Você está aqui: start » artigos » ernesto2

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:ernesto2 [2008/02/21 15:26] – paulojusartigos:ernesto2 [2008/02/26 18:53] (atual) – ernesto
Linha 10: Linha 10:
   - **Periódicos: **   - **Periódicos: **
     *  [[http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503309/description?navopenmenu=-2|Fisheries Research]]     *  [[http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503309/description?navopenmenu=-2|Fisheries Research]]
-      * submetido em 06/Dez/2006, **Texto Submetido:** {{artigos:ernesto:paper2:fish1094.pdf|versão submetida}}+      * submetido em 06/Dez/2006, **Texto Submetido:** {{artigos:ernesto2:fish1094.pdf|versão submetida}}
       * **Status: ** rejeitado, revisado, resubmetido e novamente rejeitado       * **Status: ** rejeitado, revisado, resubmetido e novamente rejeitado
     * [[http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/|Scientia Marina]]     * [[http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/|Scientia Marina]]
-      * submetido em 23/10/2007. {{artigos:ernesto:paper2:ejpj_cexp07.pdf|Texto submetido}} +      * submetido em 23/10/2007. {{artigos:ernesto2:ejpj_cexp07.pdf|Texto submetido}} 
  
-===== Submissão para Scientia Marina (aceito - minir changes) =====+ 
 +===== Submissão para Scientia Marina (aceito - minor changes) =====
     * {{artigos:ernesto2:ejpj_cexp07.pdf|Texto submetido}}      * {{artigos:ernesto2:ejpj_cexp07.pdf|Texto submetido}} 
     * {{artigos:sm2593.tar.gz|arquivos fonte}}     * {{artigos:sm2593.tar.gz|arquivos fonte}}
-    * Referees reports: {{artigos:ernesto2:sm2593referee1.doc|Referee 1}} e {{artigos:ernesto2:sm2593referee2.doc|Referee 2}} +    * Referees reports: {{artigos:ernesto2:sm2593referee1.doc|Referee 1}} e {{artigos:ernesto2:sm2593referee2.doc|Referee 2}} (the texts are also copied below)  
 +    * Artigo resubmetido após sugestões dos revisores 
 +      - arquivo PDF (FAZER UPLOAD AQUI) 
 +      - arquivos FONTE (FAZER UPLOAD AQUI)
     * Resposta dos editores (aceitação com "minor changes"):     * Resposta dos editores (aceitação com "minor changes"):
  
Linha 45: Linha 49:
 http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar
  
 +=== Referee 1 ===
  
- +This study aims to assess and compare two experimental designs modifying a standard bottom trawling survey with the help of advanced geostatistical tools. This applied research is important to improve abundance estimates and to derive continuous resource maps. Before publication minor changes are required to improve the organization of the manuscript and to insert adequate references. The introduction is not very well organized and it lacks of both general references for geostatistical applications in fisheries and references discussing the geostatistical assessment of sampling designs in fisheries (see comments below). The analytical standard is high and results are in general clearly presented. However, the discussion of the results seems incomplete as important issues such as the impact of sample size or species studied are not discussed.  
 + 
 +//Introduction// 
 +  - Move description of data collection p2 line 41 – p3 line 52. to methods section. 
 +  - Move last sentence of the introduction (p.3 line 69-72) to discussion. 
 + 
 +//Methods// 
 +  - In methods section 2.1 p. 4 line 91 the authors discuss the proposal of sampling designs mixing a set of locations with additional sampling stations at short distances. Here the authors are lacking to discuss this concept, its necessity and its application in a fisheries context see work of Simard et al. (1992); Petitgas, P. (2001) or Doonan et al. (2003). Further, the author’s statement p.4 line 93-94: “Such designs were not considered for bottom trawl surveys until now,….” is not correct. In Stelzenmüller et al. (2005) a bottom trawl sampling design is described which aimed to improve geostatistical estimates by adding sampling stations at shorter distances. The whole methods section 2.1 (p.4 lines 79-99) on the description of sampling designs in theory and praxis should be moved to the introduction. 
 +  - A table should be inserted stating the number of sampling stations within each design. For example only by counting visually the number of sample positions in Fig. 2 it became clear that the hybrid design contained 17 regular grid stations, while the systematic design contained 19 regular grid stations. Further, this table should also contain a summary statistics with mean, variance, and coefficient of variation for both sampling designs. 
 + 
 +//Results//  
 +  - Figure 1: Replace axis labels with latitude and longitude; give location reference and scale bar, and label the 500 m isobaths.  
 +  - Figure 2: Either label axis with lon/lat or X (km)/Y (km) but not with lon (km)/lat (km). 
 + 
 +//Discussion// 
 +  - p.8 lines 212-214. In order to underpin the use of the geostatistical estimator and its variance the authors should discuss their results in relation to the measures of sample average, variance etc. for both designs (see comment 2-methods). 
 +  - p.8 line 222-Results showed that the hybrid design performed better. 
 +The number of samples is often a crucial point in geostatistical analyses especially for applications in fisheries where expensive ship times often limit the number of hauls. Although both sampling designs comprised 36 sampling stations, the composition between numbers of stations of the regular grid and number of stations of the additional stations differed between the hybrid (17/19) and the systematic (19/17) designs. Though, I would expect a sensitivity of the analysis to sample size in design composition (see also Rufino et al. 2006). This issue should be included in the discussion of the results. 
 +  - The performance of both sampling designs was assessed on the base of hake abundance data. Do the authors expect different results when testing the designs for different species or even biological groups such as different size classes (see Stelzenmüller et al. 2005)? I would assume before recommending a new survey design that this design performs well for most species. 
 + 
 +//Specific comments//  
 +  - Remove citations from abstract 
 +  - Replace “yield” with “abundance”, p1, line 7; p6, line 166; p6, line 168; p14 Figure 2 caption  
 +  - Replace “tools” with “measures”, p1 line 8 
 +  - Check units of abundance throughout the text, kg / km2 not kg / km 
 +  - Check space between numbers and their units throughout the text for e.g. p2 lines29, 43, 47, 48; etc. 
 +  - Correct spelling of reference from Muller 2001 to Müller 2001, p4, lines 83,86, 92; p10 line 287 
 + 
 +//Literature cited// 
 +  * Doonan, I.J., B. Bull and R.F. Coombs. (2003). Star acoustic surveys of localized fish aggregations. ICES J. Mar. Sci. , 60:132-146. 
 +  * Petitgas, P. (2001). Geostatistics in fisheries survey design and stock assement: models, variances and applications. Fish Fish., 2:231-249.  
 +  * Rufino, M.M., V. Stelzenmüller, F. Maynou and G.P. Zauke (2006). Assessing the performance of linear geostatistical tools applied to artificial fisheries data. Fisheries Research 82 (1-3):263-279 
 +  * Simard, Y., P. Legendre, G. Lavoie and D. Marcotte. (1992). Mapping, estimating biomass, and optimizing sampling programs for spatially autocorrelated data: case study of the northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 49:32-45. 
 +  * Stelzenmüller, V., S. Ehrich and G.P. Zauke. (2005). Impact of additional small-scale catch data (star survey design) on the geostatistical analyses of demersal fish species in the North Sea. Scientia Marina, 69 (4): 587-602. 
 + 
 +== Reply to referee 1 == 
 + 
 +{{artigos:sm2593_reply_referee1.odt|OpenOffice doc}} 
 + 
 +{{artigos:sm2593_reply_referee1.pdf|pdf}} 
 + 
 +=== Referee 2 === 
 + 
 +This paper describes a comparison study between a hybrid design and a systematic design using a bottom trawl survey data. The paper is well written and provides useful information for revising sampling designs. Some minor revision is recommended. 
 + 
 +  - Page 4, line 99-102, the authors may include a more detailed description of the two designs and why they are chosen for this comparison study instead of other designs.   
 +  - Page 5, have the authors considered the possibility of non-stationarity in S(x)?  
 +  - Page 5-6, the discussion of estimating the Box-Cox parameter may be moved to Section 2.2, as in 2.3 only \lambda=0.5 is discussed.  
 +  - Page 6, line 154, the symbol \epsilon has already been used no page 4 for the geostatistical model.  The authors may use a different symbol here for the coverage probability. On line 161-162, \xi as is defined should be \epsilon, while \epsilon should be \xi. 
 +  - Page 7, line 178-179, do you mean “hybrid design had lower sill and range”? 
 +  - Page 8, although the results presented in the paper are useful and informative, a better comparison could be made by estimating the covariance parameters using the pooled observations, and do conditional simulation with the pooled parameter estimators to compare the two designs. 
 + 
 +== Reply to referee 2 == 
 + 
 +{{artigos:sm2593_reply_referee2.odt|OpenOffice doc}} 
 + 
 +{{artigos:sm2593_reply_referee2.pdf|pdf}}
  
 ===== Submissão para Fisheries Research (rejeitado) ===== ===== Submissão para Fisheries Research (rejeitado) =====
Linha 118: Linha 179:
 References: References:
  
-Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. +  * Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 
- +  * Schnute, J. and R. Haigh. 2003. A simulation model for designing groundfish trawl surveys. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 60: 640-656 
-Schnute, J. and R. Haigh. 2003. A simulation model for designing groundfish trawl surveys. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 60: 640-656 +  * Smith, S. J. 1997. Bootstrap confidence limits for groundfish trawl survey estimates of mean abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 54: 616-630. 
- +  * Smith, S. J. and G. Robert. 1998. Getting more out of your survey information: an application to Georges Bank scallops (Placopecten magellanicus).  In North Pacific Symposium on invertebrate stock assessment and management. Edited by G. S. Jamieson and A. Campbell.  Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 125:  3-13.
-Smith, S. J. 1997. Bootstrap confidence limits for groundfish trawl survey estimates of mean abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 54: 616-630. +
- +
-Smith, S. J. and G. Robert. 1998. Getting more out of your survey information: an application to Georges Bank scallops (Placopecten magellanicus).  In North Pacific Symposium on invertebrate stock assessment and management. Edited by G. S. Jamieson and A. Campbell.  Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 125:  3-13.+
  
 ==== Reviewer 02 ==== ==== Reviewer 02 ====
Linha 148: Linha 206:
  In the light of the many comments made by the reviewers I conclude with regret that this manuscript is not acceptabe as it stands.Questions on the paucity of the data, the lack of statistical power, difficulty of generalising the results, and the possibility of redundancy with other papers are only some of the matters raised. However, there is good material in this manuscript, and if the authors are able to take full account of the reviewers concerns, a resubmission is possible.  In the light of the many comments made by the reviewers I conclude with regret that this manuscript is not acceptabe as it stands.Questions on the paucity of the data, the lack of statistical power, difficulty of generalising the results, and the possibility of redundancy with other papers are only some of the matters raised. However, there is good material in this manuscript, and if the authors are able to take full account of the reviewers concerns, a resubmission is possible.
  
-===== Resubmissão =====+===== Resubmissão para Fisheries Research (TB REJEITADO...) =====
  
 Idéia básica ao redor da sugestao do segundo referee de enfatizar a metodologia, eventualmente em maiores detalhes Idéia básica ao redor da sugestao do segundo referee de enfatizar a metodologia, eventualmente em maiores detalhes
Linha 186: Linha 244:
 ==== Ficheiros ==== ==== Ficheiros ====
  
-{{artigos:ernesto:paper2:intro.ps|Intro 120207}}+{{artigos:ernesto2:intro.ps|Intro 120207}}
  
-{{artigos:ernesto:paper2:relatorio_cexp.lyx|lyx 160207}} - revisto intro, material, methods, results.+{{artigos:ernesto2:relatorio_cexp.lyx|lyx 160207}} - revisto intro, material, methods, results.
  
   - comentários PJ (19/02/2007)\\   - comentários PJ (19/02/2007)\\
Linha 197: Linha 255:
     - Abstract: acredito q ainda não foi revisto mas temos que remover o "secondary"     - Abstract: acredito q ainda não foi revisto mas temos que remover o "secondary"
  
-{{artigos:ernesto:paper2:cexp.tar.gz|Draft final 020307}} - Artigo revisto, tabelas e figuras.+{{artigos:ernesto2:cexp.tar.gz|Draft final 020307}} - Artigo revisto, tabelas e figuras.
  
-{{artigos:ernesto:paper2:relatorio5.lyx|Revisão de PJ}} (20/03/2007, 09:50 BRT)+{{artigos:ernesto2:relatorio5.lyx|Revisão de PJ}} (20/03/2007, 09:50 BRT)

QR Code
QR Code artigos:ernesto2 (generated for current page)