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.
The authors have completed all the suggestions made by the reviewers, I am happy to accept the paper
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Richard Schuster, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors in their revised manuscript have addressed all of my concerns.
The authors in their revised manuscript have addressed all of my concerns.
The authors in their revised manuscript have addressed all of my concerns.
Thank you for your quick and very detailed response to my comments on your first manuscript. In your revised version here you have addressed all of my concerns.
Please just complete a copy edit to catch any typographical errors.
The language is professional and clear, the literature cited is sufficient and gives a clear summary of the background. The article is well structured and has a self-contained hypothesis.
The manuscript fits well within the scope of the journal with a state-of-the-art model to answer gaps in knowledge on spatiotemporal interactions from camera trap data, that previously could only be investigated in two unassociated models.
The findings are new and gives good insight into the differences in pressure from hunting and landscape use in the US and Germany.
Both referees agree that your paper deserves to be published, contributing to the debate on hunting regulations versus forest regeneration. Take into account the suggestions of each one, especially those of Rev 1. We hope that you can soon send us the corrected version so that we can re-evaluate your publication.
[# 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. #]
The language is mostly clear--I have indicated in the attached .pdf version of the manuscript a few phrases or terms that require clarification.
Literature references are complete and thorough.
The article structure is correct and supplementary data are available. I suggest including some of the occupancy results in the text and figures to support your case and complement the relative abundance results that you do present.
The scope is appropriate, the research questions are relevant.
You have an interesting pair of extensive datasets.
I am not qualified to review the statistical analyses you have conducted.
However, my concern is that you have too many differences between the two locations to make meaningful and statistically significant comparisons. You list differences at several points in the manuscript, including in the "study limitations" section.
Therefore it may be more compelling to focus your analysis on comparing the two deer species, rather than adding in the broader suite of species and adding in potential ecological impacts. If you wish to keep these other pieces, then more justification is required and clearer definitions of terms and more details of the analyses you conduct.
I have made additional comments on the attached .pdf version of your manuscript, for your consideration.
Well written and clear professional writing, literature is sufficient (one needs updating), data shared, code was not but is linked to another publication - self-contained and relevant hypotheses
Meets all criteria and uses state of art models
Useful and potentially very important findings that can aid in the debate of hunting regulations versus forest regeneration
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.