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.
Congratulations-- the reviewer is pleased with the revised paper, and I agree. The paper is ready for publication!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Kenneth De Baets, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Editor,
The authors have clearly responded my questions and observations, and I believe the ms is now in shape for publication. Present contribution by Qian Wu and his colleagues will constitute a key paper in the study of pennaraptoran anatomy and evolution.
Finally, let ask you if the names of the reviewers have to be included into the "Acknowledgement" section, thus giving credit for the work and time devoted to review this ms.
Sincerely yours,
Fernando Novas
No comment
No comment
No comment
Two reviewers have given constructive critiques to the manuscript, and I agree with them that this is a timely and useful review paper. Most suggestions are editorial or purely suggestions, but I concur that including a section on pectoral girdle orientation would be valuable, as would adding more coverage of "unresolved questions" in the Conclusion. Thus some moderate revisions are needed. We look forward to your revised manuscript.
**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.
The manuscript is clear and well-written, and the figures are well-done. The manuscript is an overall thorough review of the current state of knowledge with respect to the evolutionary transformations of the pectoral girdle among the earliest birds and their close relatives
The literature survey is up-to-date, adequate and rigorous.
The conclusions are founded by the information presented in the review, and points the way forward for future research directions with respect to this study system.
The manuscript is thorough and well-written. I have no major comments, and I have attached a PDF with several minor comments. These are mostly editorial and should provide no hindrance to eventual acceptance. The authors are free to contact me with any questions or requests for clarification.
Chris Griffin
[email protected]
The ms is clear and unambiguous.
References are the corresponding ones. Just a few new cites have been suggested to include.
The article is well structured. The figures are fine, but I am suggesting the inclusion of new images (photos, drawings) of selected, well preserved and informative fossil specimens.
The manuscript constitutes an updated review that is within the scope of the journal.
The Introduction is adequate and clear.
Article content is within the aims and scope of the journal.
The investigation here presented is rigorous.
I recommend to expand the "Methods" section by inclusion of how the scapular girdle is oriented in the thorax.
Sources are adequately cited.
The review is logically organized.
Conclusions are well stated. However, I call attention of some anatomical and methodological points along the text.
The "Conclusion" identify some unresolved questions.
My observations, suggestions and criticisms are expressed in the pdf version of the manuscript
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.