Next Article in Journal
Sustaining Inclusive, Quality Education during COVID-19 Lockdowns
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of EFL Learning on L1 Chinese Lexis
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

How Did the Czech Fishing Union Convince over 99% of Czech Recreational Anglers to Report Their Harvested Fish and Their Fishing Visits into Their Angling Logbooks?

Sustainability 2021, 13(23), 13499; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313499
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Maria Christou
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(23), 13499; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313499
Received: 31 October 2021 / Revised: 26 November 2021 / Accepted: 3 December 2021 / Published: 6 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Resources and Sustainable Utilization)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has set out a data collection and reporting framework that should be the envy of many countries. The paper is of international interest. I am not from Europe. 

Author Response

Thank you for the review. There was no need to revise the paper based on this review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is original and it contributes to the scope of the journal. The reporting of non professional fishers is an interesting concept that needs to be highlighted. However some procedures are very detailed, the use of images would help to understand the main concepts described. The text needs to be checked for language and syntax errors. Also, you can add the questionnaire in a supplementary section. See attached file for further notes.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I have made all the suggested changes that were presented in the attached PDF file (see the revisions in the new manuscript). Instead of images, I added a table that summarizes all the recommendations that are described in the results to make it clearer (Table 5). A native speaker who is an expert in the field checked the text for language and errors and edited the text. I added the questions that the interviewers asked during the in-depth interviews with anglers and fisheries managers into the appendix (Tables 3 and 4).

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 15 - change first "by" to through

Line 21 - change critical to another suitable word to avoid repetition

Line 22 - change fishermen to fishers

Line 35 - change full stop to comma after ecosystems. Remove where

Line 43 - change taken to harvested. Also consider using the term "bag limit" instead of number of fish taken. 

Line 56 - remove do

Line 83 - change are performing to perform

Line 96 - Insert reference for figure

Line 97 - Insert reference for species

Line 99 - Insert reference

Line 111 - remove they see. Restructure sentence to avoid repeating they oversee thice

Line 117-118. Merge into 1 sentence

Line 123 - remove they

Too much use of the word we in the paragraphs from line 119 - 141

Line 129-141 - Merge into 1 sentence as per previous paragraph

Line 178 - change to when the closed season starts

Line 279-282 - Too much use of the words "they can". Restructure sentence to shorten and avoid repetition.

Line 485 - 487 - This should not be in the discussion but in the study area description

Line 504-505 - restructure sentence

Line 517 - change is to was

 

Results

Overall these could be better presented. E.g. there is mention of 25 species in the test taken by anglers and they are not listed anywhere in the text. These could be added as a table 

Also, why is the reason for the inclusion/importance/benefit of certain questions not provided in the discussion rather than the results? 

 

 

Author Response

Line 15 - change first "by" to through

Author: Changed

Line 21 - change critical to another suitable word to avoid repetition

Author: changed to “essential”

Line 22 - change fishermen to fishers

Author: changed

Line 35 - change full stop to comma after ecosystems. Remove where

Author: done

Line 43 - change taken to harvested. Also consider using the term "bag limit" instead of number of fish taken. 

Author: done

Line 56 - remove do

Author: done

Line 83 - change are performing to perform

Author: done

Line 96 - Insert reference for figure

Author: done

Line 97 - Insert reference for species

Author: done

Line 99 - Insert reference

Author: done

Line 111 - remove they see. Restructure sentence to avoid repeating they oversee thice

Author: done and done

Line 117-118. Merge into 1 sentence

Author: done

Line 123 - remove they

Author: done

Too much use of the word we in the paragraphs from line 119 – 141

Author: I removed and replaced most of the words “we” from the sentenced

Line 129-141 - Merge into 1 sentence as per previous paragraph

Author: done

Line 178 - change to when the closed season starts

Author: done

Line 279-282 - Too much use of the words "they can". Restructure sentence to shorten and avoid repetition.

Author: done

Line 485 - 487 - This should not be in the discussion but in the study area description

Author: I removed the sentence from the discussion and added it to the methods section

Line 504-505 - restructure sentence

Author: done

Line 517 - change is to was

Author: done

 

Results

Overall these could be better presented. E.g. there is mention of 25 species in the test taken by anglers and they are not listed anywhere in the text. These could be added as a table

Author: the tested species were added to the text. Also, some changes were made in the results section. I also added a table that summarizes all the recommendations that are described in the results to make them clearer (Table 5).

Also, why is the reason for the inclusion/importance/benefit of certain questions not provided in the discussion rather than the results? 

Author: I added the questions that we asked during the in-depth interviews with anglers and fisheries managers into the appendix (Tables 3 and 4). The reason why the Results section is so long and structured this way is to provide an insight into the fisheries management in the Czech Republic and put it as a story from the beginning to the end. In the Results section, I listed everything that the anglers and the fisheries managers said, and that was important for the paper. In the discussion, I added what the scientific literature stated, and what conclusions I drew from the interviews. The results bring a lot of information and I decided to discuss only the most important of them, otherwise, the discussion would be too long. Since the paper is not driven by any research hypothesis, but it is rather explanatory, I think this way it is easier to understand.

Back to TopTop