Evaluating Alternative and Sustainable Food Resources: A Review of the Nutritional Composition of Myctophid Fishes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The title could have been given more strikingly.

2. The aim of the study is insufficient. Results could have been given more clearly in the abstract.

2. The abstract should be revised and rewritten in a more understandable way.

3. The purpose should be clearly written in the introduction.

4. Conclusions are inadequate and not clear enough. Evaluation should be done in conclusion.

 

I accepted this manuscript after revision.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This review is intriguing due to its systematic and comprehensive summary and outlook. However, the manuscript could benefit from the inclusion of bibliometric statistics and descriptions, as they could demonstrate the effectiveness and significance of the study. It is recommended that the author add this information. Furthermore, the summary and conclusions section appears to lack specificity. To improve this, the author could consider highlighting specific prospects or a positive outcome that emerged from the literature review.

nothing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Peer-review report of the review article (sustainability-2426864)

The manuscript entitled, “Nutritional Composition of Myctophid Fishes as a Potential Future Sustainable Resource: a Review” is a good and comprehensive review based on an excellent idea submitted for publication in the journal “sustainability.”

 

This manuscript needs a major revision before acceptance. 

 

The identification of new food and feed sources having high nutritional value is a great need of time and has a great potential to attract scientists and related groups. Keeping in view the importance of this topic, the review report of the aforementioned article is as follows. 

 

The idea of this review article is well-conceived and publishable. However, the facts and research are presented broadly and generically. The specificity of the facts is a key factor that must be considered in compiling past research in one manuscript.

 

The data presented in the review article have great variation, and it is hard to reach a conclusion. The authors might have targeted a few major genera, which have the highest importance, to narrow down the target of the review along with the mentioned facts about all the myctophid fishes. 

 

Concerning the aim of this manuscript, the authors should mention a few guidelines that may work as footstones for making a workable plan regarding sustainable myctophid fish resources.

 

As mentioned in the article myctophid fishes have over 250 species, which depicts that it is a large group. And the variation in such a large group is natural; however, to reach a valid conclusion, it is necessary to narrow down the facts and target the important ones. 

 

Why the consumption of these fishes is ignored despite their abundance and versatility?

 

The key characteristics of myctophid fishes are missing, which makes them stand out from other marine life. 

 

What is their response to varying temperatures as they are present in many regions?

 

Examples of studies from the 1980s are mentioned, which means the scientists paid attention at that time. Surprisingly, this group of fishes lost attention later on. What could be the possible reasons behind that desolation?

 

There is no division between migratory and non-migratory myctophid species mentioned in the manuscript. 

 

The comparison pattern is also varying throughout the manuscript. Somewhere comparison with other marine life is mentioned while in other places, intra-genera comparison is given. Can it help to conclude that myctophid fishes are better than others? 

 

In the introduction, it is mentioned that fish products can treat various diseases, but none of the diseases is mentioned. It is better to mention the diseases whose cure is directly linked to the fish or their products. 

 

In line 38, a threat of collapse is mentioned. What are the possible reasons for this potential collapse?

 

In lines 73-74, there is a mention of a rigorous study about the possibility of developing a sustainable commercial fishing sector in the northern Arabian Sea. What was the outcome of that study? 

 

In line 434, it is mentioned that these fishes can carry nutrients to deeper layers of the sea, as deep as 1000m; however, their migration is limited to 50m (line 418). Why are they restricted to 50m only?

 

In lines 449-450, there is a mention of commercial fisheries. What is the success rate of those fisheries, and which species are they targeting? 

Formatting 

The manuscript must be thoroughly formatted as several inconsistencies are found throughout the manuscript. 

A similar terminology or name must be used according to the author's guidelines. Several inconsistencies are found regarding species names. A consistent name for the same substance must be used. 

The names of the species are inconsistently formatted. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

As the focus of the work is the potential use of this type of fish, as an alternative to overexploited species, it is essential to have data on its gastronomic value, consumption and consumer acceptance. On the other hand, it would also be interesting to have data on its potential use for industrial transformation, whether for human, animal or other consumption. On the other hand, many of the references are very dated and therefore, not being indispensable, should be removed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of this manuscript have comprehensively addressed the reviewer's comments and updated the manuscript.

The language and grammar of the manuscript are appropriate; however, inconsistencies are still present in the manuscript. It is suggested to proofread the whole manuscript and remove those inconsistencies.

For example, In the sentence "The ecological characteristics and trophic interactions of myctophids, and the importance of their roles within the mesopelagic ecosystem, have been long recognised [146,147] but many key knowledge gaps remain." The comma in "ecosystem, have been" should be removed to improve the readability.

Moreover, at several places "Fish is" is used; however, the manuscript is about more than one fish. So, "Fish are" or "Fishes are" should be used to better represent the group of fish.

Several such inconsistencies are present, which need attention of the authors.

Author Response

Response in blue

The language and grammar of the manuscript are appropriate; however, inconsistencies are still present in the manuscript. It is suggested to proofread the whole manuscript and remove those inconsistencies.

** MS has been fully read, with various changes made.

For example, In the sentence "The ecological characteristics and trophic interactions of myctophids, and the importance of their roles within the mesopelagic ecosystem, have been long recognised [146,147] but many key knowledge gaps remain." The comma in "ecosystem, have been" should be removed to improve the readability.

** This sentence is changed, as are some others.

Moreover, at several places "Fish is" is used; however, the manuscript is about more than one fish. So, "Fish are" or "Fishes are" should be used to better represent the group of fish.

** Changed the is to are, etc.

** However: there are 3 uses, all correct -

"Fish is..."  when it is a single general commodity, e.g. similar to 'meat', "Fish is a valuable export product for Norway...."

"Fish are..." when they are a group, e.g. Fish are a major fraction of the mesopelagic communities ..."

"Fishes are ..." when referring to multiple species, e.g. "Fishes of the Family Myctophidae are typically small...."