Estimating Energy Efficiency and Energy Saving Potential in the Republic of Korea’s Offshore Fisheries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposed a method to estimate energy efficiency and energy saving potential which has potential application value in engineering. In order to meet the requirements of high-quality publication of the Journal, it is recommended to consider the following suggestions.

1. Key quantitative data should be available in the Abstract.

2. It is best to have a summary of the current research status with a Figure or Table in the Introduction section.

3. Are Table 3 and Figure 1 duplicated? If so, it is recommended to keep one.

4. Are Table 4 and Figure 2 duplicated? If so, it is recommended to keep one.

5. Are Table 5 and Figure 3 duplicated? If so, it is recommended to keep one.

6. Are Table 6 and Figure 4 duplicated? If so, it is recommended to keep one.

7. The  third section focuses more on the description of the results and lacks relevant analysis. Please improve in the revised version.

8. It is best to have a independent discussion section.

Author Response

Thank you again for your review comments. We have uploaded our response file in the attachment below, so please review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

（1）After reading the entire article, I get the impression that the significance of the research is not very substantial, but I can't pinpoint major flaws. The issue may lie in the fact that the research scope is too broad and demands high-quality data.

（2）Stating in the abstract that ' no research has been conducted to examine the energy consumption status of the vessel fisheries’ does not necessarily constitute an innovative point. Furthermore, even if no one has indeed researched the topic previously, it's advisable not to phrase it this way in the writing.

 

（3）In the introduction, avoid listing and piling up references (e.g., lines 57 to 66).

 

Author Response

Thank you again for your review comments. We have uploaded our response file in the attachment below, so please review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the manuscript is well written and presented good, however the reviewer found the following observations.

·        The authors focused on several variables for energy efficiency, therefore could not be able to address well the research observations, it feels like that the work presented is a case study.

·        The authors are advised to reduce the mathematical derivations which leads to lack of understanding of readers and reviewers, should have more critics and comparison of observations and research findings.

·        The authors are recommended to separate the discussion part from the conclusions, however some of the content discussed should be concluded as comparative analysis.

·        The third person speech would be removed from the whole manuscript for example, they, their etc.

·        The grammatical and typo errors may also be checked once to avoid the punctuation, hyphen, commas etc.

·        The manuscript may be processed for publication keeping in view minor changes, wherever necessary and recommended by other reviewers. 

-

Author Response

Thank you again for your review comments. We have uploaded our response file in the attachment below, so please review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1- What was the benchmark for the given study. Make a detailed comparison and explain the novelty of your study with respect to benchmark.

2- The literature review part is very weak and it needs to be revised incorporating latest research in the filed of study.

3-The abstract should be revised on the basis of what has been done and what’s new in

this research?

4- Figure 2-4 be redrawn to make them more understandable and consistent.

5-While the abstract suggests several measures to improve energy efficiency in offshore fisheries, it could go into greater detail about the findings' policy implications. What implications might these findings have for government policies and industry practices?

6-The article specifies the extent of the decline in energy efficiency over time but does not provide potential reasons for it. More detail here would improve the readability.
7- Why is energy efficiency in fisheries and achieving a carbon-negative policy significant, both locally and globally? This context would help readers understand the broader implications.

Minor revisions required.

Author Response

Thank you again for your review comments. We have uploaded our response file in the attachment below, so please review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author provided a very good response to the comments, and I am quite satisfied with the revised version this time.

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has revised the manuscript making it suitable for publication.

The quality is fine with minor changes.