Review Reports
- Andrej Sovinc1,* and
- Anja Kržič2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses an important topic by providing a comprehensive overview of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Adriatic-Ionian region. While the study's methodology is robust and the results are clearly presented, the discussion section requires significant improvement to better interpret the findings and place them in a broader scientific and policy context. Additionally, the manuscript would benefit from refining figures for better readability and ensuring consistency in referencing. Detailed comments and suggestions for improvement can be found in the file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Overall Suggestions to Enhance the Manuscript:
1. Improved Discussion and Context:
o Rewrite the discussion to interpret results, placing them within a broader
scientific and policy context. Highlight regional challenges, opportunities, and
implications for biodiversity conservation.
...Noted.
2. Scientific Rigor:
o Incorporate more peer-reviewed studies to support discussions on ecological,
social, and governance factors influencing MPA implementation.
...Noted. 11 new references added and discussion section re-written. Conclusions section added.
3. Clarity in Visuals:
o Refine the figures to ensure they are clear, accessible, well-integrated into the
manuscript and easy to interpret.
..Noted and improved (enlarged, grid added).
4. Referencing:
o Address inconsistencies in referencing, ensuring all in-text citations correspond
to properly formatted references in the bibliography.
..Noted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is clearly organised and well written, as well as being fully illustrated with appropriate maps and tables. The methodology is fully explained and makes appropriate use of the several suitable databases.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Discussion section moved to Conclusions.
...Additional effort invested in expanding teh Discussion section (re-written) and new section (Conclusions) added.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIs the similarity rate of this manuscript a bit too high? It has currently reached 38%.
The extensive citations in Table 1 may lead to the issue of a high similarity rate. If the authors are unable to effectively reduce the similarity rate, they may consider moving Table 1 to Table S1 in the supplementary materials. At the same time, the numbering of tables in the main text will need to be revised accordingly.
On line 61, the citation "Turnbull et al., 2021" is in an incorrect format and needs to be checked throughout the manuscript.
Regarding the background introduction in this manuscript, the authors should elaborate based on the cited literature rather than personal understanding and interpretation. Academic papers require a certain level of professionalism and academic rigor. This manuscript only has 14 references, and the majority of them are web links. The authors should base their manuscript writing primarily on reading published references. Moreover, the authors can review several published academic papers to further improve their writing skills. The current manuscript lacks logical coherence.
On line 97, is the content here necessary?
From line 117 to line 217, the content appears disorganized and lacks structure. Subheadings should be added to enhance the organization of the manuscript. Additionally, the authors' description of materials and methods is overly verbose, making the manuscript appear unrefined.
Under normal circumstances, for maps like Figure 1, should there not be a requirement to include latitude and longitude grid markings? The edges of the images lack even basic latitude and longitude information. The same requirement applies to Figure 2 and the rest of the figures. A full-text review and revision are necessary.
On line 244, each figure and table should have its value, and the authors should at least provide a brief introduction to the data. The current writing is too general. A full-text revision is required.
Regarding Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and so on, the authors should be aware that the format of these tables is problematic. A full-text review and revision are necessary.
On line 254, should the number 2 not be superscripted? The authors should carefully check for such minor details in the manuscript.
I have never seen such a brief Discussion section. In the current version of the manuscript, there is insufficient information to be gleaned. The authors should master the art of academic writing and read more published journal articles to enhance their writing skills and depth. They should base their manuscript writing primarily on reading published references and demonstrate a higher level of thought in the discussion section, which should be expanded based on the references.
This manuscript lacks a Conclusion section.
Author Response
Is the similarity rate of this manuscript a bit too high? It has currently reached 38%.
&
The extensive citations in Table 1 may lead to the issue of a high similarity rate. If the authors are unable to effectively reduce the similarity rate, they may consider moving Table 1 to Table S1 in the supplementary materials. At the same time, the numbering of tables in the main text will need to be revised accordingly.
...Noted. Table 1 deleted, similarity rate thus reduced.
On line 61, the citation "Turnbull et al., 2021" is in an incorrect format and needs to be checked throughout the manuscript.
...Noted.
Regarding the background introduction in this manuscript, the authors should elaborate based on the cited literature rather than personal understanding and interpretation. Academic papers require a certain level of professionalism and academic rigor. This manuscript only has 14 references, and the majority of them are web links. The authors should base their manuscript writing primarily on reading published references. Moreover, the authors can review several published academic papers to further improve their writing skills. The current manuscript lacks logical coherence.
...Noted. References have been added and commented on in a meaningful way.
On line 97, is the content here necessary?
...I believe yes. The EUSAIR region is not widely known geo-political unit.
From line 117 to line 217, the content appears disorganized and lacks structure. Subheadings should be added to enhance the organization of the manuscript. Additionally, the authors' description of materials and methods is overly verbose, making the manuscript appear unrefined.
...Noted. Refined in connection with the rest of the text.
Under normal circumstances, for maps like Figure 1, should there not be a requirement to include latitude and longitude grid markings? The edges of the images lack even basic latitude and longitude information. The same requirement applies to Figure 2 and the rest of the figures. A full-text review and revision are necessary.
...The map in Figure 1 is taken from the official EUSAR Secretariat website and quoted accordingly.
On line 244, each figure and table should have its value, and the authors should at least provide a brief introduction to the data. The current writing is too general. A full-text revision is required.
...The information in the tables is supplemented by explanations of the individual designations in the text.
Regarding Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, and so on, the authors should be aware that the format of these tables is problematic. A full-text review and revision are necessary.
....The other two reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief had no comments on the format of these tables, so we have left them unchanged.
On line 254, should the number 2 not be superscripted? The authors should carefully check for such minor details in the manuscript.
...Noted.
I have never seen such a brief Discussion section. In the current version of the manuscript, there is insufficient information to be gleaned. The authors should master the art of academic writing and read more published journal articles to enhance their writing skills and depth. They should base their manuscript writing primarily on reading published references and demonstrate a higher level of thought in the discussion section, which should be expanded based on the references.
&
This manuscript lacks a Conclusion section.
...References to other articles are added and a discussion is held in relation to the content. Discussion section rewritten as requested by the reviewer, Conclusions section added (as requested by the reviewer).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript effectively addresses all major concerns raised in the initial review, significantly improving the quality, coherence, and scientific rigor of the study. The enhanced discussion section, improved citation accuracy, and refined visual presentation collectively strengthen the manuscript’s contribution to marine conservation research and policy.
In its present form, the manuscript is well-structured, methodologically sound, and provides valuable insights into MPA coverage and biodiversity conservation priorities in the Adriatic-Ionian region. I find that the manuscript now meets the necessary standards for publication and recommend its acceptance.
Author Response
Following the last comment, the individual conclusions have been numbered. Thank you to the reviewers for their help in drafting the paper!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors may choose to number the key points in the Conclusions section, or they can integrate the content of the Conclusions into 1-3 paragraphs. The current writing style is not very common.
Author Response
Following the last comment, the individual conclusions have been numbered. Thank you to the reviewers for their help in drafting the paper!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx