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 the timely re-submission and for taking the opportunity to address all of the reviewers' concerns and comments. The reviewers and myself find that the publication is now ready for publication and thus I am making a decision to accept the manuscript for publication in PeerJ. Congratulations and thanks again!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed all the comments raised at the first-round review. The manuscript now seems to be ready for acceptance for publication.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
no comment
no comment
no comment
I am very pleased with the revisions made by the authors in response to the previous feedback. The manuscript has improved, addressing all key concerns thoroughly and effectively.
After reading the manuscript and reviewing the feedback provided by two reviewers I am in agreement that the manuscript is well-prepared and scientifically rigorous. I believe that minor revisions are needed to accept the manuscript for publication in PeerJ, these revisions are provided by the two reviewers in annotated PDFs.
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors provide evidence of the existence of a remarkable hidden biodiversity of ribbon worms from an unsurveyed area, Oman. The methodology is rigid, the figures are fine, and the manuscript seems to have been well-prepared. I congratulate and thank the authors for what they have accomplished. I recommend publication after minor revisions. I embedded my minor comments in the PDF.
The aspects expected in this section are well-executed and meet the expected standards. However, I believe that some statements may be slightly overstated given the data presented. I have elaborated on these points in the attached document.
no comment
no comment
I would like to congratulate the authors on their excellent work. The article is very well-written, with clarity and scientific rigor. The effort to document and record specimens is truly remarkable and highlights how underrepresented nemerteans are in scientific research. The contributions presented are extremely valuable for advancing biodiversity studies and, in particular, for the community of nemertean researchers. This work will undoubtedly serve as an important reference for future research in the field. I do have a few comments that I would like the authors to consider, which I have included in an attached document.
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.