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 | ||
|
pessoais:ernesto [2007/01/03 09:10] ernesto |
pessoais:ernesto [2007/01/03 09:14] ernesto |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linha 51: | Linha 51: | ||
| **EJ** | **EJ** | ||
| + | |||
| //There's a paragraph (lines 325-332) justifying the use of a log transform, in particular in lines 330-332 is mentioned that the log was found on previous analysis of the historical data.// | //There's a paragraph (lines 325-332) justifying the use of a log transform, in particular in lines 330-332 is mentioned that the log was found on previous analysis of the historical data.// | ||
| Linha 58: | Linha 59: | ||
| **EJ** | **EJ** | ||
| + | |||
| //Acho que temos que clarificar este parágrafo (lines 241-253).// | //Acho que temos que clarificar este parágrafo (lines 241-253).// | ||
| Linha 65: | Linha 67: | ||
| **EJ** | **EJ** | ||
| + | |||
| //We generalized our results for all species that fit in the range of the covariance parameters used. This may not apply to invertebrates but certainly apply for most demersal species, which are the target of our survey. This sentence was revised to clarify it's aim.// | //We generalized our results for all species that fit in the range of the covariance parameters used. This may not apply to invertebrates but certainly apply for most demersal species, which are the target of our survey. This sentence was revised to clarify it's aim.// | ||
| Linha 90: | Linha 93: | ||
| 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **EJ** | ||
| + | |||
| + | //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.// | ||
| ===Editor=== | ===Editor=== | ||
