Assessment of Population Dynamics and Fishery Exploitation of Narrow-Barred Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) in Iranian Waters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General appraisal:
Although not very innovative, the manuscript presents relevant data in a regional context. But before publication it needs to be improved as suggested in the specific comments section.

Specific comments:

Keywords: They should complement the title instead of repeatig it.

Lines 75-81: Revise these objective - they are very confuse... and they should match with what was presented along the manuscript.

LInes 86-89: Justify this methodological option.

Figure 1: Not very clear which are the sampling locations.

Lines 95-97: Indicate the sample sizes. Also, part of these information is repeated below and that should not happens.

Lines 100-101: Weight was not measured with the ruler...

t,Lines 102-200: Need to be revised for a better reading. Also, it makes no sense to have already here the figures of the results within this section. Moreover, you need to indicate in this section the methods for all the results presented in the next section (results) and that does not happens, for instance for the statistical tests conducted. Indicate also in a clear manner the objectives, supporting references and statistical packages used for all procedures applied (mathematical computations and statistical tests). To facilitate the reading would be interesting to include a table indicating all the parameters computed, their specific objective in the context of the work and how their integration will answer to the objectives established for the work at the end of the introduction.

Lines 208-213: Most of the information displayed here has no correspondence in the methods section.

Lines 318-324: Should not begin a section with "Furthermore". Even more important: You should answer in the conclusions to the specific objectives set in the end of the introduction.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Especially the methods section should be revised to imporove its readability.

Author Response

To

The Reviewers

Oceans

 

Subject: Review response actions/rebuttals/limitations

Manuscript Number: oceans-3553821 

Title- Assessment of Population Dynamics and Fishery Exploitation of Narrow-Barred Spanish Mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) in Iranian Waters 

Reviewer comments are in Black ink and actions are in RED.

In the revised manuscript the changes are also marked in RED.

Reviewer 1 comments:  

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General appraisal:
Although not very innovative, the manuscript presents relevant data in a regional context. But before publication it needs to be improved as suggested in the specific comments section.

Ans.- Thank you for providing feedback.  We appreciate your acknowledgment of the manuscript's regional importance, and we have changed the work to meet all specific criticisms, improving clarity, structure, and overall quality.

Specific comments:

Keywords: They should complement the title instead of repeating it.

Ans.- We have modified the keywords, see line- 28-29.

Lines 75-81: Revise these objective - they are very confuse... and they should match with what was presented along the manuscript.

Ans.- Objective is revised, see line 69-80.

LInes 86-89: Justify this methodological option.

Ans.- Revised, see line 86-90.

Figure 1: Not very clear which are the sampling locations.

Ans.- Revised, see Figure 1.

Lines 95-97: Indicate the sample sizes. Also, part of these information is repeated below and that should not happens.

Ans.- Corrected, see line 97.

Lines 100-101: Weight was not measured with the ruler...

Ans.- Corrected, see Line 102-103.

Lines 102-200: Need to be revised for a better reading. Also, it makes no sense to have already here the figures of the results within this section. Moreover, you need to indicate in this section the methods for all the results presented in the next section (results) and that does not happens, for instance for the statistical tests conducted. Indicate also in a clear manner the objectives, supporting references and statistical packages used for all procedures applied (mathematical computations and statistical tests). To facilitate the reading would be interesting to include a table indicating all the parameters computed, their specific objective in the context of the work and how their integration will answer to the objectives established for the work at the end of the introduction.

Ans.- Thank you for the constructive feedback. The methodology section has been revised for improved clarity and coherence. We acknowledge the inappropriate placement of result figures in this section; however, this was due to journal formatting, and we have requested the editor to reposition them correctly. Additionally, all methods related to the results, including statistical tests, have been clearly stated, along with the objectives, supporting references, and statistical packages (See line -161-162) used. A summary table has also been included to outline the computed parameters, their specific purposes, and how they contribute to addressing the study’s objectives.

See all Result Figures are placed in Result section. See Line 184-246.

Lines 208-213: Most of the information displayed here has no correspondence in the methods section.

Ans.- Revised, length-weight relationship methodology has been added in the Method section. See Line 101-111.

Lines 318-324: Should not begin a section with "Furthermore". Even more important: You should answer in the conclusions to the specific objectives set in the end of the introduction.

Ans.- Thanks you for your suggestions. We have modified the conclusion section. See Line 329-339.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Especially the methods section should be revised to improve its readability.

Ans.- Thank you for the suggestion. We enhanced the English language especially the Methods section thoroughly to enhance clarity, structure, and overall readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addressed a thorough analysis of the population dynamics and exploitation status of Scomberomorus commerson in Iranian waters using multiple stock assessment techniques (e.g., ELEFAN, CMSY, LBSPR). The authors presented robust findings that are of high relevance to sustainable fisheries policy. The sample size is highly adequate (6,504 individuals) and lead to credible and robust results. The figures and tables are informative and well-organized. Thus, I consider the manuscript to be published with minor edits listed below.

 

Certain minor edits:

Even though the introduction presented the situation well, a more direct comparison of past studies’ limitations would strengthen the quality of the manuscript.

In the Materials and Method section, please provide more clarity on software versions used and how they were parameterized (e.g., LBSPR assumptions).

There is also the need of simplifying and providing clearer transitions between analytical steps that would improve readability.

In the discussion section the authors should provide more emphasis on how regional ecological or anthropogenic factors might explain the marked differences observed in the analyses.

Figures are referenced, but captions are sparse or repetitive. Captions should explain the figure’s purpose and highlight key insights.

Several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings affect the fluency of the text. A professional proofreading is recommended.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 2 comments:  

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addressed a thorough analysis of the population dynamics and exploitation status of Scomberomorus commerson in Iranian waters using multiple stock assessment techniques (e.g., ELEFAN, CMSY, LBSPR). The authors presented robust findings that are of high relevance to sustainable fisheries policy. The sample size is highly adequate (6,504 individuals) and lead to credible and robust results. The figures and tables are informative and well-organized. Thus, I consider the manuscript to be published with minor edits listed below.

 Ans.- Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your suggestions and will address all minor edits accordingly.

Certain minor edits:

Even though the introduction presented the situation well, a more direct comparison of past studies’ limitations would strengthen the quality of the manuscript.

Ans.- Thank you for the suggestion. We will revise the introduction to include a clearer comparison of past studies' limitations to better highlight the significance of our research.

In the Materials and Method section, please provide more clarity on software versions used and how they were parameterized (e.g., LBSPR assumptions).

Ans.- Thank you for the comment. We have revised the Materials and Methods section to clearly mention the software versions used and specify the assumptions and parameters applied, including those for the LBSPR model.

See line 149-162.

There is also the need of simplifying and providing clearer transitions between analytical steps that would improve readability.

Ans.- Thank you for the suggestion. We have simplified the text and improve transitions between analytical steps to enhance readability.

In the discussion section the authors should provide more emphasis on how regional ecological or anthropogenic factors might explain the marked differences observed in the analyses.

Ans.- Thank you for the valuable comment. We have revised the discussion to include a stronger emphasis on regional ecological and anthropogenic factors influencing the observed differences.

See Line- 309-313.

Figures are referenced, but captions are sparse or repetitive. Captions should explain the figure’s purpose and highlight key insights.

Ans.- Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the figures captions.

See Line- 192-193, Line-201-204, Line 218-221.

Several grammatical errors and awkward phrasings affect the fluency of the text. A professional proofreading is recommended.

Ans.- Thank you for the feedback. We did the proofreading to correct grammatical errors and improve the manuscript’s fluency. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Keywords: Still partially repeat the title. Revise.

Objectives: Still confuse. Need to be clearer, straight forward and better written. Revise. 

Methods: The new sentence about weight measurement needs an English revision.

Methods & Results: The other alterations made in the text of methods and, eventually of the results, sections were not highlighted in the new version of the manuscript to allow their inspection. Revise to guarantee everything necessary was corrected and highlight those alterations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A final revision is needed.

Author Response

Keywords: Still partially repeat the title. Revise.

Ans. Keywords have been modified. Please see line 30. 

Objectives: Still confuse. Need to be clearer, straight forward and better written. Revise. 

Ans. Modified, see lines 70-82.

Methods: The new sentence about weight measurement needs an English revision.

Ans. Modified, see lines 107-108.

Methods & Results: The other alterations made in the text of methods and, eventually of the results, sections were not highlighted in the new version of the manuscript to allow their inspection. Revise to guarantee everything necessary was corrected and highlight those alterations.

Ans. Highlighted. See the red parts. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf