Proposed Solutions to the Problems of the Lake Chad Fisheries: Resilience Lessons for Africa?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The concept of the text is quite interesting but the manuscript is low in overall quality and needs to be written again from scratch.
The introduction is shallow and does not provide the relevant context to the uninformed reader about the situation in the region.
Also, the authors spend the most part of the introduction explaining basic concepts of the Theory they used rather than building an argument on why their study is important.
The Methodology is not adequately explained and in my opinion 38 interviews is a rather low number to be considered representative of the stakeholders involved with the exlpoitation of the Lake.
The Results are just extensive quotes from the interviews, in a random and arbitrary pattern.
The Discussion section is OK, but seems detached from the rest of the text mainly because of the problems mentioned above.
Citation style and list of references should follow the journal's guidelines.
Some references (e.g. online material, newpaper articles, webpages etc) should really be used with great caution and, in general, should be avoided
My suggestion to the authors is to use a Citation Manager tool (e.g. EndNote, Zotero, Mendely).
Futher commnets can be found in the file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
The article deals with strategic aspects of fishery management in Lake Chad. In a very interesting way, based on resilience theory, the conditions and problems of further development of the fishery are presented, including opportunities for community involvement. The discussion was well conducted, and the conclusions suggest specific directions for further action. The study should be considered valuable, both theoretically and utilitarian.
I have comments on the methodological part. The survey included 20 small-scale fishers. What was their share of the total number of Lake Chad fishers? Was a special procedure used to select the remaining respondents? If so, what was this procedure?
Other comments
The article was written in a clear, understandable way. I did not notice any major linguistic errors (I admit that I am not an expert in English, however). The discussion begins with the words "e says He says" (line 363) - this seems to be an editorial error. The literature cited is consistent with the issues raised. Here, too, minor errors can be found, which will probably be corrected in the editing process. E.g. (line 551) Is: Taylor, R. (1962). Fatalism Philosophical Review 71-1: 56-66 Should be: Taylor, R. (1962). Fatalism. The Philosophical Review 71(1): 56-66. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183681.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors really did a major reconstruction of the manuscript, following the suggestions of the Reviewers and the new version is by far better in quality.
I still believe that the methodology has some minor flaws, but I can totaly understand the difficulties that the authors are facing, mostly in terms of the ability to access publshed articles and, of course, due to the social, economic and political staus quo in the region. This is why, my suggestion is to accept their article for publication.
I noticed some typographpical and formating errors, but I suppose they will be corrected durong the proofing process.
