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 addressed all of the reviewers' comments satisfactorily on the MS, now it is in acceptable form and ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Anastazia Banaszak, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors,
Please strictly consider the reviewer 2 comments when you make your revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Reviewer 2 has provided a PDF with extensive additional comments #]
[# 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 #]
A more fluent and academic language would be more preferable.In addition to reference of the proposed article can be used, the introduction can be more fluent and clear
Turan, C. (2020). Species distribution modelling of invasive alien species; Pterois miles for current distribution and future suitable habitats. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 6 (4), pp. 429-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2020.04.01
**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
Furthermore,More fluent sentences can be used when stating the purpose of the article at the end of the introduction.
Instead of the term codend liner, a different term can be used if desired.
Findings are adequately explained. But the conclusion should be rewritten and the references should be in harmony.
-
In terms of language, it is easy to follow, and apart from a couple of minor instances, it is clear, unambiguous and technically correct.
The Introduction requires extensive revision as lacks focus and there is too much space is given to details that are not relevant to the study. Information on the distribution of lumpfish in North America is lacking, and there are still many gaps in this subject in other regions, thus giving a status of the knowledge in other regions is important. Relevant publications which examine lumpfish distribution are not referenced anywhere in the publication (see general comments).
The Figures, while relevant, need substantial improvement (see general comments).
The study relies on pre-collected data from national fisheries surveys and are thus, the source of the data is considered reliable and appropriate. However, the authors “outsource” the methods to other publications, While this is appropriate for much of the methods, key aspects such as the collection of temperature data needs to be better described. One of the questions asked “determine if and how water temperature has affected lumpfish distribution over time”, the authors do not explicitly investigate this, but focus on latitude, which I presume they assume acts as a proxy for temperature; given the complex oceanographic conditions in the Gulf of Maine, I doubt this is the case. There are also results which are not described in the Methods section.
I have serious doubts over the conclusions drawn from the data and that the data is over-interpreted.
See attached pdf.
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.