Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on January 7th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 15th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 24th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 27th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for making the requested corrections to your article and I am pleased to accept your article for publication

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

I apologise for the long delay in obtaining a review of your manuscript. However I am pleased that the reviewers both recommend only minor revisions to your paper

Please take into account the comments of the first reviewer that are pasted below. In addition, please make corrections as recommended by reviewer 2 in their annotated copy of your manuscript attached as a separate file.

·

Basic reporting

Acceptable

Experimental design

Acceptable

Validity of the findings

Adequate and supported by the results

Comments for the author

Minor comments:
1) Abstract: "…region (small, equator and…" should probably read "…region (small pole, equator and…"
2) Abstract: sentence starts with "And": "…light. And the transmittance…"
3) Abstract: undefined abbreviation: "…the PT of the…"
4) Line 37: Keywords are far too vague/general - use more specific words, e.g. eggshell pigment, animal husbandry, chicken rearing, etc.
5) Line 70 (and throughout): "…percent transmittance of light (PT)…"…formally, transmittance is a ratio thus has values from 0 to 1. For percentage values, better to use the term "transmission".
6) Line 85: "…regions (small, equator…" should be "…regions (small pole, equator…"
7) Line 86: "…ΔE represents the chrominance difference value…" – this would be better defined as the "CIE ΔE colour distance", chrominance can have a distinct meaning, different to that used here.
8) Line 87-89: "L* represents the white and the black of the sample, with the increase and the decrease in the value representing slanting white and black, respectively;"… L is luminance or brightness. This sentence should be rephrased, as should the following sentences to use a different term to the rather confusing "slanting". Values a and b represent colour values along the red-green and yellow-blue opponent axes, respectively.
9) Table 1 – would probably be sufficient to give values to 1 decimal place.
10) Figure1 – probably unnecessary. If kept, change "date line" to "data line"

·

Basic reporting

This is an interesting manuscript that reports on studies investigating the effect of shell colour on light stimulation effects in developing embryos. It is suitable for publication following minor revision, as indicated on the manuscript.

Experimental design

Acceptable

Validity of the findings

Acceptable

Comments for the author

Acceptable

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.