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.
Dear Authors,
On behalf of the editorial board of PeerJ, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript titled “New Andean plump toad of the genus Osornophryne (Anura: Bufonidae) from Cerro Candelaria, Ecuador” has been accepted for publication.
We greatly appreciate the careful and thoughtful responses you provided to the reviewers’ comments and the substantial revisions made throughout the manuscript. The improvements have significantly strengthened the clarity, scientific rigor, and overall impact of the study. Your work represents an important contribution to our understanding of amphibian diversity and conservation in the Andes.
The manuscript will now proceed to final production. You will be contacted by our production team shortly regarding proofs and publication details.
Thank you again for choosing PeerJ as the venue for your research. We look forward to seeing your article published and shared with the scientific community.
Sincerely,
Armando Sunny
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the concerns I raised in my initial review.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the concerns I raised in my initial review.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the concerns I raised in my initial review.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the concerns raised in my initial review. I commend them for their thoughtful revisions and the quality of the resulting manuscript.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "New Andean Plump Toad of the Genus Osornophryne (Anura: Bufonidae) from Cerro Candelaria, Ecuador". We appreciate your contribution to the understanding of Andean amphibian diversity and the effort you have invested in this important work.
After careful consideration and peer review, we would like to kindly request Mayor revisions. Specifically, the reviewers have identified several areas that require improvement, including:
The manuscript would benefit from a careful review of the language to improve clarity, flow, and overall readability. The reviewers noted that this section lacks sufficient detail. Please provide a more comprehensive description of your methodology.
We kindly ask that you address these points thoroughly in your revised manuscript. Additionally, please consider any other minor comments or suggestions from the reviewers to strengthen the overall quality of your submission.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Thank you once again for considering our journal for the publication of your work. We appreciate your commitment to advancing knowledge in the field.
Sincerely,
Armando Sunny.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
This work proposes a new toad species from Andes with multiple data. The new species is evident, but the writing of the manuscript requires carefully modification. Please find the attachment for details.
no comment
Please find the attachment for detailed suggestions.
The manuscript is generally understandable and conveys the core findings effectively; however, the writing would benefit from careful revision for clarity and polish. Many sentences are awkwardly phrased, with issues in sentence structure, punctuation (particularly in telegraphic or abbreviated sections), and inconsistent capitalization. These issues, along with occasional typographical errors, give parts of the manuscript a rushed or unrefined appearance. A thorough editorial pass would greatly improve readability and presentation.
The experimental design and methodological approach are not always clearly presented, and in several instances, important details appear to have been glossed over or insufficiently explained. Greater transparency in these sections would strengthen the study’s credibility and reproducibility. I encourage the authors to refer to my specific comments in the uploaded document for guidance on where clarification and additional detail are needed.
No comment
The manuscript presents valuable new insights into the taxonomy and phylogeny of Osornophryne, supported by robust morphological data and phylogenetic analyses. However, several aspects would benefit from clarification and refinement. The abstract and introduction require clearer, more concise language and improved structure to enhance readability and scientific tone. Methodological details, particularly regarding the sequencing strategies and gene targets, need to be explicitly clarified to avoid confusion. The phylogenetic analysis section would be stronger with explicit mention of inference methods, models used, and the relationship between genetic distance metrics and tree construction. Osteological descriptions would gain impact by emphasizing diagnostic differences through comparative formats. The discussion contains some redundancy and could be streamlined for clarity, with a more integrative synthesis of key findings. The conclusion currently restates prior results without adding new perspectives and would be better integrated with the discussion or revised to highlight broader implications and future directions. Finally, while the morphological data are strong, the phylogenetic analysis relies on a single mitochondrial marker (16S), which can be affected by issues like mitochondrial introgression or incomplete lineage sorting. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and ideally include nuclear genes in future studies to provide a more comprehensive test of species boundaries.
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.