Next Article in Journal
Habitat-Diversity Relations between Sessile Macrobenthos and Benthic Copepods in the Rocky Shores of a Marine Protected Area
Previous Article in Journal
Integration of Constructed Floodplain Ponds into Nature-Like Fish Passes Supports Fish Diversity in a Heavily Modified Water Body
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/w13081019
Review Report
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Evaluation of Aquaculture Water Quality Based on Improved Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method

Water 2021, 13(8), 1019; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081019
by Guodong You 1,*,†, Bin Xu 1,†, Honglin Su 1,†, Shang Zhang 1,†, Jinming Pan 2,‡, Xiaoxin Hou 1, Jisheng Li 1 and Runsuo Ding 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(8), 1019; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081019
Submission received: 7 February 2021 / Revised: 2 April 2021 / Accepted: 6 April 2021 / Published: 8 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Water, Agriculture and Aquaculture)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript structure is not suitable for an engineering journal. It is better author submit it at a mathematics journal.

Also, novelty of this study is not clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have provided very interesting and useful application of the fuzzy logic method for evaluation of aquaculture water quality regarding particular quality parameters. Methodology is well developed and explained in detail, as well as defuzzification. I am proposing a major revision due to some lack of explanations.

1) Why have authors selected these particular water quality parameters for testing [4-6]? This is only for the case study, i.e. observed location in China?2) Why haven't the authors described the observed location? There is a lack of map, site description, pictures of the microlocation...

3) Subchapter ''4.1. Related studies on water quality evaluation'' does not have the right place in the Discussion. This should be incorporated into the review section/introduction.

4) English language and grammar is at a low level. Authors should handle this. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

- very interesting manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract is not fit for this manuscript, please re-write it again.

Materials and method section needs more references.

Discussion part should be extended.

Tables 4 and 5 need more explanation.

Provide some recommendation in Conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am suggesting a publishing of the paper. Authors have done changes in accordance to my review. Also, other reviews are satisfied, as I can see. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is acceptable.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Back to TopTop