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.
Thanks for submitting a revision -- the revised manuscript has addressed all of the authors suggestions, and is more clear throughout.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Both reviewers appreciate the work you've put into the paper and have identified a few relatively small issues that will improve the paper (detailed comments from Reviewer 1 attached). Reviewer 2's main request was to provide the raw data (individual detections).
no comment
no comment
no comment
I've attached general and specific line comments to the review. Overall, the paper is very well written, but there are a few small issues with clarity in the writing, and some of the results.
Generally, the manuscript is written very well. The authors used Bayesian multistate models to evaluate bigheaded carp movement and receiver detection performance. It is an innovative approach. As the authors mentioned, the manuscript has some limitations on movement results of the carps, for instance, the unbalanced receiver number and size between lower and upper river pools could result in bias of carp movement. Besides, the fish tag summary and code are available in (Stanton et al., 2023) but the receivers and their detections of the carps are not. I hope the detections of each tagged carp by each receiver can be available for everyone.
I have some suggestions to improve the manuscript:
1. Please add a citation for the selection of ‘Dirichlet priors’ in Line 317-19.
2. Please provide Gelman and Rubin’s convergence diagnostic in Line 323 to indicate the model converged or not.
3. Figure 4, in the title please add the abbreviation of ‘IL’ to Illinois, so that the ‘IL River Pool’ is reasonable in the legend.
no comment
no comment
no comment
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.