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 addressing all of the editors' and reviewers' comments in the revised manuscript. I am pleased to confirm that your paper has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.
With kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gwyn Gould, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The work is well-written, demonstrating remarkable clarity and cohesion. The language has been improved, making it easier to understand, and therefore suitable for a broad audience.
No comment
The work showcases positive qualities, and various areas were addressed in the discussion as suggested.
A meticulous review of the details, such as the formatting of species citations, has been carried out, resulting in a more refined version.
The work is interesting and, in general, all sections are well presented. However, a meticulous correction of all the errors contained in the manuscript is necessary (Latin names that are not italicized, superscripts not indicated, etc.).
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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:** It is PeerJ policy that authors can use any reference style they choose during submission so long as it is consistent. If the manuscript is accepted, the journal style will be applied during production.
The structure does not conform to PerrJ's standards, especially the bibliographical references, according to the rules of the journal page it should be like this:
PeerJ uses the 'Name. Year' style with an alphabetized reference list.
In-text citations
For three or fewer authors, list all author names (e.g. Smith, Jones & Johnson, 2004). For four or more, abbreviate with ‘first author’ et al. (e.g. Smith et al., 2005).
Multiple references to the same item should be separated with a semicolon (;) and ordered chronologically.
References by the same author in the same year should be differentiated by letters (Smith, 2001a; Smith, 2001b).
Cite articles accepted for publication as 'in press'. Include in reference section and upload as a Supplemental file.
Cite work unpublished, in preparation or under review as 'unpublished data'. Supply the author's first initial and surname, and the year of the data collection, in the text citation and do not include the citation in the reference section. Example: (A Castillo, 2000, unpublished data).
Avoid referencing personal communications. Reference as 'pers. comm.', including the first initial and surname, and year. Example: (A Castillo, 2000, pers. comm.).
The Reference Section
Journal reference format: List of authors (with initials). Publication year. Full article title. Full title of the Journal, volume: page extents. DOI (if available).
Example journal reference:
Smith JL, Jones P, Wang X. 2004. Investigating ecological destruction in the Amazon. Journal of the Amazon Rainforest 112:368-374 DOI: 10.1234/amazon.15886.
figures are relevant to the content of the article, have sufficient resolution, and are appropriately described and labeled
the article has a professional English
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
the research is well defined and scientifically supported by results and description of the discussion in accordance with the hypothesis
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
In accordance with the format rules of the journal consulted on the page, the article does not adapt to the format guidelines of the bibliographical references in the paragraphs and in the final list.
the author must adapt the references according to the guidelines of the format requested by the journal
the author handles subtitles in the results part, however subtitles or subtopics are not contemplated in the methodology part, so it is necessary to consider placing them
The work is well-written, demonstrating remarkable clarity and cohesion. The language used is accessible, making it easy to understand and thus, suitable for a broad audience. The logical organization of topics and sections contributes to a smooth reading flow, enabling readers to follow the argument cohesively.
No Comment
While the work presents many positive qualities, it's important to consider whether there are areas that could be explored more deeply, if additional evidence could strengthen the argument, or if there are alternative perspectives that could enrich the discussion.
Furthermore, a meticulous review of details, such as formatting species citations, is crucial to ensure the overall quality of the work.
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.