(Un)wanted Fish: Potential Consumers’ Acceptability of Landings in the Portuguese Case
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS aims to report the results of an analysis of official statistical data of the most landed fish species in Portugal and to verify the potential for consumer acceptance. Although the aim and the title sound very interesting, the MS is confused and does not report clearly the expected results. The materials and methods are not explained in detail but it reports only the general theoretical concept of marketing. By the MS it is quite impossible to understand what the authors have analyzed, whether the data are supported by statistical tests, and, more important, what are the steps of the conceptual framework designed for the study. It is not clear what is the source of ''Social acceptance'' analysis. It could be easily done by means of questionaries to collect the response from Portogues population (and/or tourists). This is what I was waiting to find in the materials and methods section).
In the list, the fish species are reported only with their English common names, scientific name (in latin) should be added. Real data about their abundance are not given.
Moreover, the lack of data on cod (that it is know to the one of the most consumed species in Portugal with the 'bacalhau' being one of the traditional food in Portugal) creates a big data gap.
Please find all the specific comments in the pdf attached. The MS should be deep revised before to be considered for publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
some parts of the MS are hard to read. The MS lacks of scientific terminology in English. A deep revision is requested
Author Response
Answers to Referees
Dear Reviewer:
We are very grateful for reviewing this manuscript and providing us with comments and suggestions to consolidate a review that will allow for a much better understanding of what is written. After studying the comments carefully, we tried our best to make corrections and adjustments as suggested.
We hope that the new manuscript is now in compliance to be approved. Responses to review comments are provided below in this document.
REVIEWER 1
The MS aims to report the results of an analysis of official statistical data of the most landed fish species in Portugal and to verify the potential for consumer acceptance.
Affirmative, in a succinct way, this was our intention. We are happy to know that the objective of the work was well interpreted.
Although the aim and the title sound very interesting, the MS is confused and does not report clearly the expected results.
The materials and methods are not explained in detail but it reports only the general theoretical concept of marketing.
.
By the MS it is quite impossible to understand what the authors have analyzed, whether the data are supported by statistical tests, and, more important, what are the steps of the conceptual framework designed for the study.
Thank you for the pertinent remark. The MS was revised in order to increase its clarity and conciseness.
It is not clear what is the source of ''Social acceptance'' analysis.
Thank you for identifying the typo. In fact, what was meant was “social acceptability” and not “social acceptance”. The double use of terminology does not help to enlighten the reader. We changed the “typo” to a single form: “social acceptability”.
It could be easily done by means of questionaries to collect the response from Portuguese population (and/or tourists). This is what I was waiting to find in the materials and methods section).
Indeed, it is a good suggestion in terms of the methodological approach that is suggested by the reviewer. However, our approach was different. We consulted some literature addressing the issue of “acceptability” and, when available, we adopted it for the species reported by the Portuguese Institute of Statistics (INE), as explained in Table 2.
In the list, the fish species are reported only with their English common names, scientific name (in latin) should be added. Real data about their abundance are not given.
Thanks for the suggestion. In Table 2 we have added the scientific names to the common names in English.
Moreover, the lack of data on cod (that it is know to the one of the most consumed species in Portugal with the 'bacalhau' being one of the traditional food in Portugal) creates a big data gap.
Please find all the specific comments in the pdf attached. The MS should be deep revised before to be considered for publication.
We thank the reviewer for their dedication that we will follow up as best we can.
Line 45: “This legislation…” which? please specify
Thanks for the suggestion. Added accordingly.
L 60: “The objective of this work is divided into four parts.” better to give 1 general aim and the other 3 as additional.
Thanks for the suggestion. We redid the objective in order to adapt to the reviewer's suggestion.
L 91: “Conceptual framework for the analysis approach carried out in this work.” is it the conceptual framework original or readaptad by other contests? Please specify.
Thanks for the pertinent question. In fact, this conceptual framework was developed in an original way, given the data we had and what we intended to analyse.
Ls 92-100: this paragraph should be revised in term of English. Please use the correct terminology. İn addition some references should be added
Ls 101-126: are you sure that this part is fitting in materials and methods? ıt sounds more as a speculative discussion about the general marketing theories concepts. You should give in this section a description of the REAL METHODS USED TO ANALYSE THE DATA. Please move all the theorical part iin discussion and leave here only the real methodology.
In this study the materials and methods were more based on the conceptual part and expeditious analysis of the landed fish. Hence the need to focus more on the explanation of figure 1 and table 1. In any case, our methods are the Olsen analysis adapted to our data (i.e., fish landed in Portugal and reported to INE), as mentioned in the text and referenced in the literature we consulted.
Already explained above.
Ls 170-2: any references?
We add here the following references:
Karadzic, V., Antunes, P., & Grin, J. (2014). Adapting to environmental and market change: Insights from Fish Producer Organizations in Portugal. Ocean & coastal management, 102, 364-374.
Wise, L., Murta, A. G., Carvalho, J. P., & Mesquita, M. (2012). Qualitative modelling of fishermen's behaviour in a pelagic fishery. Ecological Modelling, 228, 112-122.
Sumaila, U. R. (2021). Infinity fish: Economics and the future of fish and fisheries. Academic Press.
Table 2: please provide also the scientific name of the species.
Thanks for the suggestion. In Table 2 we have added the scientific names to the common names in English.
L 185: “More than a 100 commercial species are landed in Portugal.” source?
Thanks for pointing this out. In that sense we have added two suitable references to support what was written.
L 188: “… the figure…” figure 2
Fixed as per suggestion.
Figure 2: this figure is not readable. Please provide a better quality figure.
We added a figure with better resolution/quality and with 300 dpi.
L 196: “From the data available in landing statistics…” please specify that the data are for 2021.
Thanks for the call to action. Correction made.
Ls 205-6: “…has a large level of consumption of fish, being…” report the data of daily consumption pro capite of fish for Portugal as given by FAO
Thanks for the attention call. In this sense, we added the suggested reference:
FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en
Ls 214-5: “However, this study does not include the statistics for cod or octopus.” why not cod? I fully agree to not nclude the octopus that is not a fish species. In this case you should also consider all the consumed marine species (mussels, shrimps and so on). But I suggest to add the data on cod given that salted cod (bacalhau) is one of the traditional food in Portugal.
Ls 249-50: “…the parts of the organisms that are not consumed as human food.” please give more details about this. Are all the mentioned species consumed fresh and whole or they are also processed to create other products?
Thanks for the suggestion to provide more details that were really lacking and that help with the circular economy concept that is fundamental in this special issue of the journal.
An answer was also given to the question posed.
Ls 264-5: “It can be point out that there are some species in which there is interest in continuing to study possibilities to value them.” which?
Thank you for the relevant question. In order to address that we have included some species that have been under study.
Comments on the Quality of English language: Some parts of the MS are hard to read. The MS lacks of scientific terminology in English. A deep revision is requested
We greatly appreciate the reviewer who considers this aspect to be of fundamental importance for the improvement of our manuscript. Therefore, we revised our text in depth and improved the scientific terminology part.
Thank you for your attention and patience.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The main objective of this paper is to search a relationship with the species caught and relate to the potential outlet according to the landings market. The authors make an important effort to analyse the literature in search of potential processing options for fish (or their parts) lacking a clear market and verify the potential for consumers’ acceptance.
Some minor issues:
- Since the paper is submitted to a special issue: Fisheries and Blue Economy, any link the blue economy in the Introduction Section?
- And, in the same way, further clarifications on the role of IUU fishing or bycatch in the developing blue economy.
Author Response
Answers to Referees
Dear Reviewer:
We are very grateful for reviewing this manuscript and providing us with comments and suggestions to consolidate a review that will allow for a much better understanding of what is written. After studying the comments carefully, we tried our best to make corrections and adjustments as suggested.
We hope that the new manuscript is now in compliance to be approved. Responses to review comments are provided below in this document.
REVIEWER 2
The main objective of this paper is to search a relationship with the species caught and relate to the potential outlet according to the landings market. The authors make an important effort to analyse the literature in search of potential processing options for fish (or their parts) lacking a clear market and verify the potential for consumers’ acceptance.
Yes, indeed this was our intention. We are pleased to know that the intention of the work was well understood.
Some minor issues:
- Since the paper is submitted to a special issue: Fisheries and Blue Economy, any link the blue economy in the Introduction Section?
Thanks for the suggestion. In that regard we have added a sentence in the introduction which we think makes the proper connection as suggested.
- And, in the same way, further clarifications on the role of IUU fishing or bycatch in the developing blue economy.
We also appreciate the suggestion. In fact, the data used in the MS only refer to what is officially reported in official INE statistics. In order to respond to the Referee's suggestion, we've added some clarifications and literature on IUU and bycatch and linking to the blue economy.
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Referee’s suggestion: Introduction can be improved
As answered above, we believe that the added sentences and their literature support – with 3 new references added – have improved the introduction as suggested. References added:
Barroso, S., Pinto, F. R., Silva, A., Silva, F. G., Duarte, A. M., & Gil, M. M. (2022). The circular economy solution to ocean sustainability: Innovative approaches for the blue economy. In Research Anthology on Ecosystem Conservation and Preserving Biodiversity (pp. 875-901). IGI Global.
Temple, A. J., Skerritt, D. J., Howarth, P. E., Pearce, J., & Mangi, S. C. (2022). Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing impacts: A systematic review of evidence and proposed future agenda. Marine Policy, 139, 105033.
Leitão, F., Baptista, V., Zeller, D., & Erzini, K. (2014). Reconstructed catches and trends for mainland Portugal fisheries between 1938 and 2009: implications for sustainability, domestic fish supply and imports. Fisheries Research, 155, 33-50.
Thank you for your attention and patience.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the MS in accordance with all the given suggestions. The MS is now more explicative and clearly presented. The MS can be considered for publication in this form.
