On the Legal Status of Marine Genetic Resources in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal.
- More suitable title should be selected for the article. Title should decrease to 10-12 words.
- The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references.
- Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap how your study differs from what has already been done in literature to ascertain the contributions more strongly
- However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
- Abstract section should refer to the study findings, methodologies, discussion as well as conclusion. It is suggested to present the abstract in one 200-250 words paragraph.
- For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
-It is suggested to add articles entitled “Ćosić-Flajsig et al. An Innovative Holistic Approach to an E-flow Assessment Model”, “Chzhu et al. Studying Properties of Prospective Biologically Active Extracts from Marine Hydrobionts” and “Nazarnia et al. A Systematic Review of Civil and Environmental Infrastructures for Coastal Adaptation to Sea Level Rise” to the literature review.
- It is shown in the reference list that the author have a publication in this field. This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with their previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications.
- Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?
- Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.
- DOI of the references must be added (you can use “https://crossref.org/").
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is basically a well-written paper focusing on a ongoing subject-matter in the development of international law. It is - removed for peer review - subject to some necessary revisions.
There are two main suggestions from the reviewer: 1. It is too Chinglish and many expressions are hard to be understood in normal circumstances (e.g. internal basis, value orientation, premise viewing). The paper needs to be gone thoroughly through a native/professional English proof-reader.
2. There is lack of references in the paper. For this topic, there is abundant exisitng literature including books and journal articles. It is expected that the author can make reference to some of them at least.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
