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 December 13th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on December 22nd, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 5th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 6th, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jan 6, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. The revised manuscript has met the publication criteria.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Kenneth De Baets, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Dec 22, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

I have now received reports from two reviewers. After careful consideration, I have decided to invite a minor revision of the manuscript. Collectively, both reviewers think this paper is interesting and significant and should be published in PeerJ. As you will see from the report, the reviewers raised a number of questions and suggestions, especially the first reviewer Dr. Jan Bohatý. If you feel that you are able to comprehensively address the reviewers’ concerns, please provide a point-by-point response to these comments along with your revision. If you are unable to address specific reviewer requests or find any points invalid, please explain why in the point-by-point response.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]

·

Basic reporting

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the submitted manuscript. It is very well prepared, contains historical, older and current studies and represents a useful contribution of supraregional importance to these.
You can find my suggestions and additions in the attached PDF.
I am available to answer any questions and I consent to my comments and my name being sent to the authors.
Dr. Jan Bohatý

Experimental design

see PDF

Validity of the findings

see PDF

Additional comments

see PDF

·

Basic reporting

This paper is very well organized and clearly written, in good English rendering. The background/context and references are appropriate. The paper is well structured, with descriptions following standard format, with data provided. The paper fulfills the stated aims in providing descriptions of newly discovered specimens of crinoids as complete or partial calyxes,

Experimental design

The paper is highly significant in reporting crinoid taxa known from complete and partial calyxes, heretofore not well represented in the Emsian of this region, despite the fact that crinoid remains were well known from columnals and columnals. The descriptions are very detailed and thorough, and the illustrations are excellent in quality.

Validity of the findings

The paper provides complete data on the fossils described, and the conclusions are concisely stated and sound.

Additional comments

I found very few minor corrections that are highlighted and explained as notations. The institution for Dr Ausich is incorrect and noted in the byline at the very beginning of the manuscript (but is OK in the following, line 8) . There is a section (lines 146-157) enclosed in " marks that should have the source included if it has been taken from another work. In the caption for Fig. 5 attached to the figure, the explanation of part H appears to be truncated (lines not numbered), but it is OK in the full list of figure captions.

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.