Delivering Systematic and Repeatable Area-Based Conservation Assessments: From Global to Local Scales

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Juffe-Bignoli et al.,

I reviewed the article on DOPA. I find the article well-written and informative with a clear scope to summarize its purpose and usage. Therefore I suggest minor revision with the correction of some typological errors.

I found the following errors:

Line 165. "Ppseudo-"

Line 366. "Moreover" in italics. 

Line 414. "neeed"

Line 436. "developmemt"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind and positive response and for taking time to read our manuscript. We have addressed all your suggested edits in the new revisions of the paper. These include:

Line 165. "Ppseudo-"

Line 366. "Moreover" in italics. 

Line 414. "neeed"

Line 436. "developmemt"

Kind Regards,

Diego Juffe on behalf of the co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my coments on the paper are presented on the attached pdf document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive and kind response. We have read your review and made the following changes to the manuscript:

In the methods sections, we agree that some paragraphs might read like an introduction. We deleted the first one to avoid repetition because that point was made before. The second and third paragraphs are needed to explain how we got to the new back end approach. Regarding being able to "see" the improvements, this is difficult because the main improvements have been cutting processing time. To that end, in the Results, we do explain how much time has been cut to the process. The case studies in the results also aim to show the improvements.

We have fixed the typo in the discussion (i.e., 20230 to 2030).

In the conclusion, we have split the text in two paragraphs and added more narrative to explain DOPA´s back end novelty and achievement which we think helps understanding the issue tackled in the manuscript.

Thank you for your time and we hope you agree with our edits.

Kind regards,
Diego Juffe on behalf of co-authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the manuscript to be well-written and very clear, even for someone who is not proficient in programming but understands conservation biology. I believe the value of DOPA is very high, and this update on its functioning and improvements made over the years, based on users' needs, is a valuable publication. I appreciated how the authors structured the manuscript, and my comments are only very minor and are attached.

 

 

I wish the authors the best in their research endeavors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and positive response and for taking time to read our manuscript. We have addressed all your suggested edits in the new revisions of the paper. These include:

Keywords

Reviewer: do not repeat in keywords words that are already part of the title

Response: We replaced the key word "area-based conservation" by “Biodiversity”

Main text - Introduction

Line 40, 41, 44 and 65 - We have made the edits proposed by the reviewer.

Line 91 to 95 - We have split the large sentence into two parts, as recommended.

Methods

Line 107, 155, 420, and 423 - We have made the edits recommended by the reviewer.

Figure 1  - We have tried to improve the graphic as suggested

Line 239 - This was actually referring to Supplementary Data 2 and has been fixed. SD1 is mentioned in Table 1.

Have changed all "sqkm" to "km2" AND all "back-end" to "back end" for consistency as recommended.

Line 289 - We have removed this sentence from the brackets and put it after the sentence where it was originally placed to make this point more visible and clear.

Line 420 - We made more clear the sentence.

Thank you for your time and we hope you agree with our edits.

Kind Regards,
Diego Juffe on behalf of the co-authors