Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on April 10th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 17th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 8th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 12th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,

Thank you submitting the revised version of your manuscript. I am pleased to inform you your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Authors,

The reviewers comments are now in and they have made a few minor suggestions you may want to consider.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comments. The paper adheres to the formal requirements.

Experimental design

No comments. The experimental design is sound.

Validity of the findings

No comments. Data are interesting and well elaborated.

Comments for the author

Although the paper is written in quite good English, the Result section is a little little tricky, due to the long and confusing listing of results. Probably they could be usefully organized in tables.

·

Basic reporting

This is a valuable contribution that substantially expands our knowledge of role of parasites in the course of an ongoing biological invasion.

My main criticism is associated with the use of some terms that, in my opinion, are not appropriate. "Mixed population" in the title of the article and throughout as well as "monospecific population" in several places of the text seem incorrect expressions. Population is by definition a group of individuals of one species, or at least individuals that interbreed (which does not seem to be the case with these brine shrimps). My suggestion is to check carefully the text and use "syntopic" or "coexisting" instead of "mixed". In the case of "monospecific", this is "a population existing without co-occurrence of other congeneric species".

In addition, some further suggestions, mostly of editorial characters, are presented in the fourth part of this report.

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

1. Line 28: Remove parentheses from “(Kellogg, 1906)”. This species was originally described as a member of the genus Artemia and therefore, according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the name of its author and the year of publication should not be in parentheses.
2. Line 34: Replace “Leach, 1819” with “Linnaeus, 1758” (but retain the parentheses because this species was originally described as a member of another genus.
3. Lines 34-35: Remove parentheses from “(Bowen & Sterling, 1978)”.
4. Line 74 and throughout: I would avoid using the word “endemic” because it has different meaning in epidemiology and in biogeography. Since both epidemiological and biogeographical aspects are relevant in the present paper, I would recommend to use “native” instead “endemic”.
5. Line 109: Replace the semicolon with comma.
6. Line 124 and throughout: Perhaps “unpublished” should be replaced with “in preparation” or “submitted”.
7. Line 139: Replace “mixed” with “syntopic”. Replace “populations” with “population”.
8. Line 163: Replace “a syntopic population“ with “syntopic populations”.
9. Line 275: Replace “specie” with “species”.
10. Line 284: Delete “monopecific”.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.