Modern Sustainable Fish Screens: A Study on Developing Effective Communication with Water Users

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Major Comment:

 

Comment 1:

Use more appropriate and unused in title keywords.

 

Comment 2:

It is suggested that you provide a schematic design or image of the “modern sustainable fish screen”.

 

Comment 3:

The source of this key and important sentence “It represents a new best practice for native fish protection in Australia” should be mentioned.

 

Comment 4:

What is the meaning of “This industry” in line 50?

 

Comment 5:

A schematic design or algorithm of models AIDA and DOI should be presented for better understanding.

 

Comment 6:

The innovation of the article should be clearly stated in the last paragraph of the introduction.

 

Comment 7:

Is the number 2.5% obtained from a source or classification criteria (in line 163)?

 

Comment 8:

The study area and 23 data collection locations should be presented on a map (3.1. Data collection).

 

 

Comment 9:

Presenting the present research results in tables and graphs leads to a faster and better understanding of the current study achievements. Also, it is recommended to convert the results from qualitative to quantitative for more accurate comparison and evaluation.

 

Comment 10:

The part conclusion should be presented briefly and separately at the end of the article.

 

 

Minor Comments

 

Comment 1:

Sentences should be written in passive voice.

 

Comment 2:

 Make the correct marking in line 136.

 

Comment 3:

Format P6 and P14 should be modified like other cases (P3, P18, etc.). The article text needs editing.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor (and reviewers),

Thank you very much for inviting us to revise and resubmit our manuscript entitled " Modern sustainable fish screens: A study on developing effective communication with water users” (Manuscript ID: Sustainability - 2182553 20-08-1761).

We thank the reviewers for the detailed, thoughtful, and constructive feedback. We have taken all the comments to heart and completed a substantial and careful manuscript revision. We have made significant changes/revisions to the front part of the paper, e.g., the introduction, and theoretical section, including changes to the theoretical framework, contributions and copy editing etc. We believe our paper has benefited significantly and sincerely hope you will find this revised version aligned with your expectations.

Please find our point-by-point replies to your comments in the document that atatched.  Original comments appear in italics. Going forward, we are happy to elaborate or add any clarifications to these responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor and authors

 

Good morning and I hope you are doing well. I would like to thak the Sustianbility Journal for entrusting me to review the manuscript entitled: Modern sustainable fish screen: a study on developing effec- 2 tive communication with water users.

After reviewing the manuscript, I would like to provide three important recommendations for the improvement of your manuscripts:

1.       Please provide the novelties of your study in the background part

2.       Please provide up-to-date (the last 10 year) publications for your manuscript reference

Thank you so much and please address the specific review input for your manuscript.

Best regards

AS

1.       Please provide the objective of the study in the abstract

2.       Results: please provide quantitative data, if any, or qualitative data for the results in the abstract. This part is like at the conclusion part: Broadly, this study opens up opportunities to expand the application of the insights to enhance 19 adoption in broader settings

3.       The objective of the study is placed in the conclusion, and please place it after background: The current research investigates irrigator communication preferences and processes about innovations to understand and improve the marketer’s communications scheme.

4.       Conclusion: please provide the future prospect of your study

5.       Line 39-40, the references are not updated. Please find the updated citations

6.       Line 51-52, please provide references or data from previous studies if any

7.       Line 67 à do you mean the previous studies about fish screen?

8.       Introduction part: please state some previous studies on the communication strategy and adoption mechanisms for modern fish screens in other countries to provide novelties of your study. In addition, please differentiate the previous studies and your study.

9.       Line 107-113: look like part of methodology. Please consider to rewrite or arrange the para

10.   Point 2. What kind of the literature review method did you use, such as traditional review, systeatic review, meta analysis or what?

11.   Figure 1.AIDA Communication Model, the colored letters are not clear, please use proper colors

12.   Figure 1. Please provide reference of the model if it is cited from previous studies

13.   What is the model for DOI innovation adoption model? Please consider to state as figure 1

14.   Point 3.1 for data collection à Please provide the interview or survey form as a supplmentary data. Point 3.2 is recommended to state variables used to collect data. Please provide table if possible

15.   Point 3.2 à please provide supplementary data, such as video recording, phone record, voice notes, etc

16.   Line 231, please provide specification of NviVo sofware

17.   Line 293: There was no corre- 293 lation between education level and social media use à Please provide reasons and strengthen with your acquired data

18.   Line 296-298, could you mention the source of digital and hard copy data

19.   Point 4.2  What make the differences in style of communication between industries and participants?

20.   Line 358, how do industries use information from their R&D knowledge products ?

21.   Figure 2, you put a coloum for “seek expert and or experienced opinion”, it is based on your survey and did you interview them?

22.   Diagram Figure 2, if there is a decision to reject innovation, it means what will be the further actions? It is like closed loop

23.   There is no conclusion in the manuscript? Please refer to the guidelines of the Sustainability Journal for authors’ manuscript submission

24.   For point 5.1 Managerial implications. The authors should also seek interview the officials from Ministry of Food, Agrculture, or Fishery or infrastructure to get know the implications of the study to policymakers.

25.   In addition, the authors are recommended to study the enabling environment and policies that support the adoption of modern fish screen.

 

Thank you so much

 

Best regards

 

 

AS

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor (and reviewers),

Thank you very much for inviting us to revise and resubmit our manuscript entitled " Modern sustainable fish screens: A study on developing effective communication with water users” (Manuscript ID: Sustainability - 2182553 20-08-1761).

We thank the reviewers for the detailed, thoughtful, and constructive feedback. We have taken all the comments to heart and completed a substantial and careful manuscript revision. We have made significant changes/revisions to the front part of the paper, e.g., the introduction, and theoretical section, including changes to the theoretical framework, contributions and copy editing etc. We believe our paper has benefited significantly and sincerely hope you will find this revised version aligned with your expectations.

Please find our point-by-point replies to your comments in the attached document.  Original comments appear in italics. Going forward, we are happy to elaborate or add any clarifications to these responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

The authors have adequately addressed the comments.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor (and reviewers),

Thank you very much for inviting us to revise and resubmit our manuscript entitled " Modern sustainable fish screens: A study on developing effective communication with water users” (Manuscript ID: Sustainability - 2182553 20-08-1761).

We thank the reviewer/s for the further feedback. We have made changes/revisions as advised. We believe our paper has benefited significantly and sincerely hope you will find this revised version aligned with your expectations.

Please find our point-by-point replies to your comments in the attached document.  Original comments appear in italics.

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewers Comment	Response/Revisions
1.     Name of authors are missed	This has been updated.
2.     Please fix all the figures (alignments, captions, appearance/not blur)	Thanks for the feedback. This has been updated.
3.     Please stress out the novelties of the study in the abstract and introduction	This has been updated. Please see the track changes.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors

 

Good afternoon and thank you for your revision

Please be informed that the manuscript is now well revised with many improvements. However, I would like to provide the following inputs for the revision:

1. name of authors are missed

2. Please fix all the figures (alignments, captions, appearance/not blur)

3. Please stress out the novelties of the study in the abstract and introduction>

 

Thank you so much

 

Author Response

Dear Editor (and reviewers),

Thank you very much for inviting us to revise and resubmit our manuscript entitled " Modern sustainable fish screens: A study on developing effective communication with water users” (Manuscript ID: Sustainability - 2182553 20-08-1761).

We thank the reviewer/s for the further feedback. We have made changes/revisions as advised. We believe our paper has benefited significantly and sincerely hope you will find this revised version aligned with your expectations.

Please find our point-by-point replies to your comments in the attached document.  Original comments appear in italics.

Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewers Comment	Response/Revisions
1.     Name of authors are missed	This has been updated.
2.     Please fix all the figures (alignments, captions, appearance/not blur)	Thanks for the feedback. This has been updated.
3.     Please stress out the novelties of the study in the abstract and introduction	This has been updated. Please see the track changes.