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 March 21st, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 14th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 17th, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 21st, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· May 21, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for the revision; you have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. Our reviewer team has no objection to your revision and hence your article can be accepted by following the format of the journal. Congratulations.

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 14, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. After careful review by 3 reviewers, we have found that your work has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field of bivalve taxonomy and systematics. You have clarified the taxonomic identification of three new species of bivalves in the manuscript, and provided a clear justification for its classification. However, we have identified several issues that require minor revision before we can move forward with the publication of your manuscript.

Specifically, we request that you make the following minor revisions:

Reviewer#1 has given you some suggestions to address in your revision. We believe that addressing these concerns will improve the quality and impact of your manuscript.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Reviewer 1 declared a potential Conflict of Interest, and the Editor was aware of this when making their decision #]

·

Basic reporting

This manuscript describes three new species of marine bivalves in the deep waters of the North Pacific Ocean. It is well-written with superb illustrations. A number of corrections/suggestions are made in the pdf of the text. Comparison table between species is well-done and important.

Experimental design

This manuscript covers the description of three new species and a deep-sea region that has barely been studied in the past. The publication will be a major boost to our knowledge of deep-sea Pacific bivalves. References and methodology are all thorough and well presented.

Validity of the findings

This reviewer agrees with the description of the three new species in the manuscript. Their description is well defined and well illustrated.

Additional comments

See additional comments on the attached pdf.

·

Basic reporting

All the figures and tables are properly arranged,

Experimental design

All the data can be opened and is well described in English.

Validity of the findings

Language is clear and professional.

Additional comments

Suggestions
1. The global distribution map of the genus Axinulus including all the species information, also gets more visibility.
2. Axinulus cristatus Morphological photographs were also missing. If possible, include that pictures also.

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.