Você está aqui: start » artigos » ernesto1

Diferenças

Aqui você vê as diferenças entre duas revisões dessa página.

Link para esta página de comparações

Ambos lados da revisão anteriorRevisão anterior
Próxima revisão		Revisão anterior
artigos:ernesto1 [2007/01/08 08:12] – ernestoartigos:ernesto1 [2007/03/19 16:17] (atual) – paulojus
Linha 1: Linha 1:
 ===== Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys ===== ===== Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys =====
  
-Submetido à Fisheries Research em 29/Junho/2006 ({{pessoais:fish896.pdf|versão submetida}}).+  - **Título: ** Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys 
 +  - **Autores: ** 
 +    * [[pessoais:ernesto|Ernesto Jardim]] 
 +    * [[pessoais:paulojus|Paulo Justiniano RIBEIRO JUNIOR]] 
 +  - **Periódico: ** 
 +    *  [[http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503309/description?navopenmenu=-2|Fisheries Research]] 
 +    * submetido em 29/Junho/2006 
 +  - **Texto Submetido: ** {{pessoais:fish896.pdf|versão submetida}} 
 +  - ** Texto final:** {{artigos:fish896r2.tar.gz|Revisão 02 enviada à revista}}, {{artigos:fish896r2.pdf|Versão revista 02}} --- //[[ernesto@ipimar.pt|Ernesto Jardim]] 2007/02/14 13:58// 
 +  - **Status: ** //in press//
  
 ====Mensagem da revista (18/Dezembro/2006)==== ====Mensagem da revista (18/Dezembro/2006)====
Linha 93: Linha 102:
  
  
-====Resposta ao Rev.3==== 
  
-Existem algumas inconsistências que podemos explorar na resposta a este revisor. No essencial podemos a valorizar outros resultados que obtivémos como o facto da variância da média amostral ser enviesada para a variância do estimador quando há correlação espacial, ou o procedimento para comparar desenhos com tamanhos diferentes.+====Resposta ao Rev.3====
  
 (1) The detailed simulation results were included to allow readers to understand the scope of our work and have enough information to judge if their own situation is inside the range of our work. (1) The detailed simulation results were included to allow readers to understand the scope of our work and have enough information to judge if their own situation is inside the range of our work.
Linha 103: Linha 111:
 (3) The results obtained by Diggle and Lophaven were theoretical and not applied to a real situation, like we did. On the other hand their work compares two specific ways of building sampling designs, "lattice plus close pairs" and "lattice plus infill", and never include a pure random or regular design, which we did. Also they use only geostatistical methods and we also included a comparison of the designs performance using sampling theory estimators. We included anisotropy and log transformation on our analysis. More important of all, we describe an easy way of building a sampling design that has the characteristics of "lattice plus close pairs", by overlapping the random design with a regular design that can be applicable to most European Bottom Trawl Surveys. However, this comment called our attention to the fact that the achievements may not be clearly described on the paper and made the necessary changes. (3) The results obtained by Diggle and Lophaven were theoretical and not applied to a real situation, like we did. On the other hand their work compares two specific ways of building sampling designs, "lattice plus close pairs" and "lattice plus infill", and never include a pure random or regular design, which we did. Also they use only geostatistical methods and we also included a comparison of the designs performance using sampling theory estimators. We included anisotropy and log transformation on our analysis. More important of all, we describe an easy way of building a sampling design that has the characteristics of "lattice plus close pairs", by overlapping the random design with a regular design that can be applicable to most European Bottom Trawl Surveys. However, this comment called our attention to the fact that the achievements may not be clearly described on the paper and made the necessary changes.
  
-(4) This results are new at least in Fisheries Science once that there is no reporting of surveys using such sampling strategy. The authors can not guarantee that the theoretical results of Diggle and Lophaven were not implemented already in other scientific areas, but the bibliographic search did not show any relevant papers about its implementation. Also there are secondary results that are new in this work (i) the approach to build the sampling designs, (ii) the approach to compare sampling designs with different sample sizes, (iii) the result about the underestimation of abundance variance by the variance of the sampling mean. The authors agree that these results should be more visible and made the necessary changes. +(4) This results are new at least in Fisheries Science once that there is no reporting of surveys using such sampling strategy. The authors can not guarantee that the theoretical results of Diggle and Lophaven were not implemented already in other scientific areas, but the bibliographic search did not show any papers about its implementation. Also there are secondary results that are new in this work (i) the approach to build the sampling designs, (ii) the approach to compare sampling designs with different sample sizes, (iii) the result about the underestimation of abundance variance by the variance of the sampling mean. However, this comment called our attention to the fact that the achievements were not clearly highlighted and we introduced the necessary revisions.
  
-(5) Section 2.1 was included to make the paper self contained, providing information so that readers clearly understand the scope of the work. Also it helps readers to get familiarized with notation. To be inline with the referee 3 comments we decreased the the representation of the geostatistical framework was revised and reduced to a minimum necessary for the readers follow the paper. However, if the Editor finds it should be decreased, we can remove some parts of it and include bibliographic references.+(5) Section 2.1 was included to make the paper self contained and to introduce our notation, providing information so that readers clearly understand the scope of the work. However, we partially agree with the referee and revised and decreased the presentation of the geostatistical framework to a minimum necessary for the readers to follow the paper.
  
-(6) The results are generalized by the spatial behavior of the resource. If in another area someone exploring the spatial correlation of a resource finds parameters that fit inside the range of parameters used for our simulations, there is a good chance that the sampling design of the survey collecting its data will gain by adopting a mixed random/regular design.+(6) The results are generalized by the spatial behavior of the resource (see answer 3.1 to revisor #1). If in another area someone exploring the spatial correlation of a resource finds parameters that fit inside the range of parameters used for our simulations, there is a good chance that the sampling design of the survey collecting its data will gain by adopting a mixed random/regular design.
  
-(7) As said in point (2) the focus on the real system is just enough to provide information for conditioning the simulation work so that the results are applicable to the real world. There was not the intention of explore deeply the data or completely ignore it.+(7) As said in point (2) the focus on the real system is just enough to provide information for conditioning the simulations so that the results are applicable to the real world. There was not the intention of explore deeply the data or completely ignore it.
  
 (8) This would be a valid approach if the spatial correlation is ignored, once that the removal of a location would not only reduce the sample size but also the configuration of the sampling design with and impact extremely difficult to assess. (8) This would be a valid approach if the spatial correlation is ignored, once that the removal of a location would not only reduce the sample size but also the configuration of the sampling design with and impact extremely difficult to assess.
- 
-NOTA: The paper was changed to clarify the new achievements. os comentarios do ref 3 chamaram a nossa atenção ao fato que as contribuiçOes do trabaklho nao foram devidamente destacadas no manuscrito original. Desta forma o texto foi revisido em alguns pontos "to highlight" the contributions 
  
 ====Editor==== ====Editor====
Linha 119: Linha 125:
 One reviewer asks for relatively small changes, while the other feels the paper is not acceptable unless it is substantially shortened and focused on what is new. If the authors will react to the reviewers comments , I will reconsider the assessment.   One reviewer asks for relatively small changes, while the other feels the paper is not acceptable unless it is substantially shortened and focused on what is new. If the authors will react to the reviewers comments , I will reconsider the assessment.  
  
-====Versão revista====+ 
 + 
 + 
 +====Mensagem da revista (22/Janeiro/2007)==== 
 + 
 +Ref.:  Ms. No. FISH896R1 
 +Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys 
 +Fisheries Research 
 + 
 +Dear Dr. Jardim, 
 + 
 +I can now inform you that the Editorial Board has evaluated the manuscript FISH896R1: Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys. 
 + 
 +I am pleased to inform you that it has been favourably received. The Editor has advised that the manuscript will be acceptable subject to satisfactory minor revision. 
 + 
 +The comments below should be taken into account when revising the manuscript. Along with your revised manuscript, you will need to supply Revision notes in which you list all the changes you have made to the manuscript, and in which you detail your responses to all the comments passed by the reviewer(s) and Editor. Should you disagree with any comment(s), please explain why.  
 + 
 +To submit a revision, please visit http://ees.elsevier.com/fish/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. The revised manuscript and the Revision notes can be submitted there.  
 + 
 +You are kindly requested to submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If your revision is received after that deadline, it may be treated as a new submission. 
 + 
 +Kind regards, 
 + 
 +Antoinette van den Brakel 
 +Journal Manager 
 +Fisheries Research 
 +fish@elsevier.com 
 + 
 +Important note: If a reviewer has provided a review or other materials as attachments, those items will not be in this letter.  Please ensure therefore that you log on to the journal site and check if any attachments have been provided.   
 + 
 +Reviewers' comments: 
 + 
 + 
 +====Editor==== 
 + 
 +>From the Editor-in-Chief : 
 +I have indicated "minor revision", but there are many grammatical errors to be corrected.Most are quite small, but in a few cases the meaning is not clear, so my suggested changes will need to be looked at carefully. In addition, please number the pages. 
 + 
 +  L.17, should "where", be "were" ? 
 +  18, change "were" to "was".  
 +  46, "mis"...? 
 +  54, SESITS, 1999 - not a publication, delete this reference. 
 +  61, " was revised". 
 +  66, "constrained by" does not read well. Do you mean "based on" ? 
 +  67, "fishing engine" - do you mean "fishing gear" ? 
 +  72 & 74, change "at" to "to". 
 +  93, change "consists" to "consist". 
 +  114, say "are given". 
 +  132, change "minimises" to "minimise". 
 +  133, change "compromises" to "compromise". 
 +  136, change "makes " to "make". 
 +  137, change "criteria" to "criterion". 
 +  138, put hyphens at "day-based" & "haul- based". 
 +  212, "At least" doesn`t seem right here.Should it be "Next..." ? 
 +  230, change "present" to "presents". Also here, "once" seems the wrong word. Try "since" ? 
 +  232, Sentence "Estimates of ..."does not read well - the words "equals to " may be wrong. 
 +  233, say "slightly". 
 +  249, change "defines " to "define". 
 +  258 & 264, "bias was..." 
 +  284, delete semi colon after "others", and put a comma. 
 +  300, say"points out". 
 +  319, "is regarded to"  do you mean "concerns"? 
 +  336, "scholastic" is wrong , do you mean "schooling" ? 
 +  417/8 Delete this reference - it is not a publication.  
 +  
 + 
 + 
 +===== Versões =====
  
 {{pessoais:fish896.tar.gz|EJ: 03/Jan/2007}} {{pessoais:fish896.tar.gz|EJ: 03/Jan/2007}}
Linha 129: Linha 202:
 {{artigos:revised2.lyx|Revisado por PJ}} --- // 2007/01/05 18:20 (LX)// {{artigos:revised2.lyx|Revisado por PJ}} --- // 2007/01/05 18:20 (LX)//
  
 +{{artigos:fish896r1.tar.gz|Revisão 01 enviada à revista}}, {{artigos:fish896r1.pdf|Versão revista 01}}  --- //[[ernesto@ipimar.pt|Ernesto Jardim]] 2007/01/08 10:03//
 +
 +{{artigos:fish896r2.tar.gz|Revisão 02 enviada à revista}}, {{artigos:fish896r2.pdf|Versão revista 02}} --- //[[ernesto@ipimar.pt|Ernesto Jardim]] 2007/02/14 13:58//

QR Code
QR Code artigos:ernesto1 (generated for current page)