Sustainability Activities in a Hard-to-Abate Industry—A Real-Life Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 are very general. They need to be modified to provide specific descriptions and information relevant for the research. E.g. Section 2.5 needs to be expanded by including information about the exact equipment that was used and detailed description of the chosen approach. Section 2.6 should be accommodated with clearly explained steps that were taken to achieve the goals. 

There are numerous instances through the text where the Authors refer to Chapter 3, I guess this is a mistake.

Section Results is given in the form of a discussion making it unclear what the results are. My overall impression is that the paper should be seriously rearranged as there are information that belong to the introduction at different segments of the paper, etc.

Also, considering the fuzzy arrangement of the text, it remains unclear what is the contribution of the paper.

The paper would benefit from an extensive overview and modification to attain a proper structure. Furthermore, it is essential to include specific data about the implemented work, equipment, methods, etc. In general, it is expected the paper has enough information to allow the reader to repeat the work. I think the paper would also benefit from providing description of the terms later used as evaluation parameters (C02, GHG, hot spotting), their importance in the context of the considered work, evaluation method, etc. This information should be part of the introduction.

Even more important is to clearly explain the contribution the Authors make.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor issues detected at some instances where the sentences sound off. There are no major issues with the language.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for insightful feedback and good improvement suggestions.

In order to clarify the purpose of the publication we have termed and described the manuscript as a communication and not an article. We agree with the reviewer that the level of research data and possibilities for repeating efforts are not sufficient to term it a research article. The communication is a demonstration of how the company has approached the need for improvements and changes in order to be sustainable in the future.

The communication has been rearranged to provide a better flow. Many of the results were better explained if the discussion was included in the reporting of the results, and thus the results and discussion section was merged.  Major changes are highlighted in grey. Some minor wording changes were done for clarity and are not marked.

The use of terms hot spotting, GHG accounting and CO₂ has been explained in the introduction. Author contributions have been clarified in the end of the manuscript.

The data and information provided gives an overview of all activities initiated, but some modifications are very specific to the company and parts of the machine learning tools contain IP protected, thus the data than can be provided will not enable a repetition from a reader.

We have included more data in section 2.5 to provide more information and give more detailed description of the methods and the choices. For section 2.6 and 2.7 some information has been taken out of methods and included in the discussions instead to make this more into a discussion than a pure methods and results.

We hope the revisions render the manuscript suitable for publication in the opinion of the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is logical and supported by real data. It is well written.

This paper focuses on activities that target biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in the fisheries industries as it pertains to AKBM operations.  It discusses the environmental impact as well as Life Cycle assessment for processing of Krill into oil and meal.

This topic is very relevant for the sustainable operations in the fisheries industry.

This paper sts the ground work for the application of LCA in this industry.

The conclusions are consistent with the data presented.

The references are correct and adequate.

I recommend this paper for publication.

Author Response

 

We thank the reviewer for the feedback. Based on input from other reviewers, we have made some changes to the structure of the manuscript which are marked in grey. We have also added some additional information, and clarified author contributions.

We hope the reviewer finds the modifications suitable and the manuscript still fit for publication.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a study to investigate the sustainability activities in a hard-to-abate industry – a real life 2 example. The study is interesting, but there were some flaws presented in the study. The detailed comments are made below:

 

Minor concerns:

(1). No section number for conclusions

(2). The font size of some words in Fig.1 is too small to recognize.

 

Major concerns:

(1). This manuscript is a good report rather than a good academic paper. In the methods and materials part, it was supposed to provide more details about the data source, data processing, the theory and technique used in the paper, etc.

(2). For the results part, you always need to prove your findings by comparing them with other methods.

(3). This article doesn't seem like a review paper either.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for insightful feedback and good improvement suggestions.

We have corrected the minor concerns, including the figure text and headings. In order to meet the major concerns we have classified the manuscript as a communication rather than an article or academic paper. We agree with the reviewer that that the data and information provided gives an overview of all activities initiated, but some approaches are very specific to the company and parts of the machine learning tools contain IP protected sections, thus the data that can be provided will not enable a repetition from a reader.

As there is very little other data published on comparable long-distance fisheries, we are not able at current times to compare the results to improvement measures in similar industries. However, we hope to be able to provide these comparisons when more data from improvement processes in other companies are published.

The manuscript has been rearranged to provide better flow based on feedback from another reviewer.

We hope the revisions render the manuscript suitable for publication in the opinion of the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the submitted paper includes notable improvements it is still missing the basic characteristics of peer-reviewed articles. One major drawback is the unclarity of the overall paper and poor structure.  

It is stated that the focus in this communication is on activities that target biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, as well as activities that reduce the GHG footprint of AKBM operations. Yet the structural organization of the Manuscript is such that the Authors go back and forth between a couple of topics. It would help improve the understanding of the presented study if the Authors could better reorganize the paper and try to provide a natural flow of the presented information. 

Another major issue is the absence of specific information. Even if the submitted paper is not intended as a research article, it has to include more specific information regarding the presented work and analysis, equipment description, monitoring approach, data evaluation, references to support the conclusions, and other parameters essential for publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

Some specific comments are listed below.

Thank you for the clarifications you provided for the Introduction. Although not essential, I think including references in the added section, would benefit the Manuscript (from line 83 there are no references).

Section 2.4.1. should provide a more detailed description of the utilized equipment.

Section 2.5. should be vastly expanded with specific information about the used equipment and the manner it is used to allow the mentioned improvements.  For example, how are echosounder data used for the mentioned task? How many and what type (specification of the equipment)? 

Also, you stated "weather and ocean models and re- 211 search data, are combined with historical harvesting data...", provide a detailed description of what this means and how it is achieved.

Although the paper is not intended as research, it has to provide sufficient information for the reader to have an understanding of the presented idea. 

Also, Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. should be complemented with appropriate references.

I don't see the need for paragraphs in lines 582 to 611. Even if you think the information is essential, it could be distributed in a much shorter segment.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for insightful and valuable feedback on the communication. We have described below how we have modified the communication to better meet the remarks from the reviewer. Each change is commented in bold below each comment.

 

Although the submitted paper includes notable improvements it is still missing the basic characteristics of peer-reviewed articles. One major drawback is the unclarity of the overall paper and poor structure.  

It is stated that the focus in this communication is on activities that target biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, as well as activities that reduce the GHG footprint of AKBM operations. Yet the structural organization of the Manuscript is such that the Authors go back and forth between a couple of topics. It would help improve the understanding of the presented study if the Authors could better reorganize the paper and try to provide a natural flow of the presented information. 

The authors have reorganized the paper to have all information and discussion around each topic: fisheries management, emissions reduction demonstration cases and how to implement reductions beyond own value chain has been included, thus the text is shortened, and not going back and forth between topics.

Another major issue is the absence of specific information. Even if the submitted paper is not intended as a research article, it has to include more specific information regarding the presented work and analysis, equipment description, monitoring approach, data evaluation, references to support the conclusions, and other parameters essential for publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

Some specific comments are listed below.

Thank you for the clarifications you provided for the Introduction. Although not essential, I think including references in the added section, would benefit the Manuscript (from line 83 there are no references).

The authors have kept the reference in line 99 that was already there referring to the food first principle in reference to the Ski factory.  In addition, authors have added references to our annual report describing the AKBM value chain and catch in lines and the CAMMLR catch data to support the introduction of the company and harvesting levels.

Section 2.4.1. should provide a more detailed description of the utilized equipment.

A more detailed description of the equipment and process has been included.

Section 2.5. should be vastly expanded with specific information about the used equipment and the manner it is used to allow the mentioned improvements.  For example, how are echosounder data used for the mentioned task? How many and what type (specification of the equipment)? 

Also, you stated "weather and ocean models and re- 211 search data, are combined with historical harvesting data...", provide a detailed description of what this means and how it is achieved.

Although the paper is not intended as research, it has to provide sufficient information for the reader to have an understanding of the presented idea. 

Authors have expanded this section with examples of data platform and data modelling methods as well as echosounder equipment used. Some of the methods are proprietary, however authors have included a more detailed explanation for better understanding.

Also, Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. should be complemented with appropriate references.

More references has been included in the text.

I don't see the need for paragraphs in lines 582 to 611. Even if you think the information is essential, it could be distributed in a much shorter segment.

This section has been significantly shortened and referenced.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Not all of my concerns were well addressed by the authors. Sorry.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for feedback and consideration of the communication.

Based on other reviewer's comments we have restructured the communication to provide better flow and changing the headings and set-up. The content remains the same, however each subject has been described and discussed together. 

We hope the new structure will meet the reviewers consern.

 

Specifically the following changes has been made:

The authors have reorganized the paper to have all information and discussion around each topic: fisheries management, emissions reduction demonstration cases and how to implement reductions beyond own value chain has been included, thus the text is shortened, and not going back and forth between topics.

Authors have expanded the sections describing the processing improvements  with examples of data platform and data modelling methods as well as echosounder equipment used. Some of the methods are proprietary, however authors have included a more detailed explanation for better understanding.

Additional references has been included in the introduction and in the discussions to support the text better.

The section describing other reporting schemes has been reduced and referenced for more focus and clarity in the communication

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Manuscript is very informative and well-focused on the steps one can take to introduce notable improvements in sustainable fisheries. 

The general structure of the paper is fine. The Introduction is also well prepared. The main drawback is due to occasionally poorly constructed sentences that make it difficult to understand them. Furthermore, there are numerous spots where the Authors over-describe something instead of using a simple graph that could transfer the information more effectively. Also, you often give numerical values for various parameters without providing information on how the value is attained. In general, it would be beneficial to remove part of the paper where there are extensive descriptions, or replace them with one sentence. Expand information on the manner data is attained. Provide additional explanation to the already existing results, and additional process flow, numerical algorithms and similar aids to improve understanding of the paper. It is obvious the Manuscript is intended to provide extensive information. It is also clear there is a lot of work behind it that is very difficult to present in such short communication. Hence, I advise the Authors to utilize all well-known forms of efficient knowledge transfer mechanisms.

Some specific examples are given here, although the issue is present throughout the paper.

In the paper, the Authors make the following statement

"The communication is written to describe the krill fisheries management, and to provide demonstration cases from CO2 hot spotting and how results from these are used to targeted GHG emission reduction"

Based on the statement you made I would propose the change of the Title of your Manuscript as it is a very specific research area, yet the title is very general.

 

The sentence in lines 565 and 566 "The communication provides discussions around how the innovation, implementation and the results of the described initiatives can be used to further develop AKBMs transition plan for sustainable operations in the future" should be altered due to poor construction.

Lines 554, 555, and 556 also need attention due to construction issues. 

I would also propose the Authors include exact numerical or graphical demonstrations of improvements they attained for the three showcases.

The labeling of Fig. 3 should be complemented. It needs an additional explanation of how the speed is quantified here. What is the unit of speed? The label on the vertical axis may be missing.  And the key of the Figure should be further explained somewhere.

Furthermore, the Section "Certifications and documentation of sustainable fisheries activities" should be merged with the Introduction and shortened. 

The removed space should be replaced with a section showing the workflow for the considered industry. Any form of simplified workflow showing basic steps in the industry would be beneficial for better comprehension of the following parts of the paper (you can reference it in the showcases).

The results given in Fig. 5 and Tab. 1 should be further explained in terms of specifying the parameters included to attain the presented values.

Lines 372 to 378 do not provide any additional information and as such they should be removed.

I'm not clear on how the Authors extracted some valuers they refer to in the paper. As an example, how is the value (7.7%) given in line 436 determined? The same is valid for the results in demonstration case 3.

I think there is a referencing issue in line 355.

The explanation given in lines 386 to 394 should be complemented with at least some type of algorithm for the employed model. As the paper is intended as a communication equations are not essential, but the initially provided information seems insufficient. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a couple of sentences that are poorly constructed - too long and difficult to follow.

Author Response

The reponse to reviewer had been added in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current version can be considered acceptable.

Author Response

We thank the reviwer for the help and insightful comments in the process. A new version is uploaded based on a different reviewers comments.