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 | Revisão anterior | ||
|
artigos:ernesto3:revisao01 [2008/12/09 10:12] ernesto |
artigos:ernesto3:revisao01 [2008/12/09 10:15] (atual) ernesto |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linha 1: | Linha 1: | ||
| ====== Response letter to previous submission CJFAS J20558 ====== | ====== Response letter to previous submission CJFAS J20558 ====== | ||
| - | ===== Reply to Associate Editor advice===== | + | ===== Reply to Associate Editor===== |
| ===Comment=== | ===Comment=== | ||
| Linha 11: | Linha 11: | ||
| The referee's comments highlighted the need to extend the model in order to make it more general. Some of the subjects included on the data analysis were removed and more focus was given to the combined model, the core of the paper. The combined model is now presented as factoring the joint distribution of total abundance and age compositions which avoids explicitly assumption of independence between both sub-models. | The referee's comments highlighted the need to extend the model in order to make it more general. Some of the subjects included on the data analysis were removed and more focus was given to the combined model, the core of the paper. The combined model is now presented as factoring the joint distribution of total abundance and age compositions which avoids explicitly assumption of independence between both sub-models. | ||
| - | The text was restructured in a more clear format, with an attempt to set a better to follow mathematical notation. Replies to specific points are included on the next bullet points. The reply to the referees comments refers to these bullet points when relevant. | + | The text was restructured in a more clear format, with an attempt to set a better to follow mathematical notation. Replies to specific points are included on the next bullet points. |
| 1) Both referees asked for comparisons between the model proposed and the design-based estimates. Note that a major part of this discussion is about the design-based versus model-based approaches which is outside the scope of the paper. Our usage of the design-based estimates is mainly to provide a reference given by an usually adopted strategy of analysis. Discussions on the differences between both are constrained to the relevant purposes of the paper. We refer to further a discussion on design versus model based approaches given by Jardim and Ribeiro Jr (2007) and references thereof. | 1) Both referees asked for comparisons between the model proposed and the design-based estimates. Note that a major part of this discussion is about the design-based versus model-based approaches which is outside the scope of the paper. Our usage of the design-based estimates is mainly to provide a reference given by an usually adopted strategy of analysis. Discussions on the differences between both are constrained to the relevant purposes of the paper. We refer to further a discussion on design versus model based approaches given by Jardim and Ribeiro Jr (2007) and references thereof. | ||
| Linha 18: | Linha 18: | ||
| 3) Several referees' comments, albeit pertinent, were related with issues that we did not considered central to the main subject of the paper highlighting the fact there were distracting topics. For the sake of objectivity we have critically revised the real contribution of such topics. Among them there was the calibration with a GLM which lead to little if any improvement on the expense of higher complexity and bringing issues on possible bias caused by the usage of the residuals. The GLM was replaced by the square root transformation showing comparable results in accordance with earlier work by Jardim and Ribeiro (2008) and avoiding the problem with null observations caused by the log transform. | 3) Several referees' comments, albeit pertinent, were related with issues that we did not considered central to the main subject of the paper highlighting the fact there were distracting topics. For the sake of objectivity we have critically revised the real contribution of such topics. Among them there was the calibration with a GLM which lead to little if any improvement on the expense of higher complexity and bringing issues on possible bias caused by the usage of the residuals. The GLM was replaced by the square root transformation showing comparable results in accordance with earlier work by Jardim and Ribeiro (2008) and avoiding the problem with null observations caused by the log transform. | ||
| + | |||
| 4) The manuscript was criticized by the poor writing style, unclear mathematical notation and inconsistencies regarding the objectives. A deep revision was carried out addressing these issues and the paper has now more focused on the model compared with the study case, reflecting its mais objective. Mathematical notation was revised aiming for greater consistency and clarity and better explained. | 4) The manuscript was criticized by the poor writing style, unclear mathematical notation and inconsistencies regarding the objectives. A deep revision was carried out addressing these issues and the paper has now more focused on the model compared with the study case, reflecting its mais objective. Mathematical notation was revised aiming for greater consistency and clarity and better explained. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The replies to referees' comments are embedded on their reports signed with "**A:**" and refer to these bullet points when relevant. | ||
| + | |||
| =====Reply to Referee #1===== | =====Reply to Referee #1===== | ||
