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.
The reviewers and me think the manuscript has been improved and can be considered for publishing in the journal
I think that the manuscript has been improved and can be considered for publishing in the journal.
Please refer to the previous reviewing report
Please refer to the previous reviewing report
The reviewers suggest major revision for this manuscript.
See "General Comments for the Author"
No Comments
Weak
This is an interesting paper that tries to use several sets of case study data to validate “a new fish growth model” (i.e. Equation 1). The preconditions for this model is that the length increment of fish living under constant conditions with sufficient food decreases linearly with fish length until it reaches zero at a Lmax. This is an easily understood and generally accepted concept. This model, if validated, will simplify the classical Beverton & Holt (B&H) model by excluding the variable of age. Although a few sets of the data fit well to the model, what I am concerned most is that the data used in this paper are not robust enough to support the conclusions reached. Firstly, zebrafish and mice data are from laboratory study, while data of cod, herring and capelin are either from field investigation or farmed fish. The wild or culturing environments and laboratory conditions may have substantial impacts on the growth (e.g. length and curves) of experimental animals. Using data derived from different environmental conditions to validate the new model and reach a general conclusion may be problematic. Secondly, growth of vertebrate is highly diverse in species. A good fit of the data from a specific mice study to the model cannot robustly support your conclusion that the law of length increment can be generalized to other vertebrates. Even in fish, data of different fish species, at least the groups of typical growth patterns, should be applied to validate the model before you conclude whether Equation 1 is valid or not. Lastly, it is hard to understand that Equation 1 can really describe the growth of fish as well as other vertebrate without considering the variable of age, because growth of animals is so different at life stages and is obviously a function of time.
The article meets the appropriate standard.
The topic is " A new model for simulating growth in fish", the observation in mice should be removed.
The results are reliable.
The manuscript is scientific validity and their suitability. It offers new theory to assess the growth in fishes.
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.