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 agreed and modified the manuscript according to the two reviewer suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by John Measey, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear author,
Many thanks for agreeing and editing your manuscript according to the reviewer's suggestions. Please see additional minor suggestion in the attached PDF.
I'm pleased authors modified their contribution.
I have no futher comments.
no comment
no comment
none
Dear authors,
Thanks for considering PeerJ for your new hesionid species. Two specialists reviewed your manuscript and indicated that it needs a number of small edits in the text and also in the figures. When reviewing your manuscript, please provide answers to the reviewer's questions and include in addition to the revised version, a tracked version of your manuscript highlighting all the changes in the text. Looking forward to receiving the revised ms.
Best,
Wagner
[# 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 article fulfills the standars for the journal. It includes the description of two new species living with mud shrimps, and their findings are very interesting.
My particular recommendations are incorporated in the pdf, including the indication for a few missing references, and some taxonomic details that might help provide a more complete idea about the delineation for Parahesione.
At the same time, I've included some recommendations for some minor changes in the orientation of some of the objects included in the figures, or some cropping of some of them.
No comment
I think the article is interesting and I would recommend adding some additional pieces of information such as diagnosis, as well as some details regarding fine details of chaetae.
No further comments
The manuscript contains very interesting information on two new species of hesionid symbionts, which in my opinion are well suported both morphologically and molecularly. Besides this, the manuscript requires major work to be acceptable for publication. I have made a lot of suggestions and comments both on the text and on the figures. The modified text figures are send as attached files together with this review. So I think it is not necessary to repeat them here. I will certainly be pleased to re-review the manuscript if the editors consider this as necessary.
do not apply
The findings are well supported, but some parts require additional work. See attached document.
All my comments are directly written on the revised file here attached. A detailed comment by comment list can be found at the end of the corrected PDF as, in addition to the suggested corrections, there are also comments that requiere to be considered and responded. Their position is marked by pinky shadowing covering the affected text, but can only be read in the point by point list.
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.