PONE-D-24-26903The state of the art modelling for the Black Sea ecosystem to support European policiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Serpetti,

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, mostly minor, points raised during the review process. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 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,

Athanassios C. Tsikliras

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. 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: 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: Thank you for the opportunity to review this insightful manuscript titled "The state of the art modelling for the Black Sea ecosystem to support European policies." The study presents a significant contribution to our understanding of the Black Sea ecosystem, particularly in the context of supporting European policy frameworks. The methodology is rigorous, and the findings are both relevant and timely.

While the manuscript is well-structured and the content is compelling, I have identified a few minor issues that could be addressed to further enhance the clarity and impact of the paper. These minor suggestions are detailed below.

The species mentioned in the introduction should be supported with their scientific names, as was done with Mnemiopsis leidyi. While I understand that these are provided in the appendices, not all readers may have the same access to the full text or appendices, leading to potential misunderstandings.

In most of the sentences referenced in the introduction, a single reference is used, which weakens the strength of the literature support.

Line 44-45: The authors mention 'recent reports,' implying multiple sources; however, only a single reference is provided.

I would not describe the Black Sea as a 'hotspot' of biodiversity, as stated in lines 56-57. While there is certainly biodiversity present in the Black Sea, I do not agree that it qualifies as a hotspot compared to other seas.

In lines 60 to 76, in addition to mentioning the contributions of the European Commission and its science Directorate-General (DG) and the Joint Research Centre, it would be beneficial to also highlight the efforts of the GFCM in bringing countries to the table and in data collection. These efforts are particularly relevant, given that the publication utilizes significant data from these initiatives.

Lines 435-443 should be supported by existing literature. It is important to verify whether the 'assumptions' familiar in other seas also hold true for the Black Sea. For example, it is well-documented that interactions between dolphins and gillnets & trammels are frequent in the Black Sea due to declining fish stocks, which increases encounters between fishermen and dolphins. However, I have not come across any publications regarding the impact of trawlers on seagulls in the Black Sea. If such references exist, they should be cited here.

In lines 491-503, it would be important to mention the quota system recommended and implemented by the GFCM to protect the remaining turbot stocks. Member countries of the GFCM are adhering to this regulation. The relevant text is as follows:

In lines 481-490, it should be noted that the similarities between Mullus barbatus (red mullet) and Mullus surmuletus (striped red mullet) often lead to inaccuracies in species reporting by fishermen. For instance, in Turkey, the minimum landing size for Mullus barbatus is 13 cm, while for Mullus surmuletus it is 11 cm. To avoid penalties and to land more catch, fishermen may register Mullus barbatus as Mullus surmuletus. This practice raises concerns about the accuracy of catch statistics for these two species.

'In the Black Sea, the proposal includes catch limits and quotas for sprat and turbot. For sprat, the Commission proposes to maintain the 2023 catch limit. For turbot, the levels of total allowable catches (TAC) and quotas will be set and adopted at the 2023 GFCM annual session. The proposal demonstrates the Commission's objective to make fisheries in these two sea basins sustainable, in line with the 2030 Strategy of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), which is the regional fisheries management organisation competent for the conservation and management of fish stocks in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas.' (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4861)

This addition would emphasize the ongoing efforts to manage and conserve key fish stocks in the Black Sea.

The manuscript's contribution to supporting European policies should be elaborated further in the discussion section, particularly given its mention in the title. Expanding on how the findings align with or inform key European policy objectives would strengthen the manuscript's relevance. Specifically, discussing how the research supports the 2030 Strategy of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and other EU sustainability goals would provide valuable context. This could include an analysis of how the data contributes to decision-making processes at the European level. Such a discussion would emphasize the manuscript’s practical implications for policy development and implementation.

Reviewer #2: This study builds on previous EwE models of the Black Sea ecosystem, adding more refined data where possible, and develops the first spatially and temporally explicit Ecospace model for the region. Spatial results are qualitatively compared to other published and modeled species distributions for verification purposes in the absence of detailed spatial data for many Black Sea species. The developed Ecospace is expected to be the baseline for future testing of spatial management scenarios in support of and potential revision of the MSFD. I find the study to be rigorous and well documented, with a detailed supplement. I suggest that the authors do some mostly minor revisions considering the comments I have made on the attached PDF.

**********

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: Taner Yildiz

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-26903_reviewer.pdf

State of the art modelling for the Black Sea ecosystem to support European policies

PONE-D-24-26903R1

Dear Dr. Serpetti,

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,

Athanassios C. Tsikliras

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Good job on addressing reviewer comments or responding to them accordingly. I spotted several grammatical inconsistencies in the added text, so I suggest a careful language check of these parts or even better the whole manuscript before publication, which will strengthen the paper.

**********

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 #2: No

**********