Review History

All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 10th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 1st, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 5th, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 6th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· May 6, 2021 · Academic Editor


In the revised version all the referees' requests have been fulfilled so the paper can be accepted for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by James Reimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 1, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Dr Santana,

Please receive the referees' comments on your article.

They recommend publication after minor revision.

Please consider all the point sraised and provide a revised version of your article

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The article is concise and clearly written in a sufficiently correct English.
The Reference format is not that requested by the Journal.
The figures are well done but there are no captions to the figures.

Experimental design

The research topic is within the scope of the journal.
The methods are described with sufficient detail and the investigation conducted in a rigorous manner.

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

Just a few specific comments:
- the technique used is the powder XRD, so I would add the word powder at line 79 and throughout the text.
- At line 92 please correct Briker with Bruker.
- Please rephrase the sentence at lines 152-155.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The paper by Santana and Aranda reports a preliminary characterization of the structure of Pteria colymbus oyster shell by using an appropriate set of experimental techniques. The results are sound and, in my opinion, this work can be published after only minor revisions as outlined below.

Experimental design

In the Materials & Methods section, the Authors say that six 1 cm2 samples were cut from the shells. For sake of reproducibility of the experiments, a sentence on how powder samples for XRD and FTIR measurements have been prepared should be added.
Figure 4 reports the XRD pattern of nacre powder. However, the spectrum presents few reflections and it resembles the spectrum of the nacre from mussels, while it differs from the XRD spectrum of powdered mussel shells, as reported by Ren et al. (see reference list). The Authors should add a comment about this (i.e.: does it depends from a different grinding procedure?). Figure 4 should also report the position and indexing of aragonite reflections present in the reference ICDD card (no. 76-606) for comparison.
The title of the X-axis of Figure 4 is better written as 2θ.
The title of the X-axis of Figure 5 is wrong. It should report wavenumbers in cm-1. Also, the Y-axis of this figure should read as just “Intensity” or “Intensity / a.u.”

Validity of the findings

As stated above, the findings of this study are valuable and should be published.

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.