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.
Please, insert “UK” after “Isle of Wight” line 844.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Kenneth De Baets, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I note that both reviewers are very positive. However, Reviewer 2 has made a number of suggestions that I would like you to consider.
This is a well-written, highly detailed paper describing and identifying a spinosaurid tooth. The references are encompassing. The figures are nice and clearly show tooth detail and results of statistical analyses.
The experimental design is appropriate for this study. Methods are described in extremely sufficient detail in order to be repeated, and necessary data are provided.
Interpretations of the results are well supported and conclusions are well stated. This study sets up interesting questions for future research projects around spinosaurid diversity.
This is a nice, rigorous paper that adds to our overall knowledge of dinosaur diversity and paleobiogeography of spinosaurids.
The text is very well written and structured, with all relevant references included. Thus, I believe the main issue regarding the organization of the paper is that there are two Tables 1. So it is necessary to rename the 'second' Table 1 as Table 2 and do the same for the following tables. Maybe you can delete the last section of your discussion, as it is not among the main goals of your work, but I will leave it up to you and the editor if you all agree that is better to make the text shorter.
The methodology follows the most recent and often adopted protocols available in the literature and it is explained with all relevant details.
As the methodology seems perfectly appropriate to me, the results also sound reasonable and convincing. The conclusions are summarized according to the main goals of the paper. However, with respect to the last section of the Discussion (Spinosaurid persistence in the Late Cretaceous and status of specimen XMDFEC V10010), I am not sure if it is in fact relevant or necessary regarding original goals of your work. I mean it especially due to the still speculative nature of such a discussion in view of the present lack of enough data for better supporting it.
I have made some comments throughout the text pointing some minor issues related to possible mistakes regarding the writing of the text as a whole (including figure legends). Please find them in the annotated PDF file of your manuscript that I have uploaded during the submission of my review. I have also commented on some statements, focusing on scientific issues, most of which reflects more my particular view on the subject than something that is mandatory to you to agree and follow. Thus, it is up to you to decide whether or not to follow my suggestions, unless the editor believes you should do so.
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.