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 Authors
The paper is now ready in the way of being published! Congratulations!!!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
One of the reviewers is still asking for some improvements and detailed it in his/her review. Therefore, I consider that the authors must follow those recommendations.
The authors improved the text, reference list, methods description and figures according to suggestions from the previous review round. However, I only still recommend improvements in method description (inclusion criteria of species on phylogeny, alignment algorithm and evolutionary model selection) and phylogenetic analysis (e.g. using more robust methods such as ML and BI). Whith this modifications, the MS will likely be suitable for publication in PeerJ.
-
Good
A few format and text issues remain. They are marked in the PDF.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The two reviewers pointed out the main issue concerning molecular analysis involving identification and phylogeny. Therefore, I strongly suggest that the authors revise all these parts of the manuscript in detail.
[# 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. #]
As far as I could assess as a non-native speaker professional english is used. Manuscript could be improved with more citations in introduction as well as more recent references on critical parts of the text. The figure of phylogenetic should be improved in order to present bootstrap values and a white background. Scientific names lack proper standardization.
The entire method related to molecular identification should be rewritten, specially indicating the selection criteria for species comparison, and more accurate description of phylogenetic procedures, from alignment to phylogeny. Statistical analyses would strengthen findings on growth and inhibition.
Overall methods should be described in further detail.
The morphological identification should be deeper explored, including a comparison with relevant species.
Phylogenetic analysis should be redone.
Lines 20-22, 36, 59, 71-72, 95, 140, etc: Suggestion for changing the terms fruiting body, sporocarp, and basidiocarp and term standardization. I recommend you use sporoma or sporome when singular and sporomata or sporomes when plural.
Italicize the genera and species names. Most of them were highlighted in the MS, but look at all to fix.
Lines 35-36: please fix the higher ranks names of S. vaninii. See comments in the PDF.
Molecular analysis:
-The authors could include all generated DNA sequences.
-The ingroup selection is not clearly stated.
-The outgroup is far related to the ingroup and this could influence the analysis. In the below paper, you will find genera closer to Trichoderma and Sphaerostilbella specimens appear to be enough.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13225-022-00512-1
-In the presented phylogeny, the Bootstrap values are not shown in the branches. The authors presented only ML analysis and it is ok, but ML-BS values are not shown.
no comment
Other minor issues and suggestions are included in the PDF notes and/or highlights.
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.