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 October 28th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 29th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 28th, 2022 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on January 26th, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 5th, 2023.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Feb 5, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

The manuscript, in general, was already in good form when it was submitted and thus requires minor modifications in line with the reviewers' comments. Thus, the revised manuscript is now ready for publication in this journal.

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

Version 0.2

· Jan 12, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The reviewer made several comments that I think warrant your attention. Nevertheless, the work required to address their comments is relatively minimal and you should be able to resubmit in a short time.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

I add some minor changes and comments directly on the revised manuscript (primary on the description section of the new species) which the authors can consider again. Please refer to the attached manuscript file.

Experimental design

No comments.

Validity of the findings

No comments.

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 29, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Comments from the reviewers are indeed useful and should be able to be addressed by the authors in a short time.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is an interesting contribution to the squat lobster fauna in the Pacific Ocean. The species, of the genus Munidopsis of this area are not very well studied and this study can help to know the biodiversity of the area. Rov images given are very interesting and will be useful for ecological studies. Authors also provided Micro-CT images of the new species which are very useful for understanding the ornamentation.

The ms is, in general, well written and illustrated. My comments embedded in the pdf file are mostly minor and, I hope, they can help the authors to improve the present version.

Experimental design

The authors have employed state-of-the-art techniques in collecting, analyzing the samples and presenting the data.

Validity of the findings

1. Based on the morphological observations and illustrations, the authenticity of the new taxon is confirmed.

2. In the "Material and Methods" section, the authors mentioned that they extracted and amplified COI, 16S, and 28S genes and information on accession numbers provided in table 1. Based on the above, the authors generated a phylogenetic tree by "concatenating" the 3 genes. However, in the case of 28S gene, they haven't provided accession numbers, except the outgroup. Similarly, in the case of the new species, they have apparently provided generated sequences only for COI. In view of the above, the authors should provide the missing data. In addition, they should provide a footnote to the Table 1 indicating "X".

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

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This manuscript is well prepared in general, including a description of a new species based on very interesting methods . No major comments. I made only minor comments and changes directly on the attached manuscript file.

Experimental design

No major comments. Please refer to the attached manuscript file.

Validity of the findings

No major comments. Please refer to the attached manuscript file.

Additional comments

Please refer to the attached 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.