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 27th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 17th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 21st, 2021 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on January 9th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 16th, 2022.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Jan 16, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

I thank the authors for following through the whole reviewing process. The current version of the manuscript is ready for publication.

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

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing - for instance, the authority of the species name needs a comma after the authorities before the year (small but important for ICZN). Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]

Version 0.2

· Jan 5, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The revised manuscript has improved significantly after incorporating comments from the reviewers. I welcome the authors to kindly address some additional minor comments from both reviewers before the manuscript is ready for publication.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Accepted

Experimental design

Accepted

Validity of the findings

Accepted

Additional comments

My previous comments were fully addressed by the authors and I believe the manuscript has been greatly improved. Thank you for the modifications.
However, authors should refine the overview map of the study area (Figure 1) which is missing orientation indicators and scale, and prepare it following the journal's standard format.
I would like to recommend acceptance after the matter is addressed.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No further comments.

Validity of the findings

No further comments.

Additional comments

Please check the citation for Figure 2, Figure S1 and Table S1 as I cannot find them in the text.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 17, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Based on the comments of reviewers, and please provide strong justification on the sample size, as pointed out by Reviewer 2.

[# 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. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Clear usage of scientific and professional English throughout the manuscript.
Straightforward reporting on the pearl whipray (Fontitrygon margaritella) growth, maturity, and diet parameters.
Sufficient background and references provided.

Experimental design

Research questions are well defined and within the scope of the journal.
Methodology is sound and replicable.

Validity of the findings

Findings are relevant to the conservation and fisheries management for the F. margaritella.

Additional comments

Material and methods
1. A geographical map of the sampling sites/location should be included to assist reader visually
2. Suggest the descriptions in table 1 to be simplified and incorporated in line with texts under materials

Discussion
3. Based on figure 2, How do you justify teleost as part of YOY but absent in juvenile diet?
4. Discussion on F. margaritella diets is polychaete and crustacean biased. What is the "unidentified" mainly composed of? Is it substrate or plant matters?

Supplementary data
5. I think it will greatly help readers to understand figure 2 if authors could provide raw data on the stomach content identified.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comment.

Experimental design

Authors should reconsider the results on size at first mature due to limitation of sample size.
Please check and add citations (see my comments in the manuscript file).
Please provide photos of food items of this species.
Please provide a Table presenting detail of fish collection in four sites.

Validity of the findings

Please find comments in the manuscript file.

Additional comments

Please find comments in the manuscript file.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.