Development and analyses of stakeholder driven conceptual models to support the implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management in the U.S. Caribbean

Tarsila Seara; Stacey M. Williams; Kiara Acevedo; Graciela Garcia-Molliner; Orian Tzadik; Michelle Duval; Juan J. Cruz-Motta

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0304101

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 22, 2023
6 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo, Editor PONE-D-23-38007Development and analyses of stakeholder driven conceptual models to support the implementation of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the U.S. CaribbeanPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferreira Seara, 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. Two reviewers have assessed your manuscript and appreciate the value of your work, and how it can contribute to the larger academic community. They do however recommend some minor revisions to improve the readability of the manuscript. Besides their requests, I would also like to recommend improving the resolution of the figures. Some of them are hard to read or show pixelated on the submitted PDF. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 22 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. 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. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All XXX files are available from the XXX database (URL XXX) Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 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. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: I believe that the manuscript is clearly written and with sufficient explanation of the analyses to be understandable, but suitable for a general audience less familiar with multivariate methods, network analysis and fuzzy logic models. In addition, the context given in the introduction section makes it clear to understand the relevance of the study and the findings. One of the things I might suggest is that the discussion section lacks some ideas on the state of the art regarding the implementation of the ebfm approach in data-poor situations in other regions of the world. As well as methodological advances in this topic. Some particular comments are listed below: Abstract. Some ideas about used methodology for analyses would be recommendable. Lines 117-118 It is not clear how or which efforts were made. Table 1. Please define acronyms. Lines 157. How was the system delimited? Where it starts or ends? I think this is relevant to clarify what kind of components could be named by participants. Lines 164-167. Are there moderators at online workshops/platforms? What is the profile of moderators? Lines 216-239. Some information about figures is repeated in the text. Please avoid this in all results section. Table 2. Explain in Table title that # of groups are the number of groups that identify the same relationship (or something similar). Fig 4 and Figs 5. Needs a higher resolution. Table 3. Wouldn't it be useful to also consider other components as important if they were mentioned by the majority? For example, let's say more than four groups. Why only those where everyone agreed are considered important. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to separate between priority (total consensus) and relevant (mentioned by several groups)? Line 345. Can you discuss what are benefits of developing several models from different groups vs a unique model? Also, you end with a consensus model, it is not the same that building a unique model like in other studies? Can you bring some ideas to discussion? For example, what are the lessons learned for stakeholders when comparing their different perspectives? Reviewer #2: The paper documents the process of developing and analysing stakeholder-driven conceptual models with seven different stakeholder groups in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to assess and compare their perceptions of the fishery ecosystem so as to support the implementation of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (a document to guide efforts in adopting Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management). I found the paper to be well written, informative and novel and feel that it can provide a useful guide for other agencies and practitioners around the world seeking to implement a similar process. I feel that it should be accepted for publication in PLOSOne pending some minor revisions which are outlined below. 1) I suggest making the Abstract shorter by limiting the background information presented between lines 23-28 and focusing on what the study did. 2) At line 45, the first mention of the U.S. should be written as "United States (U.S.). 3) At line 57, you mention that efforts to adopt an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the U.S Caribbean were initiated in 2012. It would be nice to give readers a sense of how much later this was compared to the broader U.S. 4) The use of "knowledge co-production" at the end of lines 84-85 feels a little awkward and confusing to me. Maybe try some thing like "shared knowledge acquisition and exchange". 5) At line 86, you mention traditional and non-traditional experts. In this context are you talking about traditional (i.e.: Indigenous) people and non-traditional people? Or are you referring to those historically viewed as experts (i.e.: scientists and managers) versus non-experts? 6) At line 88, please change "are associated" to "is associated". 7) At line 90, change "transitioning" to "transition". 8) You mention interactions with recreational fisheries and tourism at line 98. Were stakeholders from the recreational (including Charter tourism) sector and artisanal/Indigenous sectors included (and explicitly differentiated from commercial fisheries in terms of their unique characteristics, priorities and perceptions of the fishery ecosystem) in the process of developing the conceptual models? If not, I think it is worth either acknowledging this as a limitation of the study or justifying their omission in the process. The definition of EBFM at lines 45-51 implies that all affected fishery components and thus, presumably, all sectors responsible for these pressures should be considered. If these groups were included; they need to be to be explicitly highlighted in Table 1. 9) At line 152, since the reference is actually part of the sentence here it should be written as "Ozesmi & Ozesmi [19]". 10) At line 224, please replace "are priorities" with "as priorities". 11) Lines 440-441, please populate acknowledgment text or omit section. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** [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.0304101.r001
Revision 1
2 Apr 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: I believe that the manuscript is clearly written and with sufficient explanation of the analyses to be understandable, but suitable for a general audience less familiar with multivariate methods, network analysis and fuzzy logic models. In addition, the context given in the introduction section makes it clear to understand the relevance of the study and the findings. One of the things I might suggest is that the discussion section lacks some ideas on the state of the art regarding the implementation of the ebfm approach in data-poor situations in other regions of the world. As well as methodological advances in this topic. - While this is an important topic and the authors appreciate the suggestion, it was not a major objective of this particular paper to provide a worldwide comparison nor to review the different methods currently employed. This manuscript’s goal is to share results obtained for the US Caribbean and discuss the importance of the findings in the context of policy and management for the region. Some particular comments are listed below: Abstract. Some ideas about used methodology for analyses would be recommendable. - Added info on methods to abstract. Lines 117-118 It is not clear how or which efforts were made. - Edited to increase clarity. Table 1. Please define acronyms. - Location/island acronyms added below table; other acronyms have been defined in the text. Lines 157. How was the system delimited? Where it starts or ends? I think this is relevant to clarify what kind of components could be named by participants. - Edited to increase clarity: Participants were first asked to identify important components of the entire U.S. Caribbean marine fishery system, which could be social, biological, economic, cultural, or physical in nature, and then prompted to link these different components based on relationships between them. Lines 164-167. Are there moderators at online workshops/platforms? What is the profile of moderators? - Edited: During online workshops, models were constructed by the research team on the screen using Mental Modeler online software Lines 216-239. Some information about figures is repeated in the text. Please avoid this in all results section. - The figure captions are included next to the text close to where figures are mentioned. The information in the text is needed for context and the authors believe that removing that information from the text will negatively impact the reader’s comprehension of the content. We would appreciate further guidance from the editorial team. Table 2. Explain in Table title that # of groups are the number of groups that identify the same relationship (or something similar). - Edited: Table 2. List of top relationships by stakeholder agreement level and respective stakeholder groups for the U.S. Caribbean. Number of groups refer to the total number of stakeholder groups that identified each relationship in their conceptual model(s). Fig 4 and Figs 5. Needs a higher resolution. - We have provided files with improved resolution for these 2 figures. Table 3. Wouldn't it be useful to also consider other components as important if they were mentioned by the majority? For example, let's say more than four groups. Why only those where everyone agreed are considered important. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to separate between priority (total consensus) and relevant (mentioned by several groups)? - The authors acknowledge that the data collected can be analyzed in myriad different ways to highlight different important aspects of stakeholder perceptions and priorities with regard to the ecosystem. While we appreciate the reviewer’s comment, we believe that we have provided enough examples and covered the idea of relevancy and consensus extensively in the text – Figure 5 is an example of that. Aspects of consensus v. relevancy are also emphasized in the discussion as well as in other analyses in the paper. The authors disagree that the inclusion of Table 3 disregards the importance of agreement without total consensus. Line 345. Can you discuss what are benefits of developing several models from different groups vs a unique model? Also, you end with a consensus model, it is not the same that building a unique model like in other studies? Can you bring some ideas to discussion? For example, what are the lessons learned for stakeholders when comparing their different perspectives? - The authors believe that this topic is adequately covered later in the discussion, specifically, in the following paragraph: Conceptual modeling is well established as a tool to understand and explore behavior of complex systems, but its usefulness has shown limitation when outcomes are aimed at supporting decision making [21, 39]. This concern motivated, in part, the decision to develop separate conceptual models for different stakeholder groups, which allowed for more objective comparisons of similarities and differences between groups and minimized the effects of group dynamics. In this sense, the identification of areas of agreement between stakeholders regarding important ecosystem elements and their threats, not by achieving consensus through discussion but by the identification of similar elements and relationships among different conceptual models, provides a compelling method for prioritization to guide fisheries policy and management actions. Furthermore, targeting areas and concerns that are common to multiple stakeholder groups can objectively promote collaboration and contribute to increased acceptance of and participation in the decision-making process [15, 16, 11, 12, 3]. Reviewer #2: The paper documents the process of developing and analysing stakeholder-driven conceptual models with seven different stakeholder groups in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to assess and compare their perceptions of the fishery ecosystem so as to support the implementation of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (a document to guide efforts in adopting Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management). I found the paper to be well written, informative and novel and feel that it can provide a useful guide for other agencies and practitioners around the world seeking to implement a similar process. I feel that it should be accepted for publication in PLOSOne pending some minor revisions which are outlined below. 1) I suggest making the Abstract shorter by limiting the background information presented between lines 23-28 and focusing on what the study did. - Done 2) At line 45, the first mention of the U.S. should be written as "United States (U.S.). - Done 3) At line 57, you mention that efforts to adopt an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the U.S Caribbean were initiated in 2012. It would be nice to give readers a sense of how much later this was compared to the broader U.S. - This is difficult to answer since the different regions have been at various stages of developing and implementing EBFM strategies for many decades and the goals and methods are varied and region specific. This comparison would likely be lengthy and not in line with the objectives of the paper. 4) The use of "knowledge co-production" at the end of lines 84-85 feels a little awkward and confusing to me. Maybe try some thing like "shared knowledge acquisition and exchange". - We believe the term co-production of knowledge is well established in the literature and it is being correctly employed here. 5) At line 86, you mention traditional and non-traditional experts. In this context are you talking about traditional (i.e.: Indigenous) people and non-traditional people? Or are you referring to those historically viewed as experts (i.e.: scientists and managers) versus non-experts? - The former is correct – examples were added to the text to increase clarity: Engaging diverse stakeholders offers several advantages, including bridging the gap between traditional (e.g., scientists) and non-traditional experts (e.g. fishers), 6) At line 88, please change "are associated" to "is associated". - This sentence has been edited for clarity. 7) At line 90, change "transitioning" to "transition". - Done. 8) You mention interactions with recreational fisheries and tourism at line 98. Were stakeholders from the recreational (including Charter tourism) sector and artisanal/Indigenous sectors included (and explicitly differentiated from commercial fisheries in terms of their unique characteristics, priorities and perceptions of the fishery ecosystem) in the process of developing the conceptual models? If not, I think it is worth either acknowledging this as a limitation of the study or justifying their omission in the process. The definition of EBFM at lines 45-51 implies that all affected fishery components and thus, presumably, all sectors responsible for these pressures should be considered. If these groups were included; they need to be to be explicitly highlighted in Table 1. - We have added a definition for “commercial fishers” under table 1 to make it explicit that our models did not include the recreational sector. The reason for not including them was logistical (and certainly a weakness) but the reality is that we did not include every possible fishery stakeholder in our conceptual models. The importance of iteration is stressed in the discussion and future conceptual models in the region should include the recreational sector – we have added a line emphasizing that in the last paragraph of the discussion. 9) At line 152, since the reference is actually part of the sentence here it should be written as "Ozesmi & Ozesmi [19]". - Done 10) At line 224, please replace "are priorities" with "as priorities". - Done 11) Lines 440-441, please populate acknowledgment text or omit section. - Acknowledgements have been added. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304101.r002
7 May 2024 Decision Letter - Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo, Editor Development and analyses of stakeholder driven conceptual models to support the implementation of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management in the U.S. Caribbean PONE-D-23-38007R1 Dear Dr.Ferreira Seara, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304101.r003
Formally Accepted
17 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo, Editor PONE-D-23-38007R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ferreira Seara, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Juan Carlos Rocha Gordo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304101.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 .