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.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 20th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 13th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 1st, 2021 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 18th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 18, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

Reviewers agree (and I agree) that the paper is now acceptable for publication.

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

·

Basic reporting

After revision I have no additional comments to make. The manuscript is well written and should be accepted.

Experimental design

The metodology is the usual for this kind of study.

Validity of the findings

The manuscritp is relevant for the area of plant taxonomy.

Additional comments

I have no additional comments.

·

Basic reporting

See note to editor

Experimental design

See note to editor

Validity of the findings

See note to editor

Additional comments

See note to editor

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 13, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear authors, I ask you to carefully consider the comments of the two reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]

·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is well written and presents a new species of Annonaceae. The new Uvariopsis dicaprio has already a nomenclatural issue, the name Uvariopsis ebo was invalidly published as a preprint by the same authors of this manuscript. I suggest that this information is included in the section “notes”, since it is an important information about the taxonomy of this new species.

Experimental design

The authors inferred the extent of occupancy and the area of occurrence but forgot to indicate the method it was inferred. I suggest including it in the section “Material and methods”.

Validity of the findings

The description of the new species Uvariopsis dicaprio is relevant for the conservation of the Ebo forest and for the scientific community.

Additional comments

No additional comments.

·

Basic reporting

No comment.
Adjustments to be made and suggestions please check the pdf file. Please check the end of the document.

Experimental design

.

Validity of the findings

.

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.