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 addressed all of the reviewers' comments.
One previous reviewer accepted the paper and because the other previous reviewer did not respond to the invitation to review the work, I have assessed the revision myself, and I am happy with the current version.
Now the manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The author made substantial changes to the manuscript
For me is totally acceptable for publication
No comment
No comment
Dear Authors, Please follow all the requests and suggestions of the reviewers.
[# 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. #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The article addressed heavy metals contamination, one of the most significant topics that has drawn attention on a global scale. However, the author (s) must carefully consider and resolve a number of notes:
- The introduction should include more contemporary literature on the subject of heavy metals impacts on terrestrial fauna.
- Authors must describe the techniques and sample preservation; also, it is unclear how kidney tissues should be prepared for metal analysis.
- Some sentences in the results section that are more pertinent to methodology are noted in the main text. Additionally, the text does not mention the abbreviations present in the tables, which confuses the reader.
- Discussion , as well as introduction, it needs more comparable findings supported with recent articles.
- Conclusion contains references and a few phrases that would be better placed elsewhere. Reshape the conclusion.
I also made some notes in the main manuscript that the author should take into consideration.
The study aims to correlate biological variables with soil heavy metal contamination in a field setting.
Despite limitations such as the ignorance about other biological variables (age, nutrition state, heavy metal bones content, etc.), this research represents one of the few studies aiming to use bone architecture as endpoint in a field biomonitoring
The paper need major revision in several parts:
Introduction: Provide more recent literature in the field and specify better the aims of the study
Methods: Be more detailed in the methods and consider reorganizing that section
Discussions: Discuss better the study findings also with more recent literature
Conclusions: More concise, eliminating some parts that are more appropriate in the discussion section
I've provided more specific comments in the PDF
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.