Developing a Blue Economy in Depok West Java, Indonesia: Opportunities and Challenges of Neon Tetra Fish Cultivation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results obtained in this study are very weak and their articulation with the literature review even more so. Therefore, authors must:

- Formulate research questions since it is a qualitative study

- Describe properly and in detail all the methodology inherent to the research.

- the results must be articulated with the literature review carried out

- Questions asked must be answered

- Practical implications of the study must be presented

- the originality of the study must be presented

- Present future lines of investigation and limitations.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Sent revisions.
Thankyou

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an analysis of theory and empirical research on the development of the Blue Economy n Depok West Java, Indonesia. The content of the paper fits within the scope of the Journal. It is a new and original contribution. The paper could be accepted for the publication after major modifications. Additional review is required.

1. The abstract should be improved and have to provide a more structured aim, scope and background to state the principal objectives and scope of the investigation. Please consider using the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; 3) Results: Summarize the articles main findings, and 4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The volume of an abstract should not exceed 200 words.
2. Please add additional keywords, some general terms, and some subject-specific terms. There should be no less than six and no more than ten keywords.
3. In the introduction, the context of the research should be established, and the purpose and/or hypothesis that was investigated should be stated. The information on previous research on the subject can be included either in the Introduction or in the following section. Also, the main idea, importance, novelty, etc. can be indicated in this section
4. The aim of the paper should be clearly stated in one sentence and presented in the Introduction, not in the Materials and Methods section.
5. Authors should stress the novelty aspect harder. What new can we learn from the paper?
6. Please briefly describe in the last paragraph of the INTRODUCTION section the content of each section of the paper and include brief information on methods (one sentence).
7. The main text should include previous research on the subject (if not included in the Introduction), methodology and/or theoretical framework, results of the research, and discussion with the interpretation of results obtained. The Literature review section must be added. Please trace the intellectual progression of the field, give an interpretation of previous research, and identify where gaps exist in how a problem has been researched to date.
8. The theoretical study should include more recently published papers from high-level scientific journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus databases (years 2019-2022), at least 30-35 positions.
9. METHODOLOGY. Please answer the following questions: how was the data collected or generated? And how was it analyzed? The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you chose a particular technique – swot analysis. The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. Provide background and a rationale for methodology.
10. The list of references should be provided according to the requirements of the Journal.
11. Comparisons with other studies have to be provided in the discussion section. Please interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. Please provide a comparison with other studies.
12. Please provide research LIMITATIONS and identify potential weaknesses. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of the findings.
13. The conclusions must concisely summarise the main points of the paper and recommendations for researchers and relevant business practice. This part usually includes four compulsory elements: (1) a general summary of the article, its results and findings, (2) implications and recommendations for practice, (3) research limitations, and (4) suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Sent revisions.
Thankyou

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your study,

I would like to present some comments for the improving of the work.

 

1.     Abstract. It is recommended that authors review the rules regarding the maximum number of characters to be used. In the same way, I believe that it could help to briefly include the most important results achieved in the research.

2.     Introduction and Literature review. In my opinion, in the introduction is not correctly delimit the objective of the research work and please remark significance of the research. It would be convenient to make clear at this point the specific objectives of the work and the way to reach them.

3.     The author should explain more clearly the importance and relevance of his research and anticipate the potential benefits of this research.

4.      It is not clear what the purpose of this research is and why these methods were used to perform the scientific analysis. I think it would be appropriate to write a brief introduction, albeit. Because it is not entirely clear now what this article is about.

5.      I would recommend to extend the discussion part and to explain data in the tables.

6.     In my opinion, the authors lack deeper discussions and insights in analyzing the problems. Also put more sources,

7.     Link the conclusions to the results in more detail.

 

Good luck

 

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Sent revisions.
Thankyou

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made all changes.

Author Response

Response 1: I've corrected more thoroughly there was a double discussion of references before. The content is briefly described and contextualized concerning previous and current theoretical backgrounds and empirical research (previous research) is also available.

2nd response :
The method uses qualitative with a SWOT approach, based on references and direct interviews. Data on weaknesses and strengths are obtained from interviews with people associated with cultivation. Essentially, it is only to know the opportunities, challenges, and positions on which strategy to recommend.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper was amended according to the reviewer’s requirements. It can be accepted after minor modifications. Please revise the list of references, it must be provided according to the requirements of the Journal. Please check the following:

 

Armstrong's theory (2003: 98

Avianty., et al. 2017

 

 

Bidayani, E. (2017). IbMDESA PEDINDANG DALAM UPAYA IMPLEMENTASI KONSEP BLUE ECONOMY: PEMANFAATAN LIMBAH IKAN UNTUK PEMBUATAN PELOR (PELET ORGANIK) SEBAGAI PAKAN ALTERNATIF BUDIDAYA IKAN LELE DUMBO. 21–25.

Buczkowski1, B. I. · M. S. · W. K. · M. C. · R. (2021). SWOT analysis of renewable energy sector in Mazowieckie Voivodeship (Poland): current progress, prospects and policy implications (p. Environment, Development and Sustainability (2022)).

Budiardi, et.al (2007)

 

 

Haryadi & Kristanto, 2013; MPA, 2014

 

 

Kotler & Armstrong (2008)

Kristianto, 2011

UNCTAD 2016

Xie, Z. (2021). CLUSTERS, AND THE BLUE ECONOMY IN THE PEOPLE ’ S REPUBLIC OF CHINA : Asian Development Bank Institute. 1296.

 

 

Author Response

I've corrected the list of references that are not complete, thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you. I've reread and made corrections again, hopefully it's clearer and acceptable.