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' and editors' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The criteria used for searching the literature are not clear. No keywords or languages are provided. It is not possible then to repeat the literature search. Table 1 appears to refer only to France, yet it is unclear whether the literature reviewed was global or not. Our policy for these kinds of reviews is that the authors must describe the process by which they ensured that their coverage of the literature was comprehensive, unbiased and repeatable.
Also, the Section Editors have noted that you have cited one of the reviewers several times, which is potentially concerning and could be against PeerJ policy, especially if these citations were suggested by the reviewer. We remind you that any references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included, if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
Please, consider comments of the Reviewer 1 seriously. If you do not provide corresponding changes in the next version of the manuscript, I must reject it from publication.
Dear authors,
thank you for revising the paper, and you included many comments but did not find the time or see the need to work on the paper in a professional way.
I am sorry to say this, but just looking at the references shows me that they were not checked before the second submission. Sometimes authors are missing, some or double, some are google books citation of real books and so on.
The references are a very important part of the review and people will just look at the references to find papers they are looking for, so to see that they are not well checked is disappointing.
Also the text needs a good rewriting and checking of the English, I am sorry to say this but if I start reading and now Lepismatidae are included that is great, but to write silver fish is not correct.
I marked some comments in the PDF but I stopped at some point as it does not make sense for me to do this work.
A review paper is probably the hardest to write and I know the field of museum IPM well and there are so many things in the paper missing, that I can't support a "review" of the subject that misses so many old and new references, species, and other relevant informations.
see comments above
see comments above
see comments above
I reiterate my previous opinion, the work is presented as a rather meticulous collection of news obtained from the consultation of very common and widespread telematic sources, on the whole it is lacking in information reported mainly in the printed literature of books made and published in the specialized circuit of the field whose contents are usually not reviewed by the web, but on the contrary represent the operational reality (unfortunately in this regard the Authors did not take into consideration my suggestion "An enrichment could come from the careful consultation from the following publications"
Enrichment could come from careful consultation from the following publications:
Trematerra P., Pinniger D., 2018 - Museum Pests – Cultural Heritage Pests. In, Athanassiou G.C. and Arthur F.H. (Eds). Recent advances in stored product protection. Springer, Berlin: 229-260.
Brimblecombe et al., 2023 – Urban pest abundance and public enquires in Zurich 1991-2022. Insects, 14 (10): 798.
The changes made (following the directions and suggestions of Reviewer 1) have improved the manuscript, which still remains an essentially popular paper of a good standard.
Please send the new version of the manuscript to Reviewer 1 for a supplementary comment.
xxx
xxx
Please send the new version of the manuscript to Reviewer 1 for a supplementary comment.
Please, carefully consider comments of both reviewers, when preparing a new version of the manuscript.
[# 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 #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Comments on the paper by Hasnaoui et al.
Thank you for sending me this review, it is very interesting and needed to have good reviews
about museum pests, museum IPM, material pests in homes and houses.
Before publishing I think the paper needs major revision, but I think it will not be too much
work to perfume this. In the following paragraphs I will show the key points that I think need
to be addressed:
The literature search was well done but I think some key papers are missing and it is not easy
how to include for example conference proceedings that might be hard to find in a
standardized literature search but hold important papers.
The title includes the words “impact” on “major” pests in “homes and historic buildings” :
-> what do you mean by impact -> damage? -> costs for treatments? I think these points are
not covered in the paper. -> impact on human health is covered but comments to that are
described further down.
-> what is a major pest? It is not clear what geographical range you want to cover and how
you select the species you discuss. For a review on this subject that is quite general written
(worldwide geographical range?) the reader will expect that all or most species are covered
that are found in homes and buildings but I don’t think this paper can and wants to cover
this. See ideas below for a selection.
-> homes and historic buildings -> You want to write about “insect pests” including homes,
museums, and historic buildings, I think this will include everything found in buildings
including a lot of food pests that are not covered.
The title already shows the difficulty of this review, trying to cover as much as possible but at
the end being a selection that is hard to understand.
I see a few options on a selection of themes and maybe splitting this paper in 2 papers that
make a better story and a better review, because a review must include all the literature on
this topic (this is already very hard) and it must provide a very wide information for the
reader. No one wants to read through a long review and at the end miss a species or
information he was looking for.
1) Selection of sites/building type: In the abstract you start with historic buildings and
homes, later also museums, depositories, libraries and heritage buildings are
included. If you want to include homes where people are living the focus of the paper
will be more on the food pests and also impact on human health, which is relevant
for homes. If you focus more on historic buildings and cultural institutions you have
material pests that are more relevant. I am not sure if both buildings types are good
to combine, if you don’t make a selection of the pest type (including only material
pests for example). In the Survey methods you only search for specific orders and a
documented impact of historic houses or museums, so here you make a selection of
the taxa you include but this might not be complete.
2) I know that Silverfish are not real insects but I miss them in this review paper as they
are important pests in homes and museums. This gives the impression that they are
not there or not relevant and I think you need to include them.
3) Starting with Psocoptera is staring with the group of animals that are the least
relevant. I have never seen damage by Psocoptera in homes or museums and I am
not really sure if they can be considered a real pest.
4) The geographic range seems to be Europe but it is not defined: I am not sure if you
want or can cover also other regions of the world.
5) The selection of the species of each group is not clear. Sometimes you give citations
on individual countries where they occur, sometimes not.
6) Often detail information’s from the food industry are added (line 124 for example)
but this is not relevant for homes or for museums. This information must be easier to
find in the databases, but you don’t want to write a review on pests in the food
industry.
7) Economic loss for each pest would be great but there is no data on museums and
also in the pest industry in homes it is not clear what pest causes what economic loss
or costs for treatment (in each country or region).
8) Line 144 increase with climate change is an interesting and important fact, but you
cant write only 2 lines for one taxa about this very big and important topic.
9) Line 148 is this relevant for homes? Line 155 is this an information that we can
generalize? One person developing and allergy is possible, but I can imagine there
are so many workers that don’t develop and allergy so we have to be careful if this is
really connected.
10) Line 168, I miss herbaria material and starch material for Stegobium p.
11) Selection of beetles: I think more then the two Lyctus species can be found in Europe.
12) Description of the morphology: sometimes you describe the species how they look
like (line 219), but often not so I think the morphology is not a part of the paper.
13) Line 246-250: this sounds like a good introduction…
14) Line 243: I miss Ptinus tectus for example.
15) Line 257: I miss Olligomerus as a wood pest.
16) I also miss Trogoderma angustum, very important pest in Germany.
17) In the Coleoptera section there is a mix up of beetles feeding on wood, beetles
feeding on plant material and starch and beetles feeding on dead insects. This makes
it confusing.
18) Line 314-332 Maybe a table would be better to give the biological information’s on
each species.
19) Line 339-359: I am not sure if these species really have a big impact on human health,
especially compared to bed bugs, mosquitos and other disease transmitting pests in
homes.
20) Cockroaches are important but the wood eating types are not very relevant as pest in
Europe.
21) Termites are very relevant, especially for certain regions in the world but here the
paper is more a list of species.
22) Line 492-495: is this relevant?
23) Line 526: I think Tinea pellionella takes here cocoon with them, it is not attached to
the surface of the material!
24) Line 546: What are manmade items? Natural history objects are missing here, fur
feathers…
25) Line 562: You don’t give keys for the identification but party go into detail, but I guess
the keys would be what the readers need. Further identification with DNA barcoding
in not mentioned.
I think the authors need to select first what they what to write and review about. I think
most is already in the text and needs to be selected. Maybe on the topic impact on human
health a second paper can be published but also here there is the question if not many
species of pests and diseases are missing.
.
.
.
The impact of major insect pests on homes and historic buildings
The work is presented as a rather meticulous collection of news obtained from the consultation of very common and widespread telematic sources, on the whole it is lacking in information reported mainly in the printed literature of books made and published in the specialized circuit of the field whose contents are usually not reviewed by the web, but on the contrary represent the operational reality.
Among the species considered in this manuscript, the Lepismatidae and Hymenoptera, to which widespread species belong, whose activity is harassing, harmful and sometimes harmful, are mainly missing.
Overall, the work has content of popular value, and only a few references of scientific level, more suitable as of chapter of a book or paper produced for a Doctoral Thesis.
However, in case of acceptance for the reasons given, it would be useful to adapt the title of the manuscript by inserting "some insects" and "data obtained from the web."
Enrichment could come from careful consultation from the following publications:
(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)
Trematerra P., Pinniger D., 2018 - Museum Pests – Cultural Heritage Pests. In, Athanassiou G.C. and Arthur F.H. (Eds). Recent advances in stored product protection. Springer, Berlin: 229-260.
Brimblecombe et al., 2023 – Urban pest abundance and public enquires in Zurich 1991-2022. Insects, 14 (10): 798.
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.