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.
This is a nice paper on systematics of marine nematodes. A few typos are still present: see the list below. Please edit at the proof stage.
Line 253 precloaccal
Line 284 Chrmodoridae
Line 364 smallermaximum
Line 382 dosrocaudally
Line 594 cylindrical
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
Both reviewers provided brief evaluations. This is welcome news at a time when reviewers often feel compelled to write pages of comments.
The manuscript appears extremely well prepared, and I found only minor typographical errors, as mentioned by one of the reviewers.
For Figures 5 and 8, check the word "light."
I have a slight concern regarding the use of the word "micron" throughout the text. "mMicron" is not an official SI unit, and "µm" should be used.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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. Ensure that SI units are used throughout.
There are minor misprints in several places of the manuscript. Other than that, the manuscript meets the requirements of the journal and the regulations of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
This is the standard taxonomic description, all requirements to which are being followed.
I see no reasons to doubt the validity of the findings.
Line 160 and line 185-186 mentions "A. verrucosova sp. now." which I assume is a misprint for Atrochromadora tereroa sp.nov.
Is it possible to create a dichotomous key for the genus Halomonhystera?
It would be good to have photographs of the male posterior end for Euchromadora rebeccae
Abbreviations are explained both in the text of the manuscript and in the table legends. This seem to be a bit redundant.
I have no further comments; the manuscript, in its current form, satisfies the journal’s publication criteria.
No concerns. The experimental design is sound, clearly presented, and effectively implemented. The research question is well defined and investigated using robust methodology.
No further comments. The results are credible and strongly backed by the data, with conclusions that are clearly aligned with the research question and appropriately confined to the findings.
The manuscript is well written, clearly structured, and provides valuable taxonomic information. The figures and tables are well prepared and effectively support the main text. Overall, I have no additional comments regarding the structure of the manuscript at this time. However, I have noted specific suggestions and revisions directly within the manuscript during the review process. I hope these suggestions will be carefully considered and appropriately reflected throughout the revised version.
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.