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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 9th, 2013 and was peer-reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 10th, 2013.

Version 0.1 (accepted)

· Oct 10, 2013 · Academic Editor


In its original submission to the InCoB2013 meeting, this manuscript had received two contradicting comments. Although PeerJ recommends the handling editor to collect at least four reviews, I hereby make an exceptional decision of acceptance with those two reviews partly because I admit that the authors' replies to the reviewers' comments are reasonable and partly because I also have a positive opinion about the suitability of this manuscript as a reviewer.

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.