Regional Differences and Dynamic Changes in Sea Use Efficiency in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the file attacched.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments about our manuscript. These suggestions are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding to our researches. we have modified and improved our manuscript according to your kind advices. We used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, and marked all the changes in red and blue color in our revised manuscript. they are as follows:
Opinion 1: Pag. 1 Line 9. In the Abstract section, it is advisable to avoid acronymous and, therefore, it is necessary to expand the term MBSM”.
Pag. 2 Line 69. Again, it is suggested to explain the acronymous DEA and SFA.
Response: We corrected the acronyms of all technical terms. When they first appear in the abstract and text, we provided detailed explanations. These terms include sea use efficiency (SUE), Super-efficiency Weighted Slacks-based Measure (Super-WSBM), Global Malmquist Luenberger (GML), gross marine product (GMP), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Approach (SFA), Slacks-based Measure (SBM), Super-efficiency SBM (Super-SBM), Efficiency Change (EC), Best Practice Change (BPC).
Opinion 2: Pag. 2 Line 76. What about the Mediterranean Sea? Is there a paid use system of marine resources integrated in a process of blue economy? If so, talk about that indicating, also, possible references.
Response: In Introduction, we added the relevant literature studying the Mediterranean Sea. (Please see the revised manuscript at paragraph 3 of section 1).
Opinion 3: Pag. 5 Line 185. It is advisable, for a better assessment of the article, to replace paragraph 3 with the sub-heading 2.3.
Response: In Materials and Methods, we added a third section to explain the EC Index and BPC Index. (Please see section 2.3 of the revised manuscript).
Opinion 4: Pag. 9 Line 325. It is better, to move the Note related to figure 2 from lines 325-327 to lines 328-329.
Pag. 10 Line 341. It is better to move the Note related to table 3 from line 341 to line 340.
Response: Based on your suggestions, we moved the Note in Figure 2 and Table 3.”
Opinion 5: Pag. 12 Line 395. It is necessary to insert a new paragraph “discussion” to debate about the resulting data, highlighting the negative and positive outcomes of a paid use system in the management of marine resources. Finally, it could be interesting for international readers to enlarge such novel approach also to other coastal regions widespread in ocean seas and, also, in semi-enclosed basins, as for instance the Mediterranean basin.
PAG. 13 LINES 420-454. It could be useful to move the suggestions proposed in the paragraph “Conclusions” from lines 420 to 454 to the paragraph “Discussions”.
PAG. 13 Line 446. It is better to delete the word Third with the number (3) to standardize the proposed suggestions.
Response: We added Discussions to debate about the resulting data. and the policy suggestion in Conclusion were moved to Discussions.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly again, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Thank you for your time and patience. We look forward to receiving your reply.
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, there is a good flow in the text and ideas are clearly presented. The reader is able to follow and focus attention throughout the entire manuscript. In order to improve the body text, I suggest some amendments below:
Line 9 – The first time the expression “sea use efficiency” is used, as it will recur throughout the manuscript, it should be accompanied by its abbreviation in parentheses (i.e., SUE).
L 41 – In the context of the text “8.9415 trillion yuan” is not the most correct expression to use. The expression “greater than 8.9 trillion yuan” should be used.
Ls 193 to 216 – First, second and third (i.e., labour, capital, and "land"=sea area) should come into separate paragraphs. At it is, is confusing...
L 239 – The title of the subsection must also contain the abbreviated expression “(SUE)”.
Ls 253-5 - This expression is a bit confusing. Please rewrite it.
L 297 – If this sentence is finished, please add the “.”. If anything is missing, please add the missing text and then close with a full stop.
Ls 338-9 – The final part of this sentence is not a result but a conclusion of the authors. As such, it should be dropped from this part or just included in the conclusion.
L 395 – The title of this subsection should be changed to "Conclusions and Remarks on Future Research".
L 455 – Authors should be a little humbler and start from the principle that they make an important contribution. The sentence should change slightly to “… the authors believe that this paper may contribute to…”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments about our manuscript. These suggestions are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding to our researches. we have modified and improved our manuscript according to your kind advices. We used the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word, and marked all the changes in red and blue color in our revised manuscript. they are as follows:
Opinion 1: Line 9 – The first time the expression “sea use efficiency” is used, as it will recur throughout the manuscript, it should be accompanied by its abbreviation in parentheses (i.e., SUE).
L 239 – The title of the subsection must also contain the abbreviated expression “(SUE)”
Response: We corrected the acronyms of all technical terms. When they first appear in the abstract and text, we provided detailed explanations. These terms include sea use efficiency (SUE), Super-efficiency Weighted Slacks-based Measure (Super-WSBM), Global Malmquist Luenberger (GML), gross marine product (GMP), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Stochastic Frontier Approach (SFA), Slacks-based Measure (SBM), Super-efficiency SBM (Super-SBM), Efficiency Change (EC), Best Practice Change (BPC).
Opinion 2: L 41 – In the context of the text “8.9415 trillion yuan” is not the most correct expression to use. The expression “greater than 8.9 trillion yuan” should be used.
Response: We modified this expression. “In 2019, the marine GDP reached over 8.9 trillion yuan,”
Opinion 3: Ls 193 to 216 – First, second and third (i.e., labour, capital, and "land"=sea area) should come into separate paragraphs. At it is, is confusing...
Response: In Indicator Selection and Data Sources, we reallocated paragraphs to more clearly explain the selection of indicators. (Please see the revised manuscript at paragraph 2-6 of section 3).
Opinion 4: Ls 253-5 - This expression is a bit confusing. Please rewrite it.
Response: We modified this expression. “(2) The peak is highest in 2006, indicating a more concentrated distribution of SUE values in 2006.”
Opinion 5: L 297 – If this sentence is finished, please add the “.”. If anything is missing, please add the missing text and then close with a full stop.
Response: We added punctuation at the end of the sentence.
Opinion 6: Ls 338-9 – The final part of this sentence is not a result but a conclusion of the authors. As such, it should be dropped from this part or just included in the conclusion.
Response: We dropped this sentence from this part.
Opinion 7: L 395 – The title of this subsection should be changed to "Conclusions and Remarks on Future Research".
Response: The title of section 6 been changed to "Conclusions and Remarks on Future Research".
Opinion 8: Authors should be a little humbler and start from the principle that they make an important contribution. The sentence should change slightly to “… the authors believe that this paper may contribute to…”
Response: We modified this expression. “The authors believe that this paper may contribute to the existing research in terms of research objects, methods, and data, but some shortcomings remain.”
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly again, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Thank you for your time and patience. We look forward to receiving your reply.
