Portraying the Bangladesh Shrimp Industry: A SWOT Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper chose a critical industry in Bangladesh’s seafood industry as the study target, applied SWOT matrix to analyze the current status and problems in this industry. My comments for revising the manuscript are as follows:

1. In the abstract, the strengths do not correspond to the results in section 3.1. It is suggested to rewrite part of the abstract.

 

2. Literature review is not conducted in this paper. As a vital seafood industry in Bangladesh, the shrimp industry is supposed to be extensively studied in previous literature. It is advised to conclude the existing researches and highlight what’s new in this study.

 

3. The discussion section appears to be overly simplistic. It is advised that more be discussed on how to address weaknesses and future development directions for the Bangladesh shrimp sector, such as policy implications.

 

4. It is suggested to check the reliability of some data sources, such as the Market Report in the reference list.

 

5. Contents of 3.4.7 “consignment rejection” and 3.4.6 “barriers to market access” are overlapping to some extent. These two parts need adjustment.

 

6. The meaning of some sentences are not clear. Line 298-300, the data are those of Bangladesh or worldwide?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Portraying Bangladesh Shrimp Industry: A SWOT Analysis ", which was submitted for the publication in Sustainability journal.

The manuscript is of considerable interest. The paper offers enough details on the experimental design. The results are completed. The cited references are exhaustive and updated, and provides an adequate background regarding the topic of the research.

I proposed some minor corrections on some sections of the manuscript.

-          The discussion needs to be better structured and discussed.

-          The references should be arranged according to journal style.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, this paper is well researched and structured. However, I do have some comments to improve the overall quality of this paper.

1.      Citation style is not incorporated into the Sustainability household style and needs to be revised accordingly.

2.      Mixing up US and United States; EU and European Union is so confusing and inconsistent. You need to ensure the consistency of overall presentation.

3.      At the end of 1. Introduction, there is a need to provide the overall structure of this paper.

4.      3.1.2, “Acts, Rules, Guidelines and Statutory Orders” What is the hierarchy these legal instruments? You need to provide a brief introduction concerning the legal system in Bangladesh.

5.      3.1.3-3.1.5 how are these three sections related to shrimp industry? It is unclear.

6.      3.2.1, “the Private Fisheries Protection Act of 1899” Why is this Act not appearing in 3.1.2.

7.      3.2.2, this section does not read like a complete paragraph.

8.      3.3.5, “other nations” which nations?

9.      “3.3.6. PCR tested PL” What is PCR and PL standing for? You need to provide full name for these abbreviations when you adopted them first time in the paper.

10.   References, No. 21, 28, 54, 59 why these references in bold type?  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns have been fully addressed.