Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on October 9th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 11th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 6th, 2024 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 7th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 7, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments and this manuscript is now ready for publication in PeerJ.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 11, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

After reading the rebuttal letter and the revised manuscript by myself, I can now confirm that the authors have appropriately addressed all of the reviewers’ concerns. However, I’d like to suggest some final changes to be made by the authors:

The Materials & Methods section is still too long (with almost 5000 words). I’d recommend at least moving sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 (on eDNA sampling) to the SI as well. Besides, I believe the authors have moved section 2.6.7 (on controlling for contamination) to the SI but forgot to remove the same section from the main text. Please kindly correct this.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: You provided the prior reviews on your manuscript, as well as your rebuttal and revisions. We thank you for the transparency you have shown by providing this information. The Editor was fully aware of this prior process and as a result, he was able to evaluate your revisions in light of the prior reviews without need for further review #]

External reviews were received for this submission. These reviews were used by the Editor when they made their decision, and can be downloaded below.

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.