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 Dr. Li
I would like to thank you and your co-authors for making the corrections and changes requested by the reviewers. I read and checked carefully your valuable article and I am happy to inform you that your article has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Best regards
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Anastazia Banaszak, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors
The reviewers have commented on your manuscript. You can find the attached reports. Based on the comments and suggestions of the expert reviewers, a minor revision is needed for your article.
I would like to request that you check and correct the manuscript step by step based on the reports.
Best regards
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
**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.
My general comments as follow:
1. The paper is very well written; however, it is not easy to follow. This version is long. I suggest if possible, shortening it by authors.
2. There are a lot of spelling mistakes in the figures, all of them should be corrected (and in the text as well).
3. Some references used in the discussion, should be used in the introduction as well.
4. More information should be given at the introduction part related to other similar fish species.
5. If there is a previous study about the species on the same water source, it should be mentioned.
6. Please note that I didn`t check the references.
Please see attached.
Please see attached.
Please see attached.
I think this research is well written and meets the journal's subject.
Line 32. Please use keywords which are not already given in the tittle
Line 127. “an” instead of “a”
Line 162-163. “The 163 statistical analyses were carried out using the Microsoft Excel 2016 and SPSS Statistics 19.0.” remove this, already given above.
Line 221. “an” instead of “a”
Line 360. “while” start with upper case
Line 386. “Nowadays” instead of “Nowdays”
Line 393. “Furthermore” instead of “Foethermore”
Figure 4. Please provide the number of the indivuduals were analysed.
I think the MS meets the journal standards, with suggested improvements.
Only issue I would like to emphasis about the name of the species.
In Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes the species listed as synonym of X. macrolepis. I am aware the species has a complex nomenclature story.
There are 2 argenteus in the genus Xenocypris.
1) Leuciscus argenteus Basilewski 1855, but this one is not available because it is a primary junior homonym of Leuciscus argenteus Fitzinger, 1832 and Leuciscus argenteus Storer, 1839. It cannot be used.
2) Xenocypris argentea Günther, 1868 is also not available. It is a secondary junior homonym of L. argenteus Basilewski 1855 when L. a. Basilewski was placed in Xenocypris by Sauvage & Dabry de Thiersant, 1874. It cannot be used.
The next name proposed for this species is X. macrolepis, Bleeker 1851 and this is the valid name as mentioned by authors. However, I think the authors should mention the situation above and clarify that the species remains valid as X. macrolepis in the M & M section.
To see the following publication will be helpful:
Kottelat, M. (2013). The fishes of the inland waters of Southeast Asia: a catalogue and core bibliography of the fishes known to occur in freshwaters, mangroves and estuaries. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology.
"page 170"
Kottelat, M. (2001). Freshwater fishes of northern Vietnam. World Bank, Washington.
"page 44"
I believe that the findings of the study are realistic and sufficient.
I accepted the MS because I believe the authors will take into consideration my very few suggestions.
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.