Subjective Socioeconomic Status in Small-Scale Aquaculture: Evidence from Central-Southern Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have some serious reservations regarding the novelty of this manuscript. The following are the key points that need to be improved. For now, I think this manuscript does not meet the standards to be published.

1. Lack of Motivation. 

2. Research gap is not clearly presented?

3. Theoretical underpinning is not sound?

4. Statistical analysis is not appropriate and rigorous enough. No information on selecting Bi-probit regression models. Why is it appropriate for this study?

5. Lack of Novelty.  

6. No limitations and future work recommendations section.

7. it would be better to provide a conceptual framework. 

Numerous typos and grammatical mistakes. No cohesion among sentences. Paragraphs are misleading.

Author Response

Point 1: Lack of Motivation. 

Response 1: We re-write introduction, putting emphasis in the contribution of our research.

Point 2: Research gap is not clearly presented?

Response 2: We remark contribution in the introduction and conceptual framework

Point 3: Theoretical underpinning is not sound?

Response 3: We add new section in the conceptual framework

Point 4: Statistical analysis is not appropriate and rigorous enough. No information on selecting Bi-probit regression models. Why is it appropriate for this study?

Response 4: Bi-probit model section has been complemented and probit models as baseline added. 

Point 5: Lack of Novelty.  

Response 5: We expand the novel contribution in the conceptual framework and discussion

Point 6: No limitations and future work recommendations section.

Response 6: We expand limitations and further research at the end of the “conclusions and discussion” section.

Point 7: it would be better to provide a conceptual framework. 

Response 7: We did it.

Point 8: Comments on the Quality of English Language, Numerous typos and grammatical mistakes. No cohesion among sentences. Paragraphs are misleading.

Response 8: We checked the English language in the whole document.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has got empirical character, it is divided into chapter and subchapters typical for empirical studies. It is written in understandable form, the statistical methods are adequate. I have got some comments, which are presented below.

1. The title should not include the place, where the research was done.

2. Please divide theoretical background in the chapters and subchapters. In this form it is little bit harder understandable.

3. Also please divide methodology chapter in the subchapters typical for this kind of study.

4. There are presented frequencies in the scaled items. It is not correct approach. Please eliminate it.

5. Discussion and conclusion should be separate chapters, every is about something different.

I hope my comments are helpful

Author Response

Point 1: The title should not include the place, where the research was done.

Response 1: We decide to keep it because small-scale aquaculture it is highly diverse between the north and south of chile. Therefore, it is most informative.

Point 2: Please divide theoretical background in the chapters and subchapters. In this form it is little bit harder understandable.

Response 2: We Added a subsection in the theoretical framework.

Point 3:  Also please divide methodology chapter in the subchapters typical for this kind of study.

Response 3: Methodological chapter is divided into subsections.

Point 4: Discussion and conclusion should be separate chapters, every is about something different.

Response 4:  We prefer to keep them together. Conclusions are very concise and exposed in the first paragraph of the section.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper contains sufficiently new and suitable information, and it adheres to the journal’s standards. The topic and level of formality are appropriate for the journal`s readership. Its style and readability are suitable. There is a huge amount of information given throughout the article, but I would suggest revising the paper (major revision). 

The methodological concept is clear, and the selected methodology is scientifically appropriate. But the explanation of Table 1 and Table 2 is very poor. Please, clearly the variables included in the regressions and clarify the descriptive analysis.

Article doesn’t demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and doesn’t cite an appropriate range of literature sources. References, resource material and literature are poor. I suggest supplementing the Related Works chapter. Above all, use the newest literature from the field. I suggest adding some new appropriate works and supplementing the relevant (old) literature review.

Further, I recommend rewriting the conclusions and discussions. The concluding remarks should be more specific and better explained. I miss some more implications!  I would suggest to strengthen the whole text here by pointing out what are the main scientific contributios of your paper.The future directions and limitations are presented appropriately.  

In summary, the article is sufficiently interesting to warrant publication, but it needs major revision. Please follow all the comments above.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Point 1: The methodological concept is clear, and the selected methodology is scientifically appropriate. But the explanation of Table 1 and Table 2 is very poor. Please, clearly the variables included in the regressions and clarify the descriptive analysis.

Response 1: The methodology section is complemented with information, including a better explanation of the independent variables used in the models, as well as new regressions used as baselines.

Point 2: The article doesn’t demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and doesn’t cite an appropriate range of literature sources. References, resource material and literature are poor. I suggest supplementing the Related Works chapter. Above all, use the newest literature from the field. I suggest adding some new appropriate works and supplementing the relevant (old) literature review.

Response 2: We expanded and rewrite the conceptual framework, adding new key bibliographic references.

Point 3: Further, I recommend rewriting the conclusions and discussions. The concluding remarks should be more specific and better explained. I miss some more implications!  I would suggest to strengthen the whole text here by pointing out what are the main scientific contributios of your paper.The future directions and limitations are presented appropriately.  

Response 3: We expand our discussion section, giving additional support. Limitations and further research were also expanded at the end of the section.

Reviewer 4 Report

My comment

a. Author take the data sample in 2017, It is 5 years ago. is it relevant with present condition ? I think there are many factors of change, especially during the Covid and post-covid times.

b. Author claim "The results show that performing as fish farmers positively affects current and future subjective socioeconomic status" How author measure it ? i don't see more discussion in the "Result" section.

c. Author claim that "a bivariate  probit is a suitable methodological strategy for empirical analysis" What is the author's basis for saying that? Can you compared with other methods ?

d. Contribution and novelty should be highlight in introduction, and also give the organized of study in the end of introduction.

e. The results shown are still very insufficient, only one table and discussion is still very low. This is still not enough for a sustainability journal with a high impact factor. I suggest the author has to add a lot to the results even more.

It is OK

Author Response

Point 1: Author take the data sample in 2017, It is 5 years ago. is it relevant with present condition ? I think there are many factors of change, especially during the Covid and post-covid times.

Response 1: We agree with this comment, but there are effects that we cannot control because we depend on the secondary data available. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of subjective socioeconomic well-being in small-scale aquaculture. Data are a little old, but the topic is novel for the local context.

Point 2: Author claim "The results show that performing as fish farmers positively affects current and future subjective socioeconomic status" How author measure it ? i don't see more discussion in the "Result" section.

Response 2: We detail the use of a bi-probit model and its implications in the methodologycal section and also we  explain the significance of the rho coenficient in the result section, which means that current and future socioeconomic status are interrelated.

Point 3: Author claim that "a bivariate  probit is a suitable methodological strategy for empirical analysis" What is the author's basis for saying that? Can you compared with other methods ?

Response 3: we expanded the methodological section and we added probit model as baseline to compare models.

Point 4: Contribution and novelty should be highlight in introduction, and also give the organized of study in the end of introduction.

Response 4: We re-write the introduction, conceptual framework and discussion for remarking the contribution of the research.

Point 5: The results shown are still very insufficient, only one table and discussion is still very low. This is still not enough for a sustainability journal with a high impact factor. I suggest the author has to add a lot to the results even more.

Response 5: We added extra regresions to result section.

Point 6: Comments on the Quality of English Language, It is OK

Response 6: We checked the English language in the whole document.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Previous comments are not addressed adequately.

Still, several grammatical errors and sentence engagement is poor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I agree with revised version.

I recommend to accept in present form.

Author Response

The whole document was proofread by a native English speaker.

Many thanks.

Reviewer 4 Report

Author has revision based on the our suggestion, this form can be accept

Check gramatical error and typo

Author Response

The whole document was proofread by a native English speaker.

Many Thanks.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

can be considered for publication, the authors have revised several sections.

Its ok.