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.
I am satisfied that you have responded to all concerns about the document, and I am happy to accept it for publication at PeerJ. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I have read your manuscript and your response to the previous round of review. I am satisfied that you have addressed the reviewer's critiques, and I believe that your work will make an interesting contribution to the science of magic literature.
However, I have identified a series of minor issues that should be remedied before the manuscript is ready for publication. All of them are related solely to grammar and clarity. I have attached an annotated version of your manuscript where I have made corrections and noted these minor issues. Once they have been addressed, I will be happy to accept the manuscript for publication at PeerJ.
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.