Value Chain Opportunities for Pacific Coastal Resources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses the strategies for strengthening the value chains of coastal fisheries in Pacific Island Countries to achieve economic and social benefits, with a focus on sustainable management and development opportunities. The study is rigorously designed, with in-depth analysis of results, and has certain theoretical significance and practical value.

Specifically:

1. The paper mentions statistics such as per capita fish consumption and the value of fisheries but does not always provide specific references for these figures.Suggestion: Include in-text citations or endnotes that direct readers to the sources of these statistics to enhance the credibility of the paper.

 

2. Acronyms like PICs (Pacific Island Countries) are not always introduced before being used.Suggestion: Ensure that all acronyms are defined at their first mention in the text.

3. The document refers to "global trends" affecting PICs fisheries without specifying what these trends are.Suggestion: Provide a clear definition or description of the global trends and how they impact the fisheries in question.

4. While the paper discusses development opportunities, it does not delve deeply into the policy implications of its findings.Suggestion: Include a section that discusses the policy implications of the research, including recommendations for regional and national policies that could support the development of coastal fisheries value chains.

5. The paper should provide a more comprehensive analysis of the challenges and considerations for aquaculture development in PICs, including technical, environmental, and social dimensions.

6. While the paper provides strategic recommendations, there is a need for a more detailed discussion on the potential challenges in implementing these strategies, particularly regarding resource allocation, stakeholder cooperation, and capacity building.

7. The paper touches on climate change but could benefit from a more comprehensive analysis of how climate change impacts the sustainability and development of coastal fisheries. This could include potential adaptation strategies.

8. Although the manuscript is clearly written, a thorough proofreading is recommended to correct any typographical errors and improve overall readability.

9. Ensure that all references are up-to-date and that there is a consistent citation style throughout the paper. Suggestion: A thorough check of the references for accuracy and relevance, as well as adherence to a specific citation style, would enhance the professionalism of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for the authors' response to the reviewer's comments (Reviewer 1).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting work, the manuscript is well written, explores and presents alternatives to a problem of great impact on fisheries. The conclusions are pertinent, however, I consider that it cannot be accepted in this state in the journal for the following reasons:
1) It is not in the template format requested by the journal.
2) The references are in APA format and the journal requests them in a format where they are numbered in order of appearance in the text.
3) The results and discussion are merged, and should be separated according to the journal's instructions for authors.
I consider that the information presented is very important and relevant for publication and with respect to that I did not find anything to correct and can be published, but the formatting observations should be fixed for final acceptance. Best regards!

Author Response

Please see the attached word file for the authors' responses to the reviewer comments (Reviewer 2). 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The abstract introduces many complex concepts in a dense manner. It is suggested to simplify the language and reorganize ideas so that the objectives and results become clearer. For instance, the sentences about methodologies (World Bank and Porter’s Five Forces) could be condensed. Suggested improvement: "The aim of this study is to identify priority opportunities for developing coastal resource value chains in PICs, targeting increased economic resilience and food security."

2.     The introduction is extensive and detailed but lacks a clear focus on the study's objectives and justification. Secondary information could be reduced, reserving details for the results section. Redundant phrases, such as "the need to develop coastal value chains" (repeated multiple times), should be eliminated or reformulated.

3.     Throughout the text, some sentences are long and difficult to follow. Shorter and more direct sentences would enhance readability.

4.     Ensure a smooth and cohesive transition between discussions on strategies (World Bank, Porter’s Five Forces) and the results (six value chains).

5.     The practical relevance of the work for stakeholders (governments, investors, local communities) could be better highlighted. Suggestion: Emphasize how the recommendations can be directly applied and the expected impacts.

6.     The text repeats references to the same sources and applications multiple times (e.g., World Bank and Porter’s analysis). Suggestion: Consolidate descriptions of methods and sources into a single paragraph before detailing their application to specific value chains.

7.     Some references are outdated (e.g., Porter 1979, 2008). Update with more recent references that expand or validate the model's use.

8.     The methodology relies heavily on generic analyses or those from other sectors. While this shows general applicability, it lacks detail on how it was tailored to PICs' specificities. Suggestion: Clarify how PICs' challenges (geographic isolation, logistical constraints, and limited resources) were integrated into the analysis.

9.     In the results, there are repeated ideas, such as vulnerability to overexploitation and the role of sustainable management programs. Consolidating these ideas into unique points would reduce text volume without losing information. Moreover, expressions like "bargaining power" or "value chain" are frequently used but not explained for readers less familiar with the field. Including brief definitions is recommended.

10.  Several sections mention numbers and statistics (e.g., annual production of 1,500 mt of live reef fish), but additional explanations about their relevance or comparisons with other markets are missing. Adding this information could better contextualize the analysis.

11.  The discussions are descriptive but lack deeper critical analysis. Suggestions: i) discuss the implications of identified challenges for public policies and markets; ii) explore limitations or uncertainties in the presented data; and iii) suggest how recommendations could be prioritized or integrated across different segments.

12.  Sustainability and environmental protection are mentioned but could receive greater emphasis. The authors could develop a specific section to discuss how sustainable practices impact the sector and how they can serve as a competitive advantage for PICs' products.

13.  Avoid redundant expressions such as "data to inform management" and "directed efforts and programmes for data generation", which could be streamlined into a single concept.

Author Response

Please see attached word file for the authors' responses to the reviewer comments (Reviewer 3). 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx