Fishing Eco-Efficiency of Ports in Northwest Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

provided in review report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

a through revision is recommended 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached a new version of our paper entitled “Environmental assessment of main capture fishing activity in North West Spain” (jmse-3046323) that was submitted to JMSE for publication.

 The manuscript has been carefully rechecked, and appropriate changes have been made following the reviewers’ suggestions. We would like to thank the referees for their excellent comments. They have helped improve the manuscript quality significantly, and we believe that the manuscript now provides a more balanced and better account of the research. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. Changes to the manuscript have been marked up using yellow color for each reviewer meanwhile, words and sentences removed were not highlighted.

On behalf of the authors, I would like to express our gratitude for the excellent handling of this manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if further changes to the manuscript are required.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Luis T. Antelo

 

Reviewer #1:

I commend you for employing an ecosystem-based indicator, specifically the Ecological Footprint, which includes the Fishing Ground Footprint and Carbon Footprint, to assess the environmental sustainability of the Galician fishing sector. This interdisciplinary approach including ecology, economics, and engineering provides valuable insights into the complex interactions between fishing activities and marine systems. However, I believe there are some areas where improvements could significantly intensify the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of your manuscript. Below, find my comments and proposal for major revisions.

 

1. Title should be as per content and catchy, it looks very rudimentary and not understandable . i.e. main capture fisheries I don’t think it is a technical term so revise it properly??????. I advice prefer a title which can be ended up with question marks.

Response: The title has been modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

2. Keywords should be in ascending order of their first alphabet

Response: Done

 

3. While the introduction highlights the importance of sustainable fishing practices, it lacks a comprehensive literature review connecting previous works on sustainable fishing, climate change, and the specific methods employed in this study.

Response: We have revisited and completed in depth the Introduction section, including all the points remarked by the Reviewer

 

4. There is need to elaborate the background section to precisely establish the context and significance of your research within existing scholarship

Response: In connection with last query by the Reviewer (Q3), we properly completed the contextualization and significance of our work in the Introduction.

 

5. Include references to studies examining similar indicators and methodologies used to other regional case studies.

Response: Done

 

6. Clearly mention the primary research questions and hypotheses driving your investigation. Ensuring these are well defined will strengthen the rationale for your chosen methods and facilitate interpretation of your findings.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We believe that this was already explained in the last paragraph of the introduction (lines 131-145).

 

7. Provide greater detail regarding data collection and analytical techniques, including how you determined vessel size and type, targeted species, and geographic boundaries. Additionally, clarify the calculation of the Ecological Footprint, particularly concerning the Fishing Ground Footprint and Carbon Footprint components.

Response:  All data was obtained from the Technological Platform of Fishing, from the Galicia Government, as mentioned in the manuscript. Therefore, all fish data came from official fishing ports statistics. Vessel size and type were not determined, but extracted from the same Platform from the actual composition of the fleets in each analyzed port. Targeted species selection criterion was explained in lines 162-168, attending to their economic value. The geographic boundaries (ICES zones) were now included in the main text (Lines 148-149)

Regarding calculation of EF, all the equations and data needed for the calculation of the FGF and CF were included in the text. We modified the text to improve clarity (line 202, lines 239-241).

 

8. Figure 1. Location of the different ports it does not seem to be authenticate. It is mandatory to provide appropriate coordinates and I may ask author to provide how it has been prepared. I recommend to prepare it in Q-GIS which shall give a representative and authenticate picture for the same.

Response: Figure 1 was made/composed by the authors using Google Maps app to create the general view of the location of the fishing region of interest in this work (Galicia) in a European context and the zoom in on the exact location of the different analyzed fishing ports in Galicia, changing the characteristic position mark of Google Maps by the icon of a fish. In order to complete Reviewer’s request, we have completed the caption of Figure 1 with the coordinates of the different ports.

 

9. Figure 2. Total Ecological Footprint of the analysed ports by species it is not clear and confusing so it must be redrawn for each figure there should be brief foodnotes about the used symbols used in the preparation of it. And what does it implied for

Response:  We thank the Reviewer’s comment and we improved the quality and clarity of figures. Figures 2 was modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion. Figure 3 was changed to make it more legible and attractive. In Figure 4 (with multiple subplots), we have included appropriate identification/labeling and corresponding subcaptions.

 

10. Author need to provide short foot notes below the tables

Response: After recurrent reading and thinking about reviewer’s comment, authors do not know how to address this query properly since we think a proper explanation of the figures included in the different tables along the manuscript are already included in the corresponding captions.

 

11. Ensure transparency when discussing any assumptions made and limitations encountered throughout your analyses.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. Assumptions and limitations of this work were identified, explained and supported by references when needed. Specifically, in lines 162-164, lines 171-174, lines 209-214, lines 231-245, lines 355-359.

We used publicly available data from Galician Regional Government (Xunta de Galcia), which are widely recognized and validated within the field of fishing research. These sources were selected based on their comprehensive coverage and reliability. Moreover, our choice of methods was based on established practices in the field of fishing eco-efficiency. These methods have been rigorously tested and are commonly used in similar studies.

We hope this detailed explanation clarifies our approach to ensuring transparency about the assumptions and limitations of our study. We believe that the information already provided in the manuscript sufficiently addresses these points.

 

12. Present your findings in a clear and organized manner, ensuring appropriate statistical testing and effect sizes are reported alongside descriptive statistics.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. While we understand the importance of detailed statistical reporting, the primary focus of our paper is on applying ecological footprint to quantify the main impacts of capture fishing during extractive activity, rather than on exhaustive statistical analysis. Our study aims to provide insights into eco-efficiency of analysed Galician fishing ports through this ecosystem-based indicator, which does not necessitate extensive statistical testing or the reporting of effect sizes. We believe that the current presentation aligns with the scope and objectives of our research.

13. Utilize tables, figures, and text judiciously to convey key patterns and trends emerging from your dataset

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We selected data showed in Figures, Tables and text as the most representative of the developed study, describing the trends and patterns found, and discussed them in the main text throughout the Results and Discussion section.

 

14. Address potential confounding factors and alternative explanations for observed relationships

Response: The main unexpected result of this work was the lower eco-efficiency of small ports with respect to the highest ones. The factors leading to this result were explained in Section 3.2.

 

15. Strengthen connections between your findings and prior literature, highlighting consistencies and contradictions

Response: There is no similar/related literature on the scope of the paper on eco-efficiency analysis of Galician ports to connect with our results in order to properly or strongly connect our results with them since the particularities of Galician fishing fleet (e.g. in terms of fleet composition, diversification and size) complicates this potential comparison with other regional studies. As answered in Query 5 of the Reviewer, we have included references to studies examining similar indicators and methodologies used to other regional case studies in the Introduction.

 

16. Discuss necessitate for policy, practice, and future research, considering short term and long-term consequences of adopting recommended strategies for improving the environmental sustainability of the Galician fishing sector.

Response: These aspects were discussed the Results and Discussion section (lines 316-333), and in the Conclusions (lines 376-394).

 

17. Sum up the key attempt of your research and discuss practical use arising from your work. Consider addressing actual avenues for farther exploration given the device of your current study

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We believe that all the queries in this comment were reflected in the Conclusion section, and in the order specified by the reviewer.

 

18. Authors have not given proper attention to write the article, it seems they are in hurry to submit the half-cook article. Is figure caption require full stop or it is advisable??. Please see it properly for table and figures

Response: A full stop was provided for each Figure caption and Table head, according to the template provided by JMSE.

 

19. A through with revision for language in terms of phrasing and grammar is highly recommended

Response: Prior to paper submission, language was revised by English experts of Editage company (we have sent the English revision certificate to the JMSE Editor).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

Consider comments in the entire text.

 

Because the similarity is high is specific parts of the text, I will only make general comments.

 

An example is:

“1. Introduction Fisheries contribute to food security and nutrition because they provide a source of pro- tein and nutrients as well as employment opportunities for many people worldwide [1], [2]. Moreover, the fisheries sector is considered as a growth engine in many countries and the livelihood of more than 12% of people around the world depend on fisheries income [3]. In recent decades, the per capita consumption of aquatic foods has been strongly in- fluenced by increased supply, changing consumer preferences, advancements in technol- ogy, income growth and the development of aquaculture [4], [5]. Blue food (food from aquatic sources) is a high-protein, low-fat food that has been proven to provide a wide range of health benefits, including several vitamins and essential nutrients [6-9]. Thus, it offers highly accessible and affordable sources of animal proteins and micronutrients, playing a vital role in the food and nutritional security of many, vulnerable coastal popu- lations. Consequently, the demand for marine products increased over the last two dec- ades. More precisely, global apparent consumption of aquatic foods increased at an aver- age annual rate of 3% from 1961 to 2019, which is almost twice that of the annual world population growth (1.6%) for the same period [10]. Per capita consumption of aquatic an- imal foods grew by approximately 1.4% per year, from 9.0 kg (live weight equivalent) in 1961 to 20.5 kg in 2019. In 2020, global production of aquatic animals was estimated at 178 million tons [10], of which capture fisheries contributed 90 million tons (51%), generating a sales value of USD 141 billion. Given the nutritional needs of the growing human population and over-stretched land- based resources, the ocean is expected to play an increasingly significant role in the future. Fisheries (and aquaculture) are key global food production system [2], [4] and the sustain- able management of their resources is central to achieving development that safeguards food security, livelihoods, human dignity and natural resources. Therefore, for the future”

Or

“(or métiers defined as a group of fishing operations targeting a specific assemblage of species, using a specific gear, during a precise period of the year and/or within the specific area)”

Or

“The adoption of an energy audit should be seen as one of the strategies that can be used to improve the outcomes for a fishery operating within an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) based management system [21].”

Among many more.

 

Please check international unit system.

Or:

“If the relative EF (per tonne of catch)”

“(4.0 gha/t),”

Check every unit inside tables too.

 

This figure is outdated in style. It also do not seem to be original. It is unclear to me how the data obtained to do this figure was obtained.

“Figure 3. Carbon Footprint of the analysed ports by fishing gear.”

Clear connect the figures to the equations being presented before.

 

 A figures caption needs to be enlightening and clear. It is not the case here, no context at all.

“Figure 1. Location of the different ports.”

 

Yes, I am sure authors are aware in the case of group figures, each one needs to be identified by a subcaption after the main caption per letter.

 

Authors present results but I do not see a discussion. The discussion needs to rely on a set of relevant reason and international references The references presented are extremely scarce.

 

About the concluding remarks, please call it conclusions. Authors need start contextualizing the study. So it is absolutely clear. Why is this manuscript being presented? Then, clearly, the methods later. main findings, clear loot implications, then the limitations and future prospects. Considering that there are quantitative data in the paper, it needs to be present here, as in the abstract too. The abstract is similar in terms of structure, not in terms of content, of course, without limitations and the future prospects.

 

It is my perspective that there is much to be done so that this manuscript becomes more urgent. I see that a preprint was available. I hope the authors have received enough feedbacks to help them too.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached a new version of our paper entitled “Environmental assessment of main capture fishing activity in North West Spain” (jmse-3046323) that was submitted to JMSE for publication.

 The manuscript has been carefully rechecked, and appropriate changes have been made following the reviewers’ suggestions. We would like to thank the referees for their excellent comments. They have helped improve the manuscript quality significantly, and we believe that the manuscript now provides a more balanced and better account of the research. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. Changes to the manuscript have been marked up using yellow color for each reviewer meanwhile, words and sentences removed were not highlighted.

On behalf of the authors, I would like to express our gratitude for the excellent handling of this manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if further changes to the manuscript are required.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Luis T. Antelo

 

Reviewer #2:

Consider comments in the entire text.

1.  Because the similarity is high is specific parts of the text, I will only make general comments.

Response: Authors had not clear what the Reviewer was expecting to get with this query. After asking the Editor of JMSR about it, we concluded, with her assistance, that the overall similarity rate of the manuscript is within the standards/admissible thresholds for the journal. It is true that there are some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field. This fact, together with some widely used references make that the similarity seems to be quite high, but the reason is the one described.

 

2. Please check international unit system. Or: “If the relative EF (per tonne of catch)”

“(4.0 gha/t)”. Check every unit inside tables too.

Response: Thank you for the point regarding this issue. Now, we consistently use the SI standard (t) for abbreviation of tonne (equivalent to 1,000 kg) along the manuscript when used as units for a given value/number. But in some places where no numbers are implied (like in lines 253, 297 or 334), we used the full word tonne.

 

3. This figure 1 is outdated in style. It also does not seem to be original. It is unclear to me how the data obtained to do this figure was obtained.

Response: Figure 1 was made/composed by the authors using Google Maps app to create the general view of the location of the fishing region of interest in this work (Galicia) in a European context and the zoom in on the exact location of the different analyzed fishing ports in Galicia, changing the characteristic position mark of Google Maps by the icon of a fish. In order to complete Reviewer’s request, we have completed the caption of Figure 1 with the coordinates of the different ports.

 

4. “Figure 3. Carbon Footprint of the analysed ports by fishing gear.” Clear connect the figures to the equations being presented before.

Response: Thank you for the recommendation. We have included this information in the text (see the Example of Figure 3 in lines 305-306) in order to allow the reader to understand how figures’ data/results have been generated. For the case of data in Figure 4, how EF is calculated is clearly described in lines 246-248

 

5. A figures caption needs to be enlightening and clear. It is not the case here, no context at all. “Figure 1. Location of the different ports.”

Response: We thank the Reviewer’s comment and we properly completed the information on Figure’s captions and its clarity.

 

6. Yes, I am sure authors are aware in the case of group figures, each one needs to be identified by a subcaption after the main caption per letter.

Response: We improved the quality and clarity of figures. In Figure 4 (with multiple subplots), we have included appropriate identification/labeling and corresponding subcaptions.

 

7. Authors present results but I do not see a discussion. The discussion needs to rely on a set of relevant reason and international references The references presented are extremely scarce.

Response: While we understand the extreme importance of a comprehensive discussion, we believe that the current discussion section adequately addresses the key points of our findings. Our intention was to focus on the most relevant and significant aspects of eco-efficiency of Galician analysed fishing ports, ensuring clarity and conciseness while, opening/paving a new field of research on applying ecosystem-based indicators at fishing port level instead at fishing fleet level. The references we have included were carefully selected for their relevance and significance to our study. The particularities of Galician fishing fleet (e.g. in terms of fleet composition, diversification and size) complicates the potential comparison with other regional studies, making available references in the field scarce, as the Reviewer’s pointed out.

We are confident that the provided discussion and references (more than 60) sufficiently support our results and provide meaningful insights into the topic.

8. About the concluding remarks, please call it conclusions. Authors need start contextualizing the study. So it is absolutely clear. Why is this manuscript being presented? Then, clearly, the methods later. main findings, clear loot implications, then the limitations and future prospects. Considering that there are quantitative data in the paper, it needs to be present here, as in the abstract too. The abstract is similar in terms of structure, not in terms of content, of course, without limitations and the future prospects.

Response: We appreciate your suggestions for improving the structure and clarity of our concluding remarks. First, we changed the title of last section of the paper to Conclusions as recommended by the Reviewer. But we do not agree on the Reviewer’s perception on the structure of this section. The aim and main contribution of the work is clearly contextualized and stated in lines 375-378. After this, main results are presented concisely and in a qualitative way (without repeating the figures summarized in the Results section that could overwhelm the target audience in the field during the process of reading) in lines 378-390. Then, future research trends that could allow to face the inherent limitations of this work to be developed in the near future are now clearly presented (after a process on completing them) in lines 390-402.

There are several ways and styles to write an abstract and the conclusions on a paper, but we firmly believe that a simple, qualitative way to present main results on both of them is better that present big figures that, without a context (and mainly in the abstract), could be not fully understanding (in terms of magnitude and or significance) by the reader.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the article can now be recommended for minor and it is highly revise the MS for reducing the plagiarism . It should be below 10 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

language editing is highly recommeded for grammer, phrasing and sentence rearranagement . 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached a new revised version of our paper entitled “Environmental assessment of main capture fishing activity in North West Spain jmse-3046323” that was submitted to JMSE for publication.

The manuscript has been carefully rechecked, and appropriate changes have been made following the reviewers’ suggestions in this Round 2 of revisions. We would like to thank the referees for their excellent comments. They have helped again to improve the manuscript quality significantly, and we believe that the manuscript now provides a more balanced and better account of the research. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. Changes to the manuscript have been marked up using yellow color for each reviewer meanwhile, words and sentences removed were not highlighted.

Once again, I would like to express our gratitude for the excellent handling of this manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if further changes to the manuscript are required.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Luis T. Antelo

 

Reviewer #1:

1. The article can now be recommended for minor and it is highly revise the MS for reducing the plagiarism. It should be below 10

Response: We rewritten several parts of the manuscript in this second revision to deal with the level of similarity that, despite considered admissible by the Editor, it was quite high. So, in this second revision, and after excluding from the iThenticate analysis we have performed to the new manuscript:

1. References.
2. Provided/required formatting of the JMSE (headers and footers).
3. Author Contributions section.
4. Institutional Review Board Statement section.
5. Data Availability Statement section.
6. Conflict of Interest section.

the similarity percentage is only 8%.

And if the minimum number of matching words is limited to the minimum value that iThenticate allows (9 words) in its analysis, the similarity percentage drops to only 2%, showing that in our work there are no literal phrases or paragraphs from external references.

2. Language editing is highly recommended for grammar, phrasing and sentence rearrangement.

Response: As mentioned in our first answer to the Reviewer on this issue, and prior to paper submission, language was revised by English experts of Editage company (we have sent the English revision certificate to the JMSE Editor). At this stage, we have used Grammarly web tool to correct final spelling, punctuation, grammar and phrasing issues not already fixed in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

Consider comments in the entire text.

 

Because the similarity remains high is specific parts of the text, I will continue insisting in this point.

 

I must be clear in relation to the following authors may not be aware of the significant similarity and what it means in terms of the scientific community, but I am, clearly, and the similarity that I am finding does not relate the preprint already available in the system.

It seems that my comments in relation to this were just ignored.

 

I do not agree with this answer, because it is not a question of the percentage. It is a question of being concentrated in specific parts of the text. Which h I even indicated where, not my role. But I need to check this, since my name is associated with this manuscript.

“Response: Authors had not clear what the Reviewer was expecting to get with this query. After asking the Editor of JMSR about it, we concluded, with her assistance, that the overall similarity rate of the manuscript is within the standards/admissible thresholds for the journal. It is true that there are some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field. This fact, together with some widely used references make that the similarity seems to be quite high, but the reason is the one described.”

 

I am sure that authors know exactly where did the content came from. So it would be easy not to have not present similarity.

 

Again:

“1. Introduction Fisheries contribute to food security and nutrition because they provide a source of pro- tein and nutrients as well as employment opportunities for many people worldwide [1], [2]. Moreover, the fisheries sector is considered as a growth engine in many countries and the livelihood of more than 12% of people around the world depend on fisheries income [3]. In recent decades, the per capita consumption of aquatic foods has been strongly in- fluenced by increased supply, changing consumer preferences, advancements in technol- ogy, income growth and the development of aquaculture [4], [5]. Blue food (food from aquatic sources) is a high-protein, low-fat food that has been proven to provide a wide range of health benefits, including several vitamins and essential nutrients [6-9]. Thus, it offers highly accessible and affordable sources of animal proteins and micronutrients, playing a vital role in the food and nutritional security of many, vulnerable coastal popu- lations. Consequently, the demand for marine products increased over the last two dec- ades. More precisely, global apparent consumption of aquatic foods increased at an aver- age annual rate of 3% from 1961 to 2019, which is almost twice that of the annual world population growth (1.6%) for the same period [10]. Per capita consumption of aquatic an- imal foods grew by approximately 1.4% per year, from 9.0 kg (live weight equivalent) in 1961 to 20.5 kg in 2019. In 2020, global production of aquatic animals was estimated at 178 million tonnes [10], of which capture fisheries contributed 90 million tonnes (51%), gener- ating a sales value of USD 141 billion. Given the nutritional needs of the growing human population and over-stretched land- based resources, the ocean is expected to play an increasingly significant role in the future. Fisheries (and aquaculture) are key global food production system [2], [4] and the sustain- able management of their resources is central to achieving development that safeguards food security, livelihoods, human dignity and natural resources.”

 

No source is being indicated in relation to accusation to which presents similarity:

“where CO is the carbon dioxide emission derived from fuel combustion (t CO2) and Yc the annual rate of carbon dioxide sequestration per hectare of world average forest land,”

 

Or

“or métiers defined as a group of fishing operations targeting a specific assemblage of species, using a specific gear, during a precise period of the year and/or within the specific area)”

 

Or

“The adoption of an energy audit should be seen as one of the strategies that can be used to improve the outcomes for a fishery operating within an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) based management system [25].”

Even if the reference is present

 

Or

“high grading practices (i.e. the decision by fishers to discard fish of low value that allows them to land more valuable fish, [62]);”

 

So let us help authors understand what is at stake here in the first part, in particular.

 

I do feel that the discussion needs to rely on more references, understanding that the authors are discussing their statements need to be supported.

 

About the conclusions again, the way the conclusion starts is not enlightening in terms of why is this study necessary? Because it starts immediately with this study provides. So I would. suggest to add a contextualization, then clear methods, then clear findings, then clear implications, limitations and future prospects. Again because of the nature of this study, quantitative data would be there.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached a new revised version of our paper entitled “Environmental assessment of main capture fishing activity in North West Spain jmse-3046323” that was submitted to JMSE for publication.

The manuscript has been carefully rechecked, and appropriate changes have been made following the reviewers’ suggestions in this Round 2 of revisions. We would like to thank the referees for their excellent comments. They have helped again to improve the manuscript quality significantly, and we believe that the manuscript now provides a more balanced and better account of the research. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point. Changes to the manuscript have been marked up using yellow color for each reviewer meanwhile, words and sentences removed were not highlighted.

Once again, I would like to express our gratitude for the excellent handling of this manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if further changes to the manuscript are required.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Luis T. Antelo

 

Reviewer #2:

1. Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. Not track changes

Response: We did not use track changes to highlight modifications in the revised version of the manuscript. As pointed out in our answer, changes to the manuscript have been marked up using yellow color for each reviewer meanwhile, words and sentences removed were not highlighted. Once again, in the revised version resulting from this Round 2, changes are highlighted in yellow.

 

2. Consider comments in the entire text. Because the similarity remains high is specific parts of the text, I will continue insisting in this point.

 I must be clear in relation to the following authors may not be aware of the significant similarity and what it means in terms of the scientific community, but I am, clearly, and the similarity that I am finding does not relate the preprint already available in the system.

It seems that my comments in relation to this were just ignored.

Response: We would like to apologize to the reviewer if they felt that we ignored their comments. Nothing could be further from reality. We appreciate your vision of our work from the point of view of similarity since it is the first time in our careers that we are in a review facing this problem. Perhaps this inexperience is what has meant that we have not given an adequate response to what Reviewer’s asked us and we followed the Editor's instructions regarding the similarity being within the admissible parameters of the JMSE. Therefore, in this second review we have gone step by step reviewing those parts of the manuscript where the levels of similarity were high following the report provided by the Editor, including and especially thanking the main issues and critical points identified by the Reviewer, as presented next in tis document.

 

3. I do not agree with this answer, because it is not a question of the percentage. It is a question of being concentrated in specific parts of the text. Which I even indicated where, not my role. But I need to check this, since my name is associated with this manuscript.

“Response: Authors had not clear what the Reviewer was expecting to get with this query. After asking the Editor of JMSR about it, we concluded, with her assistance, that the overall similarity rate of the manuscript is within the standards/admissible thresholds for the journal. It is true that there are some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field. This fact, together with some widely used references make that the similarity seems to be quite high, but the reason is the one described.”

I am sure that authors know exactly where did the content came from. So it would be easy not to have not present similarity.

Again:

“1. Introduction

Fisheries contribute to food security and nutrition because they provide a source of protein and nutrients as well as employment opportunities for many people worldwide [1], [2]. Moreover, the fisheries sector is considered as a growth engine in many countries and the livelihood of more than 12% of people around the world depend on fisheries income [3]. In recent decades, the per capita consumption of aquatic foods has been strongly influenced by increased supply, changing consumer preferences, advancements in technology, income growth and the development of aquaculture [4], [5]. Blue food (food from aquatic sources) is a high-protein, low-fat food that has been proven to provide a wide range of health benefits, including several vitamins and essential nutrients [6-9]. Thus, it offers highly accessible and affordable sources of animal proteins and micronutrients, playing a vital role in the food and nutritional security of many, vulnerable coastal populations. Consequently, the demand for marine products increased over the last two decades. More precisely, global apparent consumption of aquatic foods increased at an average annual rate of 3% from 1961 to 2019, which is almost twice that of the annual world population growth (1.6%) for the same period [10]. Per capita consumption of aquatic animal foods grew by approximately 1.4% per year, from 9.0 kg (live weight equivalent) in 1961 to 20.5 kg in 2019. In 2020, global production of aquatic animals was estimated at 178 million tonnes [10], of which capture fisheries contributed 90 million tonnes (51%), generating a sales value of USD 141 billion. Given the nutritional needs of the growing human population and over-stretched land-based resources, the ocean is expected to play an increasingly significant role in the future. Fisheries (and aquaculture) are key global food production system [2], [4] and the sustain-able management of their resources is central to achieving development that safeguards food security, livelihoods, human dignity and natural resources.”

No source is being indicated in relation to accusation to which presents similarity:

“where CO is the carbon dioxide emission derived from fuel combustion (t CO2) and Yc the annual rate of carbon dioxide sequestration per hectare of world average forest land,”

 Response: We have re-written this paragraph to eliminate related similarity.

Or

“or métiers defined as a group of fishing operations targeting a specific assemblage of species, using a specific gear, during a precise period of the year and/or within the specific area)”

 Response: The introduction of the definition of métier (in order to help the reader to understand this concept in a straightforward way) in the text causes the similarity to increase. But it is a definition (established in the European Data Collection Framework, EU 2008) and it cannot be changed or modified without losing part of its content and it is something that is widely accepted and used by the scientific community in the field of fisheries. Therefore, to avoid this problem, and despite having introduced adequate references where this literal definition of metier was taken, we have eliminated it from the text and have simply referenced/included the original source of said definition of métier:

[42] EC, Commission Decision (2008/949/EC) of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, 2008. Official Journal of the European Union, L 346/37

Or

“The adoption of an energy audit should be seen as one of the strategies that can be used to improve the outcomes for a fishery operating within an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) based management system [25].”

Even if the reference is present.

Response: We have re-written this paragraph to eliminate related similarity.

Or

“high grading practices (i.e. the decision by fishers to discard fish of low value that allows them to land more valuable fish, [62])” 

Response: Again, we are defining a term widely used in the field of analysis of the motivations and causes of fishery discards and we have provided an adequate reference from which the definition of high grading shown in our work is extracted. So despite the existence of the similarity identified by the Reviewer, this has been fully justified in this way. However, in this case, we have chosen to rewrite the concept to overcome this issue.

So let us help authors understand what is at stake here in the first part, in particular.

Response: So, as mentioned and by following Reviewer’s indications and recommendations, we rewritten several parts of the manuscript in this second revision to deal with the level of similarity that, despite considered admissible by the Editor, it was quite high. So, in this second revision, and after excluding from the iThenticate analysis we have performed to the new manuscript:

1. References.
2. Provided/required formatting of the JMSE.
3. Author Contributions section.
4. Institutional Review Board Statement section.
5. Data Availability Statement section.
6. Conflict of Interest section.

the similarity percentage is only 8%.

And if the minimum number of matching words is limited to the minimum value that iThenticate allows (9 words) in its analysis, the similarity percentage drops to only 2%, showing that in our work there are no literal phrases or paragraphs from external references.

 

4. I do feel that the discussion needs to rely on more references, understanding that the authors are discussing their statements need to be supported.

Response: As requested by the Reviewer, we have incorporated some relevant references in the Results section to support how obtained results are conclusions extracted are in line with previous significant works on the field, more focused on a fisheries point of view (not at a fishing port scale that is the main advance/contribution of our work). So, contextualize our research has been a hard work from the very beginning of the preparation of the manuscript since no bibliography is available on evaluating fishing ports based on their eco-efficiencies. But now, the manuscript has 70 references that we think perfectly give context to all the work presented.

 

5. About the conclusions again, the way the conclusion starts is not enlightening in terms of why is this study necessary? Because it starts immediately with this study provides. So I would. suggest to add a contextualization, then clear methods, then clear findings, then clear implications, limitations and future prospects. Again because of the nature of this study, quantitative data would be there.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comment. Contextualization of the work and methodology employed was now included in the Conclusions (lines 376-396), together with the most relevant, quantified results and future research trends derived from this work.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

still article need refinement in terms of its language and phrasing and also the plagiasrism to be reduced to less than 15 percentage 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

a through revision is required in terms of grammer, phrasing language change 

Author Response

1. Still article need refinement in terms of its language and phrasing and also the plagiasrism to be reduced to less than 15 percentage

Response: As we already highlighted in previous rounds of revisions, we have done a big effort and work to deal with the level of similarity of our manuscript that, despite considered admissible by the Editor, it was quite high mainly in some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field, together with some definitions like métier or fishing high-grading. Therefore, at this point of the revision procedure, and after the exhaustive re-writing procedure we made following Reviewers’ recommendations and comments, we can confirm that the similarity percentage is only 8% as a result of the iThenticate/Turnitin analysis we have performed to the new manuscript. Once again, please note that the following sections of the Word document:

1. References.
2. Provided/required formatting of the JMSE (headers and footers).
3. Author Contributions section.
4. Institutional Review Board Statement section.
5. Data Availability Statement section.
6. Conflict of Interest section.

have been excluded from it.

And if the minimum number of matching words is limited to the minimum value that iThenticate allows (9 words) in its analysis, the similarity percentage drops to only 2%, showing that in our work there are no literal phrases or paragraphs from external references.

Regarding English editing, we want to insist that prior to paper submission, English language was revised by English experts of Editage company (we have sent the English revision certificate to the JMSE Editor). We have also used Grammarly web tool to correct spelling, punctuation, grammar and phrasing issues in the manuscript. At this point, and due to the short deadline to provide the Round 3 revised version (only 2 day) we ask for the help/quick revision of an English native fishing scientist working with us at the Marine Research Institute (IIM-CSIC), resulting on a final revised version of the manuscript with small extra changes regarding English grammar and re-phrasing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

 

Consider comments in the entire text.

 

Each reviewer is entitled to an opinion and I know what I am doing and saying.

As I always say, the authors know exactly what they wrote, so it should be easier to address this.

“Reviewer #2:

Consider comments in the entire text.

1.  Because the similarity is high is specific parts of the text, I will only make general comments.

Response: Authors had not clear what the Reviewer was expecting to get with this query. After asking the Editor of JMSR about it, we concluded, with her assistance, that the overall similarity rate of the manuscript is within the standards/admissible thresholds for the journal. It is true that there are some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field. This fact, together with some widely used references make that the similarity seems to be quite high, but the reason is the one described.”

 

 

I do not agree with this answer, because it is not a question of the percentage. It is a question of being concentrated in specific parts of the text. Which h I even indicated where, not my role. But I need to check this, since my name is associated with this manuscript.

“Response: Authors had not clear what the Reviewer was expecting to get with this query. After asking the Editor of JMSR about it, we concluded, with her assistance, that the overall similarity rate of the manuscript is within the standards/admissible thresholds for the journal. It is true that there are some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field. This fact, together with some widely used references make that the similarity seems to be quite high, but the reason is the one described.”

 

I have seen this before and I have insisted the literature should be used to support or not your results in specific cases.

That is a point of a discussion. It is just not about writing about the results.

7. “Authors present results but I do not see a discussion. The discussion needs to rely on a set of relevant reason and international references The references presented are extremely scarce.

Response: While we understand the extreme importance of a comprehensive discussion, we believe that the current discussion section adequately addresses the key points of our findings. Our intention was to focus on the most relevant and significant aspects of eco-efficiency of Galician analysed fishing ports, ensuring clarity and conciseness while, opening/paving a new field of research on applying ecosystem-based indicators at fishing port level instead at fishing fleet level. The references we have included were carefully selected for their relevance and significance to our study. The particularities of Galician fishing fleet (e.g. in terms of fleet composition, diversification and size) complicates the potential comparison with other regional studies, making available references in the field scarce, as the Reviewer’s pointed out.”

 

Again, authors may believe what they want, and the reviewer is entitled to an opinion. That’s why it is requested.

“There are several ways and styles to write an abstract and the conclusions on a paper, but we firmly believe that a simple, qualitative way to present main results on both of them is better that present big figures that, without a context (and mainly in the abstract), could be not fully understanding (in terms of magnitude and or significance) by the reader.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

 GENERAL COMMENT FROM THE AUTHORS: We thank again the reviewer for his/her queries and opinions during the whole revision process that for sure improved the quality of our manuscript. But in this Round 3 of revisions it has been quite hard to understand what the Reviewer was asking for and/or expecting from us to continue the improvement of our work. We did our best to properly do it in a very short time due to the two-days deadline.

 

1. Consider comments in the entire text.

 Each reviewer is entitled to an opinion and I know what I am doing and saying.

As I always say, the authors know exactly what they wrote, so it should be easier to address this.

RESPONSE: We are firmly convinced that we have already addressed and included in the different revised versions of our manuscripts all the recommendations, queries and suggestions made by Reviewer 2 during the whole revision process.

 

2. “Reviewer #2:

Consider comments in the entire text.

1.  Because the similarity is high is specific parts of the text, I will only make general comments.

Response: Authors had not clear what the Reviewer was expecting to get with this query. After asking the Editor of JMSR about it, we concluded, with her assistance, that the overall similarity rate of the manuscript is within the standards/admissible thresholds for the journal. It is true that there are some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field. This fact, together with some widely used references make that the similarity seems to be quite high, but the reason is the one described.”

I do not agree with this answer, because it is not a question of the percentage. It is a question of being concentrated in specific parts of the text. Which h I even indicated where, not my role. But I need to check this, since my name is associated with this manuscript.

RESPONSE: As we already highlighted in previous rounds of revisions, we have done a big effort and work to deal with the level of similarity of our manuscript that, despite considered admissible by the Editor, it was quite high mainly in some parts in the Introduction that are widely used in the fishing-fisheries related literature (even by the authors) regarding status of the worldwide fisheries that every year publish FAO and that are written quite similar among a significate number of papers in the field, together with some definitions like métier or fishing high-grading. Therefore, at this point of the revision procedure, and after the exhaustive re-writing procedure we made following Reviewers’ recommendations and comments, we can confirm that the similarity percentage is only 8% as a result of the iThenticate/Turnitin analysis we have performed to the new manuscript. Once again, please note that the following sections of the Word document:

1. References.
2. Provided/required formatting of the JMSE (headers and footers).
3. Author Contributions section.
4. Institutional Review Board Statement section.
5. Data Availability Statement section.
6. Conflict of Interest section.

have been excluded from it.

And if the minimum number of matching words is limited to the minimum value that iThenticate allows (9 words) in its analysis, the similarity percentage drops to only 2%, showing that in our work there are no literal phrases or paragraphs from external references.

 

3. I have seen this before and I have insisted the literature should be used to support or not your results in specific cases.

That is a point of a discussion. It is just not about writing about the results.

1. “Authors present results but I do not see a discussion. The discussion needs to rely on a set of relevant reason and international references The references presented are extremely scarce.

Response: While we understand the extreme importance of a comprehensive discussion, we believe that the current discussion section adequately addresses the key points of our findings. Our intention was to focus on the most relevant and significant aspects of eco-efficiency of Galician analysed fishing ports, ensuring clarity and conciseness while, opening/paving a new field of research on applying ecosystem-based indicators at fishing port level instead at fishing fleet level. The references we have included were carefully selected for their relevance and significance to our study. The particularities of Galician fishing fleet (e.g. in terms of fleet composition, diversification and size) complicates the potential comparison with other regional studies, making available references in the field scarce, as the Reviewer’s pointed out.”

 RESPONSE: As already answered in Round 2 of revisions, and as requested by the Reviewer, we have incorporated to the discussion on the Results section some relevant references to support how obtained results and conclusions extracted are in line with previous significant works on the field, more focused on a fisheries point of view (not at a fishing port scale that is the main advance/contribution of our work). So, contextualize our research has been a hard work from the very beginning of the preparation of the manuscript since no bibliography is available on evaluating fishing ports based on their eco-efficiencies. But now, the manuscript has 70 references that we think perfectly give context to all the work presented.

 

4. Again, authors may believe what they want, and the reviewer is entitled to an opinion. That’s why it is requested.

“There are several ways and styles to write an abstract and the conclusions on a paper, but we firmly believe that a simple, qualitative way to present main results on both of them is better that present big figures that, without a context (and mainly in the abstract), could be not fully understanding (in terms of magnitude and or significance) by the reader.”

RESPONSE: We already accepted Reviewer’s opinion/point of view in Round 2 of revisions and improved versions of the Abstract and the Conclusions were included in the manuscript by following his/her suggestions.