The fisheries governance tool: A practical and accessible approach to evaluating management systems

Jill H. Swasey; Suzanne Iudicello; Graeme Parkes; Robert Trumble; Kara Stevens; Martha Silver; Cheri A. Recchia

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253775

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 22, 2020
26 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Laurentiu Rozylowicz, Editor PONE-D-20-40251 The Fisheries Governance Tool: A Practical and Accessible Approach to Evaluating Management Systems PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Parkes, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers were complimentary about your manuscript, but it needs an extensive revision to meet the journal's publication criteria. The main issue is the lack of connection with academic literature; thus, there is a need for better linking your approach with the ones published in scientific journals. Also, both reviewers suggested revisions, and I highly advise you to incorporate them into your paper as much as possible, and if it is not possible, please explain why. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Laurentiu Rozylowicz, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2.Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: "This work was supported through a contract from the Walton Family Foundation to MRAG Americas. WFF staff, as identified in the author list, participated in Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing. Funds were received by MRAG Americas through a consulting agreement. No actual grants were made." We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: MRAG Americas, Inc. and Iudicello Environmental Consulting a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 3.We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: It is an interesting paper primarily intended to document an evidence-based diagnostic tool namely, the ‘Fisheries Governance Tool’ which can be made use of to evaluate the performance of fisheries in varied regional settings. The authors have provided detailed information on the motivation, theoretical foundation, structure and empirical applicability as well as other necessary particulars with regard to the Tool in a systematic fashion. The Tool, as described in the paper is based on scientific principles of fishery management, and has taken into account the relevant international instruments/guidelines/assessment protocols presently in force. Moreover, a detailed perusal of the workings of the downloadable application clarifies its practical utility beyond doubt. Overall, the paper has promising potential to be published. I am suggesting a few points which may be considered while revising the paper for better clarity. • In section 2.3.2. scoring, the authors mention that the four scales (basic; adequate; good; better) for each measure are scored at an incremental rate which is quite sensible (even though a bit arbitrary). However, it is not clear whether such differential weighting/scoring scheme is applied across measures within the same component, and across components. If not, how it is expected that different measures contribute with same effectiveness towards the sustainability/efficiency of a fishery? • Even though the authors discuss about data-deficient fisheries at a few places, they may elaborate on how the Tool can circumvent the problems of small-scale fisheries where adequate systems are not in place to systematically document different aspects of the fishery, as the Tool demands. Here, I would like to refer the specific case of certain island ecosystems where the ecosystem is pristine and the inhabitants take utmost care in maintaining sustainable fishing practices over centuries based on traditional management approaches, but they do not have sufficient data/documentations in place. • The authors may also elaborate on how non-state legal systems/co-management systems are taken into account in the Tool under different components/indicators/measures. • Whether the Tool has the potential to be utilized for developing independent eco-certification schemes in the future? – This aspect may be discussed in the concluding section. Reviewer #2: This paper describes the Fisheries Governance Tool - a new and welcome approach to move to performance assessments which are pointing to ways to enable fisheries management. Overall, it is a clear description and a good introduction to the tool. However, my main problem with this paper to be published in this academic journal lies in the absence of connection to the academic literature. This is already indicated by the few references to the existing body of literature. Although Anderson et al's FPIs are mentioned, there is little contrasting so to understand what has been learnt/taken from Anderson et al, and how the FGT is different. In reading, I felt it is mentioned but the how is not well-explained. I think the paper would benefit from a more specific linking between section 1.1 and 1.2. Doing so, the authors could balance in 1.1 between what is context and what has been taken from the review to develop the FGT. Also, a more specific comparison would clarify the specific characteristics of the FGT, such as why the FGT is adaptable in scale, while the FPIs are not (because one could argue that, in principle, they are too). It is clear that FGT is more practice-informed than theory-informed, and this is appreciated given the problem statement presented in the introduction. However, given their ambition to publish in this journal, the authors should elaborate more on the underpinning of their tool, for example it would be helpful if they would clarify what theoretical notions are key to their understanding of governance. The three components "policy, capacity and performance" are relevant, yet it is presented being common sense, rather than explained and substantiated. There is perhaps no need to define policy, but what is "capacity" or "performance" to the authors? Even some more attention to the choice of underpinning the tool by the "triple bottom line" would help understanding its position. In my opinion, the attention to WFF in the introduction is not fitting with the nature of an academic publication. WFF's role should not be understated, but now is central to the problem framing while the relevance of this tool goes beyond its use by WFF (as the authors rightly state). I think the authors would do more justice to their tool if they would put that broader relevance/usability already forward in the introduction. I think the reader would also appreciate a short outline of the paper. The introduction now concludes with a claim about the FGT, but it is unclear whether this is what we will see evidenced in the paper. From my reading, I don't think the authors show "the FGT as a means of consistently assessing a country's progress over time" and how the FGT provides a road map. For example, it does not showcase examples of its use (however, that is not needed for a publication like this one. The goal of presenting the tool, and showing how it fits in with the current toolbox, is already valuable). I hope these comments are of value to the authors, because when improved, the paper is a much needed addition to show that we need better tools and approaches to help understand how sustainability performance is related to governance processes. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Shinoj Parappurathu Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253775.r001
Revision 1
24 May 2021 Author Response Comments to the Author have been abstracted from the full text. Responses include line numbers that refer to the revised manuscript without tracked changes Comment: Provide a short outline of the paper. Response: Added text at the end of the Introduction– lines 81 to 86 Comment: The attention to WFF in the introduction is not fitting with the nature of an academic publication. WFF's role should not be understated, but the relevance of this tool goes beyond its use by WFF (as the authors rightly state). Response: We have edited the Introduction to focus more on the FGT than WFF, and also the motivation for preparing the manuscript for publication (lines 75-80). Comment: Put that broader relevance/usability forward in the introduction. Response: The edits to the Introduction in response to the previous comments also address this comment, e.g. lines 75-80 and 81-86. Also there is text in the new section 2 (previously 1.1/1.2) that better explains the relevance of the tool in the context of other tools. Comment: Better explain the tool: Elaborate more on the underpinning of their tool, for example it would be helpful if they would clarify what theoretical notions are key to their understanding of governance. The three components "policy, capacity and performance" are relevant, yet it is presented being common sense, rather than explained and substantiated. There is perhaps no need to define policy, but what is "capacity" or "performance" to the authors? Even some more attention to the choice of underpinning the tool by the "triple bottom line" would help understanding its position. Response: The explanation of three components of policy, capacity and performance is expanded in new text in section 3.1 (Outline of the FGT) (lines 194-212). The introduction now concludes with a claim about the FGT, but it is unclear whether this is what we will see evidenced in the paper. From my reading, I don't think the authors show "the FGT as a means of consistently assessing a country's progress over time" and how the FGT provides a road map. This claim is deleted. While true, the claim relies on the consistent use of the tool over time, and is not a characteristic of the tool itself. Comment: Absence of connection to the academic literature : The paper would benefit from a more specific linking between section 1.1 and 1.2. Doing so, the authors could balance in 1.1 between what is context and what has been taken from the review to develop the FGT. Also, a more specific comparison would clarify the specific characteristics of the FGT, such as why the FGT is adaptable in scale, while the FPIs are not (because one could argue that, in principle, they are too). Although Anderson et al's FPIs are mentioned, there is little contrasting so to understand what has been learnt/taken from Anderson et al, and how the FGT is different. In reading, I felt it is mentioned but the how is not well-explained. Response: Sections 1.1 and 1.2 have been amalgamated in a new section 2. The new section presents a more evenly weighted description of existing evaluation mechanisms and concludes with a more clear explanation of the design criteria for the FGT leading to the decision to build a novel tool. Comment: In section 2.3.2. scoring, the authors mention that the four scales (basic; adequate; good; better) for each measure are scored at an incremental rate which is quite sensible (even though a bit arbitrary). However, it is not clear whether such differential weighting/scoring scheme is applied across measures within the same component, and across components. If not, how it is expected that different measures contribute with same effectiveness towards the sustainability/efficiency of a fishery? Response: New text has been added to more fully explain the scoring and it’s limitations in this first iteration of the Tool (lines 366-397) Comment: Even though the authors discuss about data-deficient fisheries at a few places, they may elaborate on how the Tool can circumvent the problems of small-scale fisheries where adequate systems are not in place to systematically document different aspects of the fishery, as the Tool demands. Here, I would like to refer the specific case of certain island ecosystems where the ecosystem is pristine and the inhabitants take utmost care in maintaining sustainable fishing practices over centuries based on traditional management approaches, but they do not have sufficient data / documentations in place. Response: We have added new text into Section 4 Discussion regarding use of the Tool with small scale and data deficient fisheries (lines 503-524). Comment: The authors may also elaborate on how non-state legal systems/co-management systems are taken into account in the Tool under different components / indicators / measures. Response: The new text added into Section 4 Discussion also addresses this point (lines 503-524). Comment: Whether the Tool has the potential to be utilized for developing independent eco-certification schemes in the future? – This aspect may be discussed in the concluding section. Response: We have declined to comment on this specifically, believing it would be premature. The Tool could be used in a variety of ways, some of which have not been identified, and/or thought of as yet, and may only become apparent after a period of use in a variety of circumstances. The Tool is specifically set up without an externally set standard or benchmark, leaving it up to the user to set their own goals. The FGT is not intended to be used as a certification scheme, but neither do we feel we should explicitly state this in the manuscript, given the debate such an explicit “denial” might provoke. We consider such a debate would detract from the central purpose of the Tool at this early stage. Nevertheless, we would be potentially interested to revisit this in the future. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253775.r002
14 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Laurentiu Rozylowicz, Editor The Fisheries Governance Tool: A Practical and Accessible Approach to Evaluating Management Systems PONE-D-20-40251R1 Dear Dr. Parkes, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Laurentiu Rozylowicz, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have satisfactorily addressed (or explained) my comments, thus improving the manuscript adequately. The revised manuscript may be accepted for publication. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes:** Shinoj Parappurathu https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253775.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Jun 2021 Acceptance Letter - Laurentiu Rozylowicz, Editor PONE-D-20-40251R1 The Fisheries Governance Tool: A Practical and Accessible Approach to Evaluating Management Systems Dear Dr. Parkes: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Laurentiu Rozylowicz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253775.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .