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 Próxima revisão Ambos lados da revisão seguinte | ||
|
pessoais:ernesto [2007/01/03 08:20] ernesto |
pessoais:ernesto [2007/01/03 08:42] ernesto |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linha 1: | Linha 1: | ||
| - | ====== Ernesto Jardim - página pessoal ====== | + | ====== Ernesto Jardim (doutorando do Paulo Ribeiro) ====== |
| + | Ernesto Jardim <ernesto@ipimar.pt>, is an Assistant Scientist at the Department of Marine Resources in [[http://www.ipimar.pt|IPIMAR]], with a Degree in Marine Biology and Fisheries and a MSc on Probability and Statistics. At the moment he is doing his PhD in Fisheries Science on the University of Algarve with Prof. Manuel Afonso Dias (U.Algarve), Prof. Paulo Ribeiro (Universidade Federal do Paraná) and Dr. Manuela Azevedo (IPIMAR). Stock coordinator for Southern Hake since 2001 on the [[http://www.ices.dk|ICES]] [[http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/wgdetailacfm.asp?wg=WGHMM|Working Groups on the Assessment of Hake, Monk and Megrim]]. Also working on data collection programmes, he has been involved in several EU funded projects on these subject: Study Contract 94/013, FIEFA and SAMFISH. Since 2006 he is the chairman of the ICES [[http://pnab.ipimar.pt/pgccdbs|Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling]]. He has been regularly invited to participate in [[http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/|STECF]] on (i) the [[http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/events_list.php?sg=SGRN&y=&pl=&o=ASC|Sub-Group on Research Needs]] dealing with several aspects of the [[http://datacollection.jrc.cec.eu.int/|Data Collection Regulation (DCR)]], evaluate MS proposals, evaluate MS activities and revision of the DCR (REG.CE. 1639/2001); (ii) the Sub-Group on Management Options regarding the development of a proposal for a Recovery Plan for Hake and Nephrops in Iberian waters; and (iii) the [[http://stecf.jrc.cec.eu.int/event.php?id=46|Sub-Group on Resource Status]] dealing with effort management. He has skills on database and software development in particular in data analysis systems. | ||
| ===== Papers em revisão ===== | ===== Papers em revisão ===== | ||
| Linha 8: | Linha 9: | ||
| Submetido à Fisheries Research em 29/Junho/2006 ({{pessoais:fish896.pdf|versão submetida}}). | Submetido à Fisheries Research em 29/Junho/2006 ({{pessoais:fish896.pdf|versão submetida}}). | ||
| - | Mensagem da revista e comentários dos revisores recebidos em 18/Dezembro/2006: | + | ===Mensagem da revista (18/Dezembro/2006)=== |
| - | <file> | ||
| Ref.: Ms. No. FISH896 | Ref.: Ms. No. FISH896 | ||
| Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys | Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys | ||
| Linha 36: | Linha 36: | ||
| Important note: If a reviewer has provided a review or other materials as attachments, those items will not be in this letter. Please ensure therefore that you log on to the journal site and check if any attachments have been provided. | Important note: If a reviewer has provided a review or other materials as attachments, those items will not be in this letter. Please ensure therefore that you log on to the journal site and check if any attachments have been provided. | ||
| - | </file> | ||
| + | === Revisor 1=== | ||
| + | Reviewer #1: Report on manuscript "Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys" by Ernesto Jardim and Paulo J. Ribeiro | ||
| - | * Reviewer #1: Report on manuscript "Geostatistical Assessment of Sampling Designs for Portuguese Bottom Trawl Surveys" by Ernesto Jardim and Paulo J. Ribeiro | ||
| - | |||
| - | <file> | ||
| General evaluation: Acceptable after minor revision | General evaluation: Acceptable after minor revision | ||
| Linha 69: | Linha 67: | ||
| Figure 1: X and Y axis legends should be specified (i.e. Longitude West and Latitude North respectively). | Figure 1: X and Y axis legends should be specified (i.e. Longitude West and Latitude North respectively). | ||
| Figure 2: Variables in the X axis are specified in the legend but not in the figure | Figure 2: Variables in the X axis are specified in the legend but not in the figure | ||
| - | </file> | ||
| - | <file> | + | ===Revisor 3=== |
| Reviewer #3: I propose rejecting this submission because it is overly detailed on the simulation results, gives little insight how the simulations relate to the original Portuguese survey data, 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. 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, gives little insight how the simulations relate to the original Portuguese survey data, 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. 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. Certainly the geostatistical equations are not needed and are better found elsewhere. 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. 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. 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). 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. Certainly the geostatistical equations are not needed and are better found elsewhere. 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. 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. 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). 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. | ||
| - | </file> | ||
| - | <file> | + | ===Editor=== |
| From the Editor-in-Chief : | From the Editor-in-Chief : | ||
| One reviewer asks for relatively small changes, while the other feels the paper is not acceptable unless it is substantially shortened and focused on what is new. If the authors will react to the reviewers comments , I will reconsider the assessment. | One reviewer asks for relatively small changes, while the other feels the paper is not acceptable unless it is substantially shortened and focused on what is new. If the authors will react to the reviewers comments , I will reconsider the assessment. | ||
| - | </file> | ||
| + | ==== Sampling Designs for Bottom Trawl Surveys: The Portuguese Autumn Survey Field Experience ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Submetido à Fisheries Research em 06/Dezembro/2006 ({{pessoais:fish1094.pdf|versão submetida}}). | ||
| ===== Papers em desenvolvimento ===== | ===== Papers em desenvolvimento ===== | ||
