Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Study of Fishing Vessel Behavior
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a useful review of the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches to the extraction of meaningful data on fishing vessel behavior, which is supplemented by a review of the physical ecological and sociological factors that affect such vessel behavior in fisheries. It is sensibly structured and provides a thorough if not exhaustive review of the sources of data and the methods associated with machine learning and deep learning algorithms. The paper provides many useful examples of these but little in the way of illustration of the specific applicability and constraints of individual methods. For this the reader must source the references for a better understanding of the usefulness of specific AI methods and their shortcomings. There is no original work presented as this is simply intended as a review paper. There is a little repetition in parts, and a number of minor grammatical errors - a few of which are detailed below, though this is not an exhaustive list.
Line 17: insert “a” after “decades,”.
Line 17: insert “has” after “vessels”.
Line 38: “vessel” should be “vessels”.
Line 42: replace “to understand and evaluate” with “an understanding and evaluation of”
Line 50: insert “a” after “result,”.
Line 355: replace “economically” with “economic” or “operational”
Line 387: replace “The varies of the natural environment” with “The natural environment will vary”.
Line 619: “Engraulis ringens” should appear in italics “Engraulis ringens”, similarly in references.
Line 701: The last sentence should be rewritten – it is not clear what it means.
These are a few points picked up by the reviewer. A thorough proof read of the English grammar is advised.
Line 17: insert “a” after “decades,”.
Line 17: insert “has” after “vessels”.
Line 38: “vessel” should be “vessels”.
Line 42: replace “to understand and evaluate” with “an understanding and evaluation of”
Line 50: insert “a” after “result,”.
Line 355: replace “economically” with “economic” or “operational”
Line 387: replace “The varies of the natural environment” with “The natural environment will vary”.
Line 619: “Engraulis ringens” should appear in italics “Engraulis ringens”, similarly in references.
Line 701: The last sentence should be rewritten – it is not clear what it means.
These are a few points picked up by the reviewer. A thorough proof read of the English grammar is advised.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I very agree with your comments and suggestions. This response provides detailed answers to the questions raised as much as possible. And the re-submitted file has been revised according to the comments and suggestions, and the revisions were marked in red.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The paper provides many useful examples of these but little in the way of illustration of the specific applicability and constraints of individual methods. For this the reader must source the references for a better understanding of the usefulness of specific AI methods and their shortcomings.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. In the re-submitted file, we have added specific applicability and limitations of individual methods, which are lines 519 and 529 of the first paragraph of section 5.1.1 and 563 lines of the first paragraph of section 5.1.2. In addition, AI algorithms are common in many studies, and some of the examples of AI in fishing vessel behavior can be applied to most studies, with the limitation that the accuracy may be reduced after data replacement.
Comments 2: There is no original work presented as this is simply intended as a review paper.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of AI methods in the study of fishing vessel behavior, and the first comprehensive analysis of the impact mechanisms of fishing vessel behavior. This paper will help future attempts to better integrate AI into fisheries science.
Comments 3: There is a little repetition in parts, and a number of minor grammatical errors - a few of which are detailed below, though this is not an exhaustive list.
Response 3: We agree with this comment. We read the manuscript again and found some other errors. In the resubmitted file, English grammatical errors have been modified and marked in red.
3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: Line 17: insert “a” after “decades,”.
Line 17: insert “has” after “vessels”.
Line 38: “vessel” should be “vessels”.
Line 42: replace “to understand and evaluate” with “an understanding and evaluation of”
Line 50: insert “a” after “result,”.
Line 355: replace “economically” with “economic” or “operational”
Line 387: replace “The varies of the natural environment” with “The natural environment will vary”.
Line 619: “Engraulis ringens” should appear in italics “Engraulis ringens”, similarly in references.
Line 701: The last sentence should be rewritten – it is not clear what it means.
These are a few points picked up by the reviewer. A thorough proof read of the English grammar is advised.
Response 1: All points picked up by the reviewer have been revised and marked in red in re-submitted file, on lines 17, 38, 42, 50, 85, 365, 397, 629 and 711. In addition, a teacher with many years of study abroad experience revised the English grammar of this manuscript. Thank you again for taking the time to make recommendations for this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
I really appreciated this work from both scientific and socio- econimic prespectives. To have made first review by synergically cross-referencing the topics is an important first step in resolving many issue related to safety at sea and resource exploitation. I found it interesting how all the data from different source can be used to build predictive models to safeguard men means and resource at sea.
Although my opionion of the paper is positve, I would like to recommend a paper for you to read on the safety of fishing vessel during fish operations: Aronica S., et al, -Isafety- Integrated System for an Automatic Support to fishing Vessel Security-intelligent Systems- Conference 2017 7-8 Septeber 2017. London UK
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and giving a positive review. I agree with your suggestions and the re-submitted manuscript has been revised.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment: Although my opinion of the paper is positive, I would like to recommend a paper for you to read on the safety of fishing vessel during fish operations: Aronica S., et al, -Unsafety-Integrated System for an Automatic Support to fishing Vessel Security-intelligent Systems- Conference 2017 7-8 September 2017. London UK
Response: Thank you for recommending a paper to me. After downloading and reading this paper, I think this paper would enrich my article. Citations to this paper were added to line 230 of the resubmitted document (Ref 25). Thank you again for taking the time to contribute to this manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
There are some minor spelling mistakes, spelling and article errors. It would be better if lines 47, 51, and 249 were reviewed and corrected.
The title of the 2nd chapter was left on the previous page.
The last sentence of section 2.1 should be explained better. The sentence seems independent of the paragraph.
It is unclear what the sentence 'Lower than the numerical density obtained by VMS' in Table 1 means.
Since this is a review paper, it would be more appropriate to research more articles, add them to the paper, and show them as references. I can find hundreds of articles on this topic when I take a quick look.
There are only minor language mistakes that can be easily corrected by rereading the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I very agree with your comments and suggestions. This response provides detailed answers to the questions raised as much as possible. And the re-submitted file has been revised according to the comments and suggestions, and the revisions were marked in red.
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: There are some minor spelling mistakes, spelling and article errors. It would be better if lines 47, 51, and 249 were reviewed and corrected.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The English language errors have been corrected and marked in red in re-submitted file on not only lines 47,50,249, but also lines 17, 38, 42, 85, 238, 365, 387, 398, 629 and 711.
Comments 2: The title of the 2nd chapter was left on the previous page.
Response 2: Thanks for pointing this out. We have revised it in new submission.
Comments 3: The last sentence of section 2.1 should be explained better. The sentence seems independent of the paragraph.
Response 3: We agree with this comment that the last sentence of section 2.1 seems independent of the paragraph. Therefore, we have deleted this sentence and added other better explanation in the last of section 2.1 on line 94 and marked in red.
Comments 4: It is unclear what the sentence 'Lower than the numerical density obtained by VMS' in Table 1 means.
Response 4: Thanks for pointing this out in Table 1. We are sorry for writing the wrong meaning of this sentence, the correct one should be " Higher than the numerical density obtained by VMS". It means that AIS can get a more intensive amount of data, for example, VMS receives or sends data every 10 minutes, while AIS only takes 1 minute. I hope my answer will make it clear to you.
Comments 5: Since this is a review paper, it would be more appropriate to research more articles, add them to the paper, and show them as references. I can find hundreds of articles on this topic when I take a quick look.
Response 5: Thanks for your suggestion. We agreed and added 16 references, namely 18-21, 24, 26, 28, 31, 34-36, 57-60. While there are many articles on this topic, we screened for citations that are more relevant and representative of "research on artificial intelligence in fishing vessel behavior".
3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: There are only minor language mistakes that can be easily corrected by rereading the paper.
Response 1: The language mistakes have been revised and marked in red in resubmitted file. In addition, a teacher with many years of study abroad experience revised the English grammar of this manuscript. Thank you again for taking the time to make recommendations for this manuscript.
