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 the following suggestions to improve your manuscript:
Title: Instead of ...a Xanthid Crab....it should the...the Xanthid Crab...
Abstract, bacground: The population structure and breeding biology of the Xanthid Crab on the rocky intertidal region of Shivrajpur in Saurashtra coast, Gujarat state, were examined.
Abstact, method: From March 2021 to February 2022, monthly sampling was conducted...
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
Please, follow recommendations provides by the reviewer.
The author has been edited follow my suggestion but there are some point that they have to check such as 1) please consider the keyword should be related with the content 2) unit of egg mass changed from mm to g 3) please check the citation in the content and reference behind the paper should be relate and exactly. 4) scientific name of the carb should be italic style throughout the document 5) please edit the pattern the explaination of the figure in your paper 6) please check the format of the reference, there are many wrong reference such the author use the capital letter in the first in the title some reference etc.
The author was seperated the Experimental design followed my suggestion. The author reviwed the external morphology of the crab from the previous study but the author should explain the external morphology in brieftly and should be give the detail only the dominance characteristics. (Line 100-109)
please check the validity of technical term and edit the reference followed my suggestion in attached file.
please edit especially in part Reference and method section.
Your manuscript has been reviewed and referees pointed out various details in need to attention. Please, I strongly suggest to carefully follow those details, such as the justification of the study, ecological aspects of the crab species, size frequencies precisely defined, describe the methodology better, figure appearance and please, English grammar needs improvement.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The author have been report the result follow from their objective, but they have to revised some issue that I wonder for fullfill this article to publish. such as some methodology. Moreover, the authtor also edit the reference in content to relate behind full reference.
I wonder about the fishing gear or something right that such handling and may be the author should be give the detail about the specimen after field collecting such as identified by morphology or other method such as dana barcoding. In addition to please give the detail about season and insert crab picture including ovigerous and non ovigerous in this article.
The author should be show the statistic analysis in some issue such as sex ratio and may be edit some value in the table because it's not related.
The author should be comply the content in part methodology related with their objective because now this section make the reader confuse.
Please give the detail for utilisation for this article to support diversity and environmental in the coastal area of India particulary in Gujarat state.
This manuscript presents the population structure and fecundity of a Xanthid crab Leptodius exaratus in India.
This study is interesting and deserves to be published, but a few modifications are necessary beforehand.
1/ Figures are not uniform and should be sharper. They look like screenshots...
2/ English must be validated by an English speaker
The methods are consistent, but the following are missing
1/ GPS coordinates of the study site,
2/ Species names are not italicized (also throughout the document).
3/ add bibliographical references on the dip-net capture method, which seems to me to possibly create a bias in the capture of individuals
1/ In the introduction, we do not understand why it is interesting to study this species. I would suggest that the authors add more information on the ecological role of this crab and how climate change or human stress factors could have an effect on this species.
2/ The results are interesting, although I would suggest that size frequencies be more precisely defined. I don't quite agree with the graphs in figure 4, for example, because I suppose that size frequencies ranging every 5 mm (5-10; 10-15, etc.) are too large and we lose finer information on the different sizes. I'd suggest refining the scale every 1 mm or 2 mm, your work will be more interesting and powerful.
3/ and then to use more finesse - your discussion will be more powerful and striking, because your study is very interesting.
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.