for a review to be considered systematic. To this end, the authors should at least clearly define each phase (Identification, Screening, Eligibility, Included). The number of articles in each step should also be reported. The combination of terms used in searches is not very clear. The authors should present their keyword combinations using AND/OR operators to clearly present the combinations of keywords used. Here are two examples that the authors might find useful in structuring their methodology section:

https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/6/4/106/htm

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7394/htm

121 – The stated period was 2000 to 2020 but on line 121 the authors state that the period is 2001 to 2020. If there were no articles found in 2000, the year should still be mentioned.

123 – Table 2 is a figure and should be captioned appropriately. For consistency, the authors should include the years that had no publications on the topic (2000, 2004, 2005 and so on).

129 – It is redundant to list all countries both in the text and in the graph. The authors might consider color coding the graph with the continents and remove the list of countries in the text. Instead they might provide their opinion on the distribution of results.

133 – Table 3 is also a figure. Please sort the countries in descending order of frequency (most frequent first). As in the case of Table 2, it is redundant to list the countries in the text. An opinion on the distribution might be more insightful.

137 – 11/35 is less than one third and not close to half. Again, consider sorting the categories in descending order and removing the enumeration from the text. Table 4 is Figure 4.

150/400 – Country of origin is stated as being one of the most relevant, but this claim is not backed-up by data. The authors should find a measure to quantify the relevance (e.g. number of studies, average premium paid by customers, amount of significant results as compared to other attributes etc.) and use it to compare country of origin to other attributes. Only then this claim can be supported.

The results section should be restructured considering the observation made in the second paragraph of the review. The Discussion and Conclusion sections should be redone to reflect the above-mentioned changes.

Author Response

sustainability-967907 - The Role of Credence Attribute in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Seafood Products: a review

 

Detailed answers to Reviewer #2:

 

We would like to thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We have made every effort to address the comments fully. Below you will find your comments with our detailed responses. We have tried to indicate clearly where in the revised manuscript changes have been made to address your comments.

 

TITLE CHANGED. Following a reviewer suggestion, the tile was changed as follow

The Role of Credence Attributes in Consumer Choices of Sustainable Fish Products: a review

 

The topic of the study is current and of interest to the academic community. By implementing the recommendations bellow, the study will bring an important contribution to its field. The study identified the main attributes of sustainable seafood labels and presents the willingness to pay identified in each analyzed study. Nevertheless, the structure and presentation of results should be improved. The data should be aggregated to give a clearer picture on the obtained results. In each result section there should be a table summarizing at least the studies, products, and willingness to pay. It should also be mentioned if the hypotheses tested in each study were accepted or rejected. Then the focus should be on the particulars of each study instead of just reporting WTP values. To give a clear sense of the ranges of WTP values, some basic statistics should be reported such as mean and standard deviation, which should give a clearer picture of the magnitude of how willing a customer is to pay a premium price on each attribute.

Authors’ response: thanks for this comment. We agree with referee and as also required by the other reviewer we made efforts to ameliorate analysis of data.

 

 

87 – The authors claimed to have done a systematic review.

There are certain guidelines (e.g. PRISMA) that should be followed for a review to be considered systematic. To this end, the authors should at least clearly define each phase (Identification, Screening, Eligibility, Included). The number of articles in each step should also be reported. The combination of terms used in searches is not very clear. The authors should present their keyword combinations using AND/OR operators to clearly present the combinations of keywords used. Here are two examples that the authors might find useful in structuring their methodology section:

https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/6/4/106/htm

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7394/htm

Authors’ response: thanks for this helpful suggestion. We agree with referee and we made efforts to ameliorate the content of this section. We added in a flow chart in a new Figure 1 with the literature searching process and exclusion criteria. We also provide a better description of the literature searching criteria in each single stage, the exclusion criteria adopted and the records founded in each stage, following the PRISMA method.

 

 

121 – The stated period was 2000 to 2020 but on line 121 the authors state that the period is 2001 to 2020. If there were no articles found in 2000, the year should still be mentioned.

Authors’ response: thanks for this comment. We agree with referee and we have made this modification adding 2000 year.

 

 

123 – Table 2 is a figure and should be captioned appropriately. For consistency, the authors should include the years that had no publications on the topic (2000, 2004, 2005 and so on).

Authors’ response: thanks for this comment. We agree with referee and we have made this modification.

 

129 – It is redundant to list all countries both in the text and in the graph. The authors might consider color coding the graph with the continents and remove the list of countries in the text. Instead they might provide their opinion on the distribution of results.

Authors’ response: We would like to thank you for your comment. We have modified the chart with continents coded by colour. However, we did not find a statistical significance for the countries, so we limited to give an overview of selected studies in the literature on this topic.

 

 

133 – Table 3 is also a figure. Please sort the countries in descending order of frequency (most frequent first). As in the case of Table 2, it is redundant to list the countries in the text. An opinion on the distribution might be more insightful.

Authors’ response We would like to thank you for your comment. We decided to delete this table because we decide to discuss the type of fish as a single category, in order to refer both to products from fresh water and ocean/open waters. In line of this, we refocused the title and the objective. We also decided to going back to make sure these terms are included in the review and the final records didn't change.

 

 

137 – 11/35 is less than one third and not close to half. Again, consider sorting the categories in descending order and removing the enumeration from the text. Table 4 is Figure 4.

Authors’ response: We would like to thank you for your comment. We decided to delete this table because we decide to discuss the type of fish as a single category, in order to refer both to products from fresh water and ocean/open waters.

 

 

150/400 – Country of origin is stated as being one of the most relevant, but this claim is not backed-up by data. The authors should find a measure to quantify the relevance (e.g. number of studies, average premium paid by customers, amount of significant results as compared to other attributes etc.) and use it to compare country of origin to other attributes. Only then this claim can be supported.

Authors’ response: thanks for this helpful suggestion. We agree with referee and we made efforts to ameliorate the content of the paper.  We did a meta-analysis of the analysed papers and their findings. We added a new paragraph "2.3 Statistical analysis” with a better description of the method and an analysis of data. In this paragraph we added the Table 2 with a summary of statistics and definition of variables, and Table 3 with the regression results. In addition a comment of this table is provided in the text.

 

 

The results section should be restructured considering the observation made in the second paragraph of the review.

Authors’ response: Thank for your comment. We revised the topic categorization, and we decided to include MSC in eco-label category and turtle safe in animal welfare category. We also did more description and critical analysis of the data trough statistical analysis and relative comments. The Discussion section was improved in order to explain what these results means for the industry.

 

 

The Discussion and Conclusion sections should be redone to reflect the above-mentioned changes.

Authors’ response: thank for your comment. We did an effort to improve this section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I want to congratulate the authors on the improvements they have made. This version of the article is significantly better than the first one. I feel that this article will bring value to the field.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We are glad to bring value to the field of sustainable fish products.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx