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.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for adequately addressing all the concerns raised during the initial review. I am pleased to inform you that your article, "Morphological characterization and sexual dimorphism of the antennal sensilla in Bactericera gobica Loginova (Hemiptera: Psyllidae)—A scanning and transmission electron microscopic study ", has now been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Thank you for your submission and we hope you will continue to support PeerJ.
Best,
Xiaotian Tang
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michael Wink, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
I went through the revised version of your manuscript, which has been greatly improved. The revised article meets the PeerJ criteria and can be accepted as is.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear authors,
Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers. The reviewers have provided evaluations and made recommendations for revisions to your manuscript. The reviewers have raised some concerns about your methodological approaches and interpretations, which need to be carefully considered. Reviewers 1 and 3 have concerns that if ultrasonic cleaning can damage the structure of antenna. Reviewer 2 has a question about data presentation in the tables. Reviewer 3 has commented that the methodology lacks sufficient details and also attached a review report file that should be addressed.
I invite you to respond to the reviewers' detailed comments and revise your manuscript. All three reviewers' comments need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ and I look forward to receiving your revision.
Best,
Xiaotian Tang, Ph.D.
Academic Editor, PeerJ
xiaotian.tang@yale.edu
In this manuscript authors compared the morphological characterization of the antennal sensilla in Bactericera gobica Loginova using SEM and TEM. This study provides some useful information for the future studies on defining the olfactory function of psyllid antenna.
The experimental design is well supported the result and their analysis.
The authors found some differences between female and male antennal sensilla.
1. The reason why the authors chose TEM？The difference between TEM and SEM should be added in discussion, to highlight the differences and characteristics between this paper and other studies.
2. Why did the authors only chose 3-day-old adults for the experiment?
3. In line 111, "the entire bodies of the B. gobica specimens were cleaned two times each in 70% ethanol using ultrasonic waves". Therefore, whether ultrasonic cleaning can damage the structure of antenna and affect the experimental results.
4. The whole experiment is only a description of morphology. If there is relevant functional verification in the follow-up experiment, the research may be more meaningful.
5. Manuscript format needs to be checked. For example, In Line116 and 367...
This is a well-written manuscript.
The research question is well defined. This study is the first to report the morphology of B. gobica antennal sensilla with the aid of SEM and TEM.
The statistical analysis used is appropriate. The conclusions are well stated.
However, there is one issue to be addressed. Why the size (mean ± SE) of sensilla chaetica (ChS) presented in the Tables 4 and 5 were different. Please clarify it?
The title reflects the contents of the manuscript. All figures are easily readable with sufficient resolution.
no comment
no comment
no comment
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.