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 09:51] ernesto |
pessoais:ernesto [2007/01/03 10:16] ernesto |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linha 76: | Linha 76: | ||
| 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 | ||
| - | === Resposta ao Rev1=== | + | === Resposta ao Rev.1=== |
| 1. 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. | 1. 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 92: | Linha 92: | ||
| ===Revisor 3=== | ===Revisor 3=== | ||
| 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. Certainly the geostatistical equations are not needed and are better found elsewhere (4). 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 (5). 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 (6). 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) (7). 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. |
| - | ===Resposta ao Rev3=== | + | ===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. | 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. | ||
| Linha 100: | Linha 100: | ||
| (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. | ||
| - | (2) The historical data was used to conditioned the simulation work using the covariance parameters obtained with it to define the range of the parameters used for simulation. | + | (2) The historical data was used to condition the simulation work using the covariance parameters obtained with it to define the range of the parameters used for simulation. |
| (3) The results obtained by Diggle and Lophaven were not applied to a specific natural resource, they are pure simulation results. Our work used real information and proposed approaches to build the designs and compare them. (++??) | (3) The results obtained by Diggle and Lophaven were not applied to a specific natural resource, they are pure simulation results. Our work used real information and proposed approaches to build the designs and compare them. (++??) | ||
| - | (4) 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. However, if the Editor finds it should be decreased, we can remove some parts of it and include bibliographic references. | + | (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. |
| - | (5) The results are generalized by the spatial behaviour 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. | + | (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. However, if the Editor finds it should be decreased, we can remove some parts of it and include bibliographic references. |
| - | (6) 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. | + | (6) The results are generalized by the spatial behaviour 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. |
| - | (7) 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. | + | (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. |
| + | |||
| + | (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. | ||
