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 have reviewed your revised manuscript. Thanks for addressing the reviewers' comments and suggestions. I think the manuscript is much improved.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Following the author's meticulous revisions, I am of the opinion that the manuscript has attained a level deserving of acceptance. The authors have diligently examined all the reviewers' comments and carried out comprehensive revisions in response. Hence, I recommend the acceptance of this paper.
Your paper has been reviewed by three experts. While two of them liked your work one has recommended rejection. However, I would like to give you a chance to revise your paper based on the comments from all three reviewers.
[# 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. #]
The paper reports the sequence and annotation of six mitogenomes from the genus Phylloscopus and describe general features of these mitogenomes, such as gene order, nucleotide and amino acid compositions and codon usage. Additionally, the phylogeny of the genus Phylloscopus is reconstructed using the nucleotide sequences.
However, I found that many related species had been published in Genbank, but did not appear in this study. I suggest that the mitogenomes of all species of the genus Phylloscopus be analyzed together. So, Overall the paper needs to be rewritte. Although these research are interesting, they are rather limited and do not advance our knowledge of the subject sufficiently to warrant publication in Peerj.
no comment
no comment
no comment
This paper presents an analysis of the structural characteristics of the mitochondrial genome of six Phylloscopus species and elucidates the phylogenetic relationships within the Phylloscopus genus. The language employed in the paper is concise, the cited references are deemed appropriate and comprehensive, and the data provided is sufficiently detailed. Nonetheless, certain statements in the paper lack precision and would benefit from further refinement. It is recommended to revise and enhance these statements to ensure clarity and accuracy.
In this study, the Mitochondrial genome was sequenced utilizing the Illumina sequencing platform. The experimental design employed exhibited sound scientific reasoning, and the software was appropriately utilized for data analysis. The data obtained was comprehensively analyzed, ensuring a rigorous approach to the research.
This research outcome serves as a valuable supplement to the existing Mitochondrial genome data of Phylloscopus. It reveals the compositional characteristics of the Mitochondrial genome within the species and facilitates the classification of Phylloscopus into two distinct branches. These findings provide significant support, to a certain extent, to the previous research outcomes in the field.
The article is good with clear objectives acceptable English language write-up.
The literature references are up to date and article structure are well organized.
Research questions are well defined and relevant. Although this is an extension of previous works been done by others, the approach is novel and highly informative.
Methodologies are well designed and appropriate.
The findings of this article is highly valid and should be important for future references on the taxonomy and systematic of the taxa.
Suggestion:
1) Provide pairwise genetic distance/divergence data between sequences/haplotypes in a table form
2) A photo of the six Phylloscopus species can be added as an additional figure.
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.