Não foi possível enviar o arquivo. Será algum problema com as permissões?
Diferenças
Aqui você vê as diferenças entre duas revisões dessa página.
| Ambos lados da revisão anterior Revisão anterior | Próxima revisão Ambos lados da revisão seguinte | ||
|
artigos:ernesto1 [2007/01/05 12:35] ernesto |
artigos:ernesto1 [2007/01/05 12:37] ernesto |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linha 86: | Linha 86: | ||
| Reviewer #3: I propose rejecting this submission because it is overly detailed on the simulation results (1), gives little insight how the simulations relate to the original Portuguese survey data (2), of which little is spoken, and because it is not clear why this is to be considered more than an exercise confirming what already has been stated in Diggle and Lophaven (3). The authors do show an understanding of the issues involved in simulation and did not, in my mind, make any errors. Some of the results are technical and issues of isotropy, parameter estimation and the like are discussed at a more technical level than would be understood by a general reader. The one significant result is that when there is autocorrelation in the underlying data it is better to use a combindation of regular survey with paired random additions (to provide points close to each other and better estimate autocorrelation I presume) than a pure random design for fisheries surveys. If this is indeed a new | Reviewer #3: I propose rejecting this submission because it is overly detailed on the simulation results (1), gives little insight how the simulations relate to the original Portuguese survey data (2), of which little is spoken, and because it is not clear why this is to be considered more than an exercise confirming what already has been stated in Diggle and Lophaven (3). The authors do show an understanding of the issues involved in simulation and did not, in my mind, make any errors. Some of the results are technical and issues of isotropy, parameter estimation and the like are discussed at a more technical level than would be understood by a general reader. The one significant result is that when there is autocorrelation in the underlying data it is better to use a combindation of regular survey with paired random additions (to provide points close to each other and better estimate autocorrelation I presume) than a pure random design for fisheries surveys. If this is indeed a new | ||
| result (I'm really not sure whether it is) then this could be acceptable as a greatly reduced in size 'note' that gives the results and refers to a web document or report for details of the simulations (4). Certainly the geostatistical equations are not needed and are better found elsewhere (5). They are not new to the fisheries literature. Finally, in simulation work like this I am left unsure how general the results are to other areas (6). This the authors discussed some and think the results are general (maybe they are). There is little need in that case to focus on the real system (7). Otherwise, some evaluation using actual data would be useful (if there were a year when higher sampling intensity was used -- it could be subsampled to see how much the estimates changed) (8). In fairness to the authors I did not study the results in detail. Maybe someone who does will find gold in it. I did not think it was worth looking. | result (I'm really not sure whether it is) then this could be acceptable as a greatly reduced in size 'note' that gives the results and refers to a web document or report for details of the simulations (4). Certainly the geostatistical equations are not needed and are better found elsewhere (5). They are not new to the fisheries literature. Finally, in simulation work like this I am left unsure how general the results are to other areas (6). This the authors discussed some and think the results are general (maybe they are). There is little need in that case to focus on the real system (7). Otherwise, some evaluation using actual data would be useful (if there were a year when higher sampling intensity was used -- it could be subsampled to see how much the estimates changed) (8). In fairness to the authors I did not study the results in detail. Maybe someone who does will find gold in it. I did not think it was worth looking. | ||
| + | |||
| Linha 109: | Linha 110: | ||
| (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. | + | 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==== | ||
