The Contribution of Fish to Food and Nutrition Security in Eastern Africa: Emerging Trends and Future Outlooks

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your work is based on an econometric model. It is not enough to cite the litarature, it is necessary to describe the model in some detail and your own work with it. Overall, you should clearly explain what is your own contribution, what is your added new knowledge and not only the description of the results of other people.Minor comments: It is not appropriate to put some of the results by numbers with six or more digits if the uncertainties are probably in the order of percents or tens of percents. Animal protein coming from plants? (l.225 p.6) What is "market fish" (Fig.1 p.16)?

Author Response

Reviewer 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Point 1: Your work is based on an econometric model. It is not enough to cite the literature, it is necessary to describe the model in some detail and your own work with it. Overall, you should clearly explain what is your own contribution, what is your added new knowledge and not only the description of the results of other people.

 Response 1: We have provided extra details (e.g. from line 125-131; 133-134) to describe the models. We not only cited the literature, but we used the WAPI data tools to provide context-specific information for the East African region. By combining the power of three models, this paper not only provide information and datasets to assist in predicting current and future fish demand and supply patterns, but also provide insight on current trends in fish production, trade and consumption patterns, which is not possible when using only one model. This novel approach sets a good example on the application of various sources of data to compile, generate and disseminate knowledge and information for evidence-based policymaking in the fisheries and aquaculture value chains

Point 2: It is not appropriate to put some of the results by numbers with six or more digits if the uncertainties are probably in the order of percents or tens of percents. Animal protein coming from plants? (l.225 p.6) What is "market fish" (Fig.1 p.16)?

Response 2: The results do not include uncertainties since they are verified before publication by FAO and other international organizations. Market fish means fish sold in local markets to consumers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

In manuscript (sustainability-453797) titled “Contribution of Fish to Food and Nutrition Security in Eastern Africa: Emerging Trends and Future Outlook” by Obiero et al., Authors review “current information on the contribution of fish to food and nutrition security in the Eastern Africa subregion” by applying “a combination of tools and models to provide fish supply and demand projections at national and regional levels.”

The paper addresses a topic that is within the scope of Sustainability and is interesting and current concern. It reads well and cites recent refs both published and “grey literature”. Authors also compile that data in tables and figures that complement the text. Notwithstanding, some (mostly minor) typos are noted and suggestions for text changes are proposed (lines 36, 74, 170-171, 174, Table 2, 184, 185, 191, 193, 207/Table 3, 213, 224, 234/Table 4, 237, 253, 247/Fig. 1, 248, 257, 263, 305, 312/Table 5, 325, 341/Table 6(?)), and clarifications (lines 24, 71, 78, 127 vs. 130, 131, 159-160, 172, 184, 246, 292-294, 296, 307, 316, 335-339) are required. Would expect that in the “Conclusion and recommendations” section, more concrete take away idea(s) including figures/numbers are provided. The final list of references should be checked for completeness and format. 

The abovementioned comments and suggestions are made in the submitted PDF using the tools in Adobe Acrobat DC. Surely, Authors will be able to address them with ease. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1: In manuscript (sustainability-453797) titled “Contribution of Fish to Food and Nutrition Security in Eastern Africa: Emerging Trends and Future Outlook” by Obiero et al., Authors review “current information on the contribution of fish to food and nutrition security in the Eastern Africa subregion” by applying “a combination of tools and models to provide fish supply and demand projections at national and regional levels.”

Response 1: This point does not require a response because the reviewer provides the scope of the paper.

Point 2: The paper addresses a topic that is within the scope of Sustainability and is an interesting and current concern. It reads well and cites recent refs both published and “grey literature”. Authors also compile that data in tables and figures that complement the text. Notwithstanding, some (mostly minor) typos are noted and suggestions for text changes are proposed (lines 36, 74, 170-171, 174, Table 2, 184, 185, 191, 193, 207/Table 3, 213, 224, 234/Table 4, 237, 253, 247/Fig. 1, 248, 257, 263, 305, 312/Table 5, 325, 341/Table 6(?)), and clarifications (lines 24, 71, 78, 127 vs. 130, 131, 159-160, 172, 184, 246, 292-294, 296, 307, 316, 335-339) are required. Would expect that in the “Conclusion and recommendations” section, more concrete take away idea(s) including figures/numbers are provided. The final list of references should be checked for completeness and format. The abovementioned comments and suggestions are made in the submitted PDF using the tools in Adobe Acrobat DC. Surely, Authors will be able to address them with ease.

Response 2: The typos, clarifications and suggestions for text changes in the highlighted lines and tables were reformatted in PDF and Word file by the editorial office before it was sent to authors for their response to reviewer’s comments. We used the Word file provided by the editorial office to revise the paper. The list of references has been rechecked for completeness and format. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This matter is very interesting and written in a clear manner. This innovative character should be marked also in the Conclusion. Moreover In Introduction the authors should better marked the aspects linked to sustainability.

Author Response

Reviewer 3: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Point 1: This matter is very interesting and written in a clear manner. This innovative character should be marked also in the Conclusion. Moreover, In Introduction the authors should better marked the aspects linked to sustainability.

 Response 1: We have revised the introduction by revising line 41-43 to capture issues of environmental sustainability. The paper contributes to the global debates on how food systems can supply enough calories and protein for a growing human population within sustainable limits of food production systems. We believe the paper is appropriate for publication in Sustainability Journal because it applies user-friendly tools and models to predict the contribution of fish to food and nutrition security in terms of production trends, consumption, trade and future demand and supply gaps in the Eastern African region. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Editor, 

I am pleased to review the assigned manuscript. Overall, a proposed review looks very good to me – Authors really did a wonderful job and presented very nice & relevant literature. I have few suggestions that can be incorporated into revised version.

Abstract looks good but just wondering if it can cover the whole theme.

I suggested some of the latest references, it would improve content and the novelty of the research. Authors can incorporate the related research carried out at the University of Queensland, Australia.

Therapeutic potential of abalone and status of bioactive molecules: A comprehensive review. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57(8), 1742-1748.

Marine bioactive compounds and health promoting perspectives; innovation pathways for drug discovery. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 50, 44-55

I would suggest authors to improve the graphs using graphpad or any other latest software rather than using Microsoft excel

The conclusion should be better explained and conclude your whole research.

Please recheck the reference style, some of the references are not according to the journal instructions.

Best Wishes

Author Response

Reviewer 4: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Point 1: I am pleased to review the assigned manuscript. Overall, a proposed review looks very good to me – Authors really did a wonderful job and presented very nice & relevant literature. I have few suggestions that can be incorporated into revised version.

Response 1: The positive comments are well received and noted by the authors.

 Point 2: Abstract looks good but just wondering if it can cover the whole theme.

I suggested some of the latest references, it would improve content and the novelty of the research. Authors can incorporate the related research carried out at the University of Queensland, Australia.

 Therapeutic potential of abalone and status of bioactive molecules: A comprehensive review. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57(8), 1742-1748.

 Marine bioactive compounds and health promoting perspectives; innovation pathways for drug discovery. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 50, 44-55

 Response 2: The abstract has been revised to cover the main themes of the paper. The suggested references to improve the content and novelty of the research have been cited in the revised paper. The scope of our review paper is not aligned with the content of the recommended papers since our paper mainly focus on freshwater aquaculture.

This is because research by Suleria et al 2017 (Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57(8), 1742-1748) focuses on the therapeutic potential of bioactive molecules from abalone for the

food and pharmaceutical industries. Abalone is a marine gastropod, single-shelled, herbivorous, reef-dwelling mollusk widely distributed throughout temperate and tropical coastal waters.

The second recommended paper by Suleria et al 2016 (Trends in Food Science & Technology 50, 44-55) covers “marine bioactive compounds with significant and biological properties contributing to their nutraceutical and pharmaceutical potential and are also considered to be safer alternatives to some existing synthetic drugs”.

 Point 3: I would suggest authors to improve the graphs using graphpad or any other latest software rather than using Microsoft excel

Response 3: The graphs have been reformatted using Excel. The GraphPad full version is very costly and therefore the features have not been fully exploited.

Point 4: The conclusion should be better explained and conclude your whole research.

Response 4: The conclusion section is revised to better explain and conclude the whole research. The authors offer a set of conclusions and actionable recommendations to capture the main theme of the research.

Point 5: Please recheck the reference style, some of the references are not according to the journal instructions.

 Response 5: The reference style has been double checked to comply with the journal reference style.

 Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

No more comments