Visitors’ Environmental Concerns in Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary: An Offshore Marine Protected Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Visitors’ Environmental Concerns in Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary: An Offshore Marine Protected Area”, by M. Lemmen, R. Burns and J.C. Moreira, presents an interesting work.

In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication, but some problems must be repaired prior to publication. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. 1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
2. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.
3. It would be useful to be described the aim of this paper.
4. You could enrich the scientific literature.
5. Please justify convincingly why this manuscript (method, thematology etc) connected with WATER’s content and scope. Perhaps the using relevant literature from this journal would be helpful. Eg: Skilodimou, H.D.; Antoniou, V.; Bathrellos, G.D.; Tsami, E. Mapping of Coastline Changes in Athens Riviera over the Past 76 Year’s Measurements. Water 2021, 13, 2135. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152135
6. Please use coordinates in all maps.
7. I suggest to provide some thematic maps.
8. Correct references in the text and the reference list according to the journal’s format. Please format the references’ list by using the correct journal abbreviations. See the following link: https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html

Author Response

Reviews of the Marieke Paper 1

Reviewer 1

 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Visitors’ Environmental Concerns in Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary: An Offshore Marine Protected Area”, by M. Lemmen, R. Burns and J.C. Moreira, presents an interesting work.

In general, the manuscript should be acceptable for publication, but some problems must be repaired prior to publication. Some suggestions are as follows:

1. 1. What is the main question addressed by the research? Added
2. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. Revised
3. It would be useful to be described the aim of this paper.  Added
4. You could enrich the scientific literature. Added
5. Please justify convincingly why this manuscript (method, thematology etc) connected with WATER’s content and scope. Perhaps the using relevant literature from this journal would be helpful. Eg: Skilodimou, H.D.; Antoniou, V.; Bathrellos, G.D.; Tsami, E. Mapping of Coastline Changes in Athens Riviera over the Past 76 Year’s Measurements. Water 2021, 13, 2135. Added https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152135
6. Please use coordinates in all maps. Added
7. I suggest to provide some thematic maps. Added
8. Correct references in the text and the reference list according to the journal’s format. Please format the references’ list by using the correct journal abbreviations. Added and changed See the following link: https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting. As a reader I also want to know what are the real main problems and how visitors are aware of them. Please add a paragraph  into the discussion part about this issue. 

Or add an explanation to the methods part how you decided to main problems in the area. 

Please see the attachment for my other edits and comments.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviews of the Marieke Paper 1

Reviewer 2

 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting. As a reader I also want to know what are the real main problems and how visitors are aware of them. Please add a paragraph  into the discussion part about this issue. Added

Or add an explanation to the methods part how you decided to main problems in the area. Added

Add a figure showing the flow of the research methods. Added