Low-Income Fish Consumers’ Subsidies to the Fish Reduction Industry: The Case of Forage Fish

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Referee’s report on “Low-Income Fish Consumers' Subsidies to the Fish Reduction Industry” (MS#: world-3107688)

The forage fish in developed countries, a crucial source of nutrition in developing countries, has been primarily used for fishmeal and aquafeed production for aquaculture to serve consumers mainly. This paper indicates that the supply of forage fish in fresh fish markets could significantly benefit the fish-producing nations' consumers and the fish-producing nations. Moreover, the increased fish prices could be considered involuntary subsidies by low-income consumers to the aquafeed and aquaculture industries. In summary, the reduction industry's and aquaculture's current use of captured forage fish warrants further scrutiny, while this paper proposes alternative protein sources and cultivating non-carnivorous fish as optional measures to ensure equitable distribution of forage fish resources.

The following comments are aimed at improving the current paper.

1. The motivation of this paper should be strengthened further.
2. The policy orientation could be addressed to support the research value.
3. Some statistical methods could be applied to compare sample countries.
4. Some policy and management applications should be added further.
5. The significant contributions to low-income fish consumers should be addressed further based on the survey results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Review 1 (author responses appear in capital letters)

Referee’s report on “Low-Income Fish Consumers' Subsidies to the Fish Reduction Industry” (MS#: world-3107688)

 

The following comments are aimed at improving the current paper.

 

1. The motivation of this paper should be strengthened further.

 SEVERAL SPECIFIC  PARAGRAPHS (HIGHLIGHTED) NOW DISCUSS THIS ISSUE IN THE Introduction, P2, SECTIONS THAT BEGIN IN LINES 73 AND 81.

 

2. The policy orientation could be addressed to support the research value.
   WE DO NOT DEAL WITH POLICIES, POLICY SUGGESTIONS OR POSSIBILITIES APPEAR IN THE Discussion LINE 517 AND THE Conclusions, UNDER "Policy Suggestions", P 15

 

 

3. Some statistical methods could be applied to compare sample countries.

WE ARE NOT SURE HOW TO DO STATISTICS WHEN THE NUMBERS PROVIDED IN THE DATABASES AND THE CITED PUBLICATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE REPLICATES.

 

4. Some policy and management applications should be added further.

ADDRESSED (HIGHLIGHTED) IN SEVERAL POINTS IN THE MS, AND UNDER "Policy Suggestions" IN Conclusions, P 15.

 

 

 

5. The significant contributions to low-income fish consumers should be addressed

further based on the survey results.

ADDRESSED (HIGHLIGHTED) AT THE END OF THE Conclusions.  

 

WE BELIEVE THAT OUR REVISIONS AND THE ENGLISH EDITING HAVE MADE THE DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have marked some of the errors in the attached MS, as well as made some remarks about the style and wording of the text. Please pay more attention to clarity and simplicity and your article can be much better.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough overview of English by a native speaker would be advisable. Your phrasing is quite "innovative" sometimes.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 (Author responses appear in capital letters)

SEE MY COMMENTS ON THE MS, THEY INCLUDE THOSE  PROVIDED ON THE MS BY THE SECOND REVIEWER, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.  

Response to comments on the MS:

1. Add concluding remarks in  the Abstract: DONE LINES 27-31.
2. Comment on line 43: fish reduction to fishmeal is an accepted term IN THE SCIENCES OF AQUACUTURE AND NUTRITION. FOR INSTANCE, SEARCHING FOR "FISH REDUCTION" IN GOOGLE RETURNS:
   "Reduction fisheries are fisheries that "reduce" or process their catch into fishmeal and fish oil. They rely largely on small and medium-sized pelagic species, that is, fish found in the upper layers of the open sea, such as menhaden, anchovies, and sardines. "

SEE FOR AN EXPLANATION IN

Cashion, Tim, Peter Tyedmers, and Robert WR Parker. "Global reduction fisheries and their products in the context of sustainable limits." Fish and Fisheries 18, no. 6 (2017): 1026-1037.

Asche, Frank, and Sigbjørn Tveterås. "On the relationship between aquaculture and reduction fisheries." Journal of Agricultural Economics 55.2 (2004): 245-265.

 

3. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE OVERFISHING PROBLEM HAS BEEN CLARIFIED; IT APPEARED IN LINE 54 AND NOW IN LINE 57
4. MARKED TEXT IN LINES 59-60: THE ENTIRE SENTENCE HAS BEEN REVISED TO THE TEXT THT BEGINS IN LINE 68

… that “the practice” limits the access of low-income communities in developing countries to local, affordable, and nutritious food.  

 

 

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.
( ) The English is very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.
(x) Extensive editing of English language required. DONE, MDPI ENGLISH-EDITED-83700
( ) Moderate editing of English language required.
( ) Minor editing of English language required.
( ) English language fine. No issues detected.

 

 

 

I have marked some of the errors in the attached MS, as well as made some remarks about the style and wording of the text. Please pay more attention to clarity and simplicity and your article can be much better.

WE BELIEVE THAT OUR REVISIONS AND THE ENGLISH EDITING HAVE MADE THE DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS.

 

peer-review-38748300.v2.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough overview of English by a native speaker would be advisable. Your phrasing is quite "innovative" sometimes.
DONE, MDPI ENGLISH-EDITED-83700

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There is no third part in the entire text;

2.Part 4 only has section 4.1, so it is suggested that this part should not be divided into sections;

3. The introduction part generally involves research significance, literature review, research innovation points, etc. Therefore, many existing contents do not belong to the introduction, but are actually theoretical and practical analysis, and the overall framework of the article should be redesigned;

4. It is suggested to change Part 5 to Conclusion and Policy Suggestions, with specific content of policy suggestions listed separately;

5. It is suggested to add a subtitle to the title to indicate that it is based on the example of Forage Fish.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs minor editing

Author Response

Reviewer 3 (Author responses appear in capital letters)

 

Top of Form

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.
( ) The English is very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.
( ) Extensive editing of English language required.
( ) Moderate editing of English language required.
(x) Minor editing of English language required.  DONE, MDPI ENGLISH-EDITED-83700
 ( ) English language fine. No issues detected.

 

			Must be improved	Not applicable
			( )	( )
WE BELIEVE THAT OUR REVISIONS AND THE ENGLISH EDITING HAVE MADE THE DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS.			( )	( )
			( )	( )
			( )	( )
			( )	( )
			( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There is no third part in the entire text;
   IT WAS AN ERROR ON OUR PART. PART 3 IS THE Discussion, FROM LINE 505.
2. Part 4 only has section 4.1, so it is suggested that this part should not be divided into sections;

THE Conclusions SECTION HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO Conclusions SECTIONS, AS SUGGESTED BELOW, ITEM 4.

3. The introduction part generally involves research significance, literature review, research innovation points, etc. Therefore, many existing contents do not belong to the introduction, but are actually theoretical and practical analysis, and the overall framework of the article should be redesigned;

THE SUGESTED REVISIONS WERE MADE.  THE ENGLISH REVIEWER ACTUALLY LIKED OUR INTRODUCTION. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS TO THE INTRODUCTION SATISFY THIS COMMENT.

FROM MDPI ENGLISH REVIEW: "The Introduction is well written. It provides sufficient information for a reader to understand the background of the study. It presents an account of previous research and clearly sets out the focus of the paper and how it will be structured. The reasoning and logic behind the study are clearly explained."

 

1. It is suggested to change Part 5 to Conclusion and Policy Suggestions, with specific content of policy suggestions listed separately;

THE SECTION HAS BEEN REVISED, STARTING ON LINE 568 SEPARATED INTO TWO Conclusions SECTIONS, AS SUGGESTED

5. It is suggested to add a subtitle to the title to indicate that it is based on the example of Forage Fish.
   A SUBTITLE IS ADDED " The Case of Forage Fish"

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs minor editing

WE BELIEVE THAT OUR REVISIONS AND THE ENGLISH EDITING HAVE MADE THE DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have tried their best to revise the paper. I am satisfied with the current version and think it should be considered for publication.

Author Response

The authors have tried their best to revise the paper. I am satisfied with the current version and think it should be considered for publication.

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your MS is all right now from my part.

Author Response

Your MS is all right now from my part.

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There's no part 3.2.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is needed.

Author Response

Minor editing of English language required.

What are they?

There's no part 3.2.

Revised.