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.
Thank you for your diligence in responding to the reviewers' suggestions. My only advice is to double-check that all of your reasoning is as clear in the manuscript as it is in the rebuttal letter. You'll have an opportunity to make any last changes as you handle the production tasks and at the proof stage. But in my view, the manuscript is ready for publication. Thanks again, and congratulations.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Kenneth De Baets, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The comments by the reviewers seem both reasonable and straightforward. I look forward to seeing an even better version of this manuscript soon!
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The English of the manuscript sounds clear and unambiguous to me, but given I am not a native speaker, I suppose my opinion is not very relevant at this point.
Also I provide here a list of errors I found on the text, which are listed following the lines of the .pdf archive:
Line 69: Striking instead of Stricking
Line 70: In particular or Particularly, not “in particularly”
Line 72: have preserved instead of preserved
Line 103: Río Gallegos
Line 105: Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia
Line 118: were taken, instead was taken
Line 142: Jackknife
Line 233: proatlas, instead protoatlas
Line 286: I think it should be “teardrop-like”
Line 415: anteroposteriorly instead anteroposterior
Line 614: I suggest to use “largest posterior surface”
Line 641: vertebrae instead of vertebra
Line 710: “…small depression posterior at the entry…” this sounds odd to me, please check the phrase
Line 779: I suggest to rewrite this sentence.
Line 836: spine instead of spines
Line 879: concave/convex
Line 1540: hyposphene-hypantrum
Line 1555: lesser medially inclined
Line 1580: Jackknife
Line 1750: taphonomic bias
Line 1771: Please capitalize Abelisauridae
Line 1839: blue
Line 1908: morphologies
No comment
No comment.
Dear Dr. Baiano and colleagues:
I had the pleasure of act as a revisor of your interesting manuscript entitled "Osteology of the axial skeleton of Aucasaurus garridoi (Coria, Chiappe and Dingus 2002): phylogenetic and paleobiological inferences", which was submitted to PeerJ. I really enjoyed reading it, I think it is a very welcome detailed description of the axial anatomy of such an important representative of the clade Abelisauridae, as it is Aucasaurus. It will represent a useful tool for future comparisons in theropod (and dinosaur) analysis. Also the phylogenetic analysis and the paleobiological inferences realized makes the paper even stronger. I will support its publication, after some minor changes, which are detailed in the "Basic reporting" section.
Anything else I can do for help, please let me know.
Sincerely yours.
Dr. Juan Ignacio Canale
The work presented here is clearly written. The authors have extensive expertise in the subject of the article, which ensures a correct management of prior knowledge. The figures and tables are appropriate for detailed work such as the one presented here.
The research is clear as to its purpose. The data provided here are relevant for a better understanding of phylogenetic, morphological, evolutionary and functional issues of the family Abelisauridae.
Research conclusions are well supported
I consider that the publication of this work is of great importance, since it deals with a material briefly described more than 20 years ago and provides new and relevant information about the members of the Abelisauridae clade.
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.