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.
The authors have addressed the reviewer comments, and I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Toonen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have addressed my concerns and I would like to recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication in its present form.
All the reviewers suggested major revisions. Hence my recommendation is to revise the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
It is a good revision manuscript, the review is of interest and is within the scope of the journal, the information presents the current results and this gives relevance to the review, the structure of the work starting with the Introduction adequately presents the topic and makes clear the work proposal
The structure of the review is adequate and organized, the citations are up to date, the paragraphs are adequate, the subsections could be better organized. The update of the review results is generally good and comments are provided on the revision of the manuscript.
The impact of the results are interesting, the review and updating of the literature used for the review is good, the conclusions are also interesting and the research is limited to a review document on the current state of the problem of lionfish, an invader in the great Caribbean. The objectives set are met
It is a good revision work, and although it requires improvements and revisions, it is likely to be published.
-The topic of this review article is within the scope of the journal.
-Professional scientific English usage throughout the manuscript.
-Authors are careless in referencing with some citations unaccounted for. For example "Johnston and Purkis, 2015" and "Chevalier-Monteagudo et al., 2013".
-The Introduction is missing some background. For example, what is the similarity between these two species, Pterois volitans and Pterois miles? Why does authors refer to them interchangeably as "lionfish".
Please clarify whether this review is a systematic literature review. Authors only use google scholar for keyword search, however it is common practise for using scientific databases (ISI WOS/SCOPUS) and Google Scholar next to supplement search.
I have no issues with the findings and the figures are presented well. However, whether this manuscript is a systematic literature review still needs to be addressed and formatted accordingly to the methodology.
The work submitted is clear and concise. There are references missing from other areas of its current distribution. I recommend that information from the Mediterranean Sea is included.
For example:
Sponaugle, S., Gleiber, M. R., Shulzitski, K. and Cowen, R. K. (2019) 'There’s a new kid in town: lionfish invasion of the plankton', Biological Invasions, 21(10), 3013-3018.
Azzurro, E., Stancanelli, B., Di Martino, V. and Bariche, M. (2017) 'Range expansion of the common lionfish Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) in the Mediterranean Sea: an unwanted new guest for Italian waters ', BioInvasions Records, 6(2), 95-98.
Kletou, D., Hall-Spencer, J. M. and Kleitou, P. (2016) 'A lionfish (Pterois miles) invasion has begun in the Mediterranean Sea', Marine Biodiversity Records, 9(1), 46.
Bariche, M., Kleitou, P., Kalogirou, S. and Bernardi, G. (2017) 'Genetics reveal the identity and origin of the lionfish invasion in the Mediterranean Sea', Scientific Reports, 7(1), 6782.
Poursanidis, D., Kalogirou, S., Azzurro, E., Parravicini, V., Bariche, M. and zu Dohna, H. (2020) 'Habitat suitability, niche unfilling and the potential spread of Pterois miles in the Mediterranean Sea', Marine Pollution Bulletin, 154, 111054.
The design of the study is good but I recommend that information from the Mediterranean Sea is included since its a global review, even if its concentrated for Cuba.
Good validity. Please include information from the Mediterranean Sea.
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.