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.
Thank you for making the requested modifications to your manuscript. We are pleased to accept it for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
This article represents a solid scientific study that makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the health status of Galápagos Magnificent Frigatebirds. The authors have effectively addressed the comments from the first round of review, resulting in a clear and coherent text. The article is suitable for publication and will appeal to researchers and practitioners in ecology, veterinary medicine, and conservation.
Please address every comment by the reviewers, including those included in the attached annotated reviewed manuscript. In composing your rebuttal, please list each comment, your response, and how the manuscript has been changed.
The overall structure is good, but the objectives, justifications and presentation of the state of knowledge about the health of this species need to be improved, as the reader will only understand some issues in the discussion.
The study is very important and deserves to be published, but the title and introduction need to make the state of knowledge on the topic addressed and the reasons for choosing Galapagos birds for the study clearer. It is also important to mention the subspecies that occur in Galapagos, and this is an extremely important issue, since the Galapagos has a different subspecies than Brazil, where the data were compared. Therefore, the authors need to make this very clear in the introduction, so that the comparison can be better understood.
The findings are interesting, but it is necessary to mention the subspecies in question, and consider the comparisons.
It is necessary to reword the manuscript
The table titles seem excessively long, and much of the information they contain would be more appropriately placed within the results section.
no comment
Although the sample size of the study is limited, it is important to enhance the scientific validity of the findings by applying appropriate statistical analyses, such as an ANOVA test. It would be advisable to focus the discussion on the indicators that demonstrate statistically significant differences, while the remaining data can either be presented in the results section or reported in the tables.
This article provides a comprehensive examination of the health status of Magnificent Frigatebirds (Fregata magnificens) from the Galápagos Islands, utilizing haematological and biochemical parameters, blood gas composition analysis, and physical examinations.
Overall, the study represents a valuable addition to the body of knowledge on seabird health and holds practical relevance for conservation efforts, as well as for veterinarians involved in the rehabilitation and management of these birds in breeding centers.
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.