All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for reconsidering the referee recommendations. I think your publication is at an acceptable level after the changes made. I wish you success in your work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for implementing the revisions suggested by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2. However, I see that you have not implemented most of the revisions suggested by Reviewer 3. In particular, I see that the references you provided in Table 2 and Table 3 are outdated and that publications on the species after 2016 are missing. Please review Referee 3's suggestions again in the previous revision. The discussion section you will revise, taking into account recent studies on the species, will be more appropriate in terms of the visibility of your publication and scientific ethical principles.
No comments
No comments
No comments
The authors of the present paper have carefully followed during their revision all suggestions and recommendations provided by the referees. The text is sufficiently written in clear and understandable English. The discussion has been enlarged and improved including several references recommanded by one of the referees. The figures are correctly drawn and I conclude that the paper could published in the present form.
The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in PeerJ. The necessary corrections have been made and are shown in the text.
-Key word was added- OK
-The sagittal otolith figure showing ages was added- OK
-References added to relevant places- OK
Length-weight relationships (LWR) of all individuals, males and females are given separately in the results section- OK
According to the journal's rules, the Ethics Committee decision should be included in the Materials and Methods section- OK
Length-weight relationships of S. lessepsianus species are discussed with other references in the discussion section –OK
The article can be published as it is.
Based on the peer reviews conducted on your publication, a “Major Revision” decision has been made. Please carefully review the suggested revisions.
**PeerJ Staff Note**: Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**PeerJ Staff Note**: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**Language Note**: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
I strongly advise the authors to provide some details about the economical interest for the local population, statistical data concerning the fishery of the species could be included.
The paragraph "INTRODUCTION" is too long , it should be a little reduced and the aims of the paper more clearly exposed.
The experimental design of the paper is very clear, if we except addition concerning the relationship size versus total body length which should be more developed.
The results are clearly exposed, and I have no comments to add.
However, line 140 the monthly variations of GSI, are not strictly based on statistical data which need to be enlarged and improved.
This study is globally very nice, original and insteresting and despite some shortcomings, it could be published after minor revision.
This manuscript provides original data on the Growth, mortality, and exploitation of Saurida
lessepsianus from a southern Aegean Sea small-scale fishery.
The MS is generally well written with some appropriate data analyses.
Tables and figures are appropriate . Nevertheless, it has a number of shortcomings which should be
addressed by the authors in order to improve understanding of the ms.
-Key words are limited, a few more should be added
-Sagittal otolith figure showing ages should be added
- References are insufficient.
The topic is original and relevant to the field.Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful.
-Length-weight relationships (LWR) of all individuals, males and females should be estimated and
given separately in the results section. Also confidence intervals should be calculated separately and
interpreted according to those values.
-Ethics committee decision mentioned in Material and Method should be given in the acknowledgements section at the end.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
-Length-weight relationships of S. lessepsianus species should be discussed with other references in
the discussion section.
Strengths:
The article is written in clear, understandable, and scientific English.
The introduction clearly defines the context of the study.
The graphs visually support the results of the study well.
Suggestions for improvement:
There are some spelling mistakes, which can be corrected using programs such as Grammarly.
The literature review is insufficient; all studies related to the species studied along the Turkish coast should be included.
Strengths:
The sampling area (Muğla coast) and methods (oltolite reading, gonad stages, VPA analysis) are explained in sufficient detail.
The analyses used are scientifically sound and consistent with the existing literature.
The fact that sex determination and age reading were performed by three independent researchers is important in terms of reliability.
Development Recommendations:
Since dead fish were used in your study, it would be better to write “Since dead fish were used in our study, an ethics committee certificate is not required (Approval No: 2020/11-2)” instead of “All applications in the study are approved by Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Local Ethics Committee of Aquatic Animal Experiments (Approval No: 2020/11-2).”
The clarity of the sampling area in Figure 1 could be improved (coordinates could be provided in the Materials and Methods section).
A comparative reliability coefficient (e.g., % agreement rate) for otolith age reading results could be provided.
Strengths:
The findings are statistically sound, the methods used are appropriate, and conclusions related to the findings have been drawn.
Data such as the length at first sexual maturity, mortality rates, and stock status have been well calculated and compared with similar studies.
Recommendations for improvement:
Although a sustainable fishing strategy based on the Fcurrent value (F=0.15) is clearly presented, the confidence interval is not provided. Uncertainties should be taken into account.
Some of the references used when comparing values from different regions are based on S. undosquamis. At this point, the authors should emphasize the impact of misidentifications more clearly.
In the MSY analysis, the limitations of assumptions (such as a constant natural mortality rate) should be discussed more explicitly.
Line 53: The anonymous reference should be removed (Anonymous, 2019 ).
Line 69: Measurement accuracy ratios should be added.
Line 74: Since dead fish were used in your study, it would be better to write “Since dead fish were used in our study, an ethics committee certificate is not required (Approval No: 2020/11-2)” instead of “All applications in the study are approved by Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Local Ethics Committee of Aquatic Animal Experiments (Approval No: 2020/11-2).”
Line 135: If you have an otolith image, I recommend adding it to your work.
In Table 2 and Table 3.
--Add the sample sizes (N) used in the referenced studies to the table.
--As far as I can see, you have only included studies up to 2016, but there are many gaps. In addition, there have been many studies on this species along the Turkish coastline from 2016 to the present day. Please update the table by adding those studies as well.
Such As:
Can, M. F., Basusta, N., Cekic, M. (2002). Weight-length relationships for selected fish species of
the small-scale fisheries off south coast of Iskenderun Bay. Turkish Journal of
Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 26, 1181-1183.Cicek, E. (2006). Study on the potentially economical important species trawled from Karataş
(Adana) coasts. PhD, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
Sangun, L., Akamca, E., Akar, M. (2007). Weight-length relationships for 39 fish species from the
north-eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 7(1), 37-40
Ceyhan, T., Akyol, O., Erdem, M. (2009). Length-weight relationships of fishes from Gokova Bay,
Turkey (Aegean Sea). Turkish Journal of Zoology, 33(1), 69-72.
Cicek, E., Avsar, D. (2011). Growth, mortality and spatial distribution of brushtooth lizardfish,
Saurida undosquamis (Richardson, 1848), inhabiting the Karatas coasts (Iskenderun Bay,
Northeastern Mediterranean). Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, 63(1), 97-103
Erguden, D., Turan, C., Gurlek, M. (2009). Weight–length relationships for 20 Lessepsian fish
species caught by bottom trawl on the coast of Iskenderun Bay (NE Mediterranean Sea,
Turkey). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25(1), 133-135
Ozvarol, Y. (2014). Length-weight relationships of 14 fish species from the Gulf of Antalya
(northeastern Mediterranean Sea, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Zoology, 38(3), 342-346
Turker, D., Zengin, K., Bal, H. (2020). Length-weight relationships of 11 lessepsian immigrant fish
species caught from Mediterranean coast of Turkey (Antalya Bay). Acta Aquatica
Turcica, 16(2), 301-304
Yedier, S., Kontas, S., Bostanci, D. (2020). Length-length and length-weight relationships of
Lessepsian Saurida undosquamis from the İskenderun Bay (Eastern Mediterranean,
Turkey). Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 10(1), 616-623.
Uyan, A., Turan, C., Doğdu, S. A., Gürlek, M., Yağlıoğlu, D., Sönmez, B. (2024). Genetic and Some
Bio-Ecological Characteristics of Lessepsian Lizardfish Saurida lessepsianus from the Northeastern
Mediterranean Sea. Tethys Env. Sci. 1(1): 1-16.
The discussion section should be reworked based on the new references to be added.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.