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 [2007/01/08 08:12] ernesto |
artigos:ernesto1 [2007/01/08 08:18] ernesto |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linha 88: | Linha 88: | ||
| 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 94: | Linha 95: | ||
| ====Resposta ao Rev.3==== | ====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. | ||
| (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 102: | ||
| (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==== | ||
