Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, it is a well-written manuscript. However, there's some minor correction need to be done and some suggestion that require the attention of the authors that have been summarised.

Title: The title should provide a concise statement of the contents of the paper. A good title is very important and will attract readers and facilitate retrieval by online searches, thereby helping to maximize citations. The title is not captivating enough to grasp the attention of the readers especially from unrelated fields. I recommend changing the title to give a clear idea of the concept and the content of the study. For example, "Spatiatemporal distribution of euphausiids and fish schools in the coastal southwestern East Sea: Insights from acoustic verification data."

Abstract: Good summary of the method and results of the research, however, the objective of the studies is not highlighted enough. The scientific name of the species such as Euphausia pacifica needs to be italicised, thoroughly check the abstract and also the introduction part. Please minimize the use of abbreviations. 

Introduction: Good effort in elaborating the background of the study sites, Euphausia pacifica, and acoustic systems. However, t here's a lack of information on current studies that need to be added to make it more interesting for readers.

Results & Discussion: This should not recapitulate the results, and should not be too long. Discussion must illustrate and interpret the report of the study. Do check the format for the table and figure since some of it is not aligned accordingly with the rest of the table and figure. Figure 5 is slightly small and hard to read, consider enlarging the image to make it more readable.

Conclusion: Although it is not obligatory to have a conclusion part, a short one that summarizes the entire findings would be nice to conclude the studies since the readers are left a little bit hanged from the discussion.

References :
Please correct the reference 15 (CCAMLR, 2010) in the text.

Author Response

Thank you for the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID water-1511214 is in my opinion a well-prepared and presented scientific work. It presents an ecologically important and worth developing topic related to the distribution of euphausiids and fish schools in the coastal on the example of the southwestern East Sea. For this purpose, the authors used two-frequency (38- and 120-kHz) acoustic backscatter. I believe that the content of the manuscript corresponds to the profile of journal Water, in particular SI Species Richness and Diversity of Aquatic Ecosystems. The manuscript is written in correct language, properly organized and divided into chapters. The background was properly defined by the authors. The purpose and scope of the research is clearly formulated. My comments are minor and I leave the decision to use them to the authors.

1. Please consider preparing a graphic abstract.
2. Abstract must be completed. Abstract - The author fails to emphasize the novelty and significance of the study. Authors should clearly formulate the aim of the research An abstract summarizes, usually in one paragraph of 200-300 words or less, the major aspects of the entire paper in a prescribed sequence that includes: i) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem (s) you investigated; ii) the basic design of the study; iii) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis; and, iv) a brief summary of your interpretations, recommendations as a way forward and conclusions.
3. The aim of the research is precisely defined but please the scientific hypotheses put forward by the authors and then verified should be presented. The novelty and revealing nature of the research must be emphasized.
4. In line 134 the authors write: "The mean, weighted mean, standard deviation, and median standard error are presented. “Has any statistical method been used to determine the significance of the differences between the analyzed variables?
5. There is no separate chapter for Conclusions in the manuscript. I suggest creating this chapter and presenting the most important results obtained during the research.
6. The literature used by the authors is numerous, but for the most part quite old and out of date. I suggest replacing or supplementing with more recent data.
7. Overall, the manuscript is valuable and interesting to read. Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you for the review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf