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.
I am happy with the current version and recommend acceptance.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Have been modified and perfected
Have been modified and perfected
Have been modified and perfected
Kindly respond to reviewer comments and then resubmit.
[# 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. #]
pass
pass
pass
line 23 What the mechanisms？
line 32 change 4 to four，the same goes for the rest of the article
line 36-38 I don't know you mean, maybe the placement is wrong
The Abstract needs to be reorganized to add some logic
line 56 Language Problems
line 88-91 The chloroplast genome is relatively conserved in angiosperms, and its ability to respond to different environments is limited. Add references.
line 102-103 Is the second question really answered?
line 151 line158 Why not the same gene amount
Fig1 may be caused by improper processing of rps12 leading to blue edges in the cyclic graph
The species name in the figure should be full
The phylogenetic section should be discussed more depth
Please refer to my detailed comments in the attached pdf.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout: Needs improvement.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided: Needs improvement.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared: Structure needs improvement, some contents are missing (e.g. methods). Table with taxon/sampling information is missing.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses: The study does not pose any questions, there are no hypotheses or expecations given. The manuscript needs substantial re-writing concerning justification.
Also here, please refer to my detailed comments in the attached pdf.
The design of the study is not fully justified. Basically, five new plastomes were sequenced, which has a value on its own, but the connections made to other topics such as population genetics and biogeography, seem rather far-fetched and are not presented convincingly. There are also some issues with sampling design and selection of taxa (see pdf for details).
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate: Not for all parts of the materials and methods, e.g. plant material studied (some not native), phylogenetic analysis, selection.
This is certainly a useful endeavour by the authors, and adds valuable information for Meliaceae by providing five new plastomes, but there are a lot of issues which need careful clarification.
The introduction, discussion and conclusion section need substantial adjustment.
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.