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.
Dear Dr. Lee and colleagues:
Thanks for revising your manuscript based on the concerns raised by the reviewers. I now believe that your manuscript is suitable for publication. Congratulations! I look forward to seeing this work in print, and I anticipate it being an important resource for groups studying colubrid biology and systematics. Thanks again for choosing PeerJ to publish such important work.
Best,
-joe
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Lee and colleagues:
Thanks for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. I have now received two independent reviews of your work, and as you will see, the reviewers raised only minor concerns about the manuscript. In fact, they are quite optimistic about your work and the potential impact it will have on research studying colubrid biology and sytematics. Thus, I encourage you to revise your manuscript, accordingly, taking into account all of the concerns raised by both reviewers.
I look forward to seeing your revision, and thanks again for submitting your work to PeerJ.
Good luck with your revision,
Best,
-joe
This is an excellent paper, very well worked out, with plenty of analyses based on sound results.
The text is clear (except a few parts), well written in a highly professional way.
Literature is adequate.
Figures are adequate.
This paper contains all relevant results.
I found only some minor points to be addressed.
Especially, a key is missing but it is not a mandatory requirement.
In my opinion, this section is complete.
It is well written
Nothing to add.
I totally agree with authors' conclusions.
I agree on the validity of Oligodon transcapicus and other conlusions.
I found only some minor points to be addressed.
They are indicated in the PDF, all comments are aligned along the right margin.
Especially, a key is missing but it is not a mandatory requirement.
No Comment
No Comment
No Comment
A very positive aspect of the manuscript is the international contributions of the authors. These authors include experts in systematic and evolutionary studies from most of the countries where the snake species of Oligodon that are emphasized in the manuscript occur.
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.