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.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on January 6th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 4th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 23rd, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on April 4th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on April 8th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on April 13th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on April 13th, 2016.

Version 0.5 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you very much - the revisions were done well, and this manuscript is now ready to be published.

Version 0.4

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

I apologize for confusion with the last version, and have read over this new version. In short, it is much better, and almost acceptable for publication.

Please note there are still some small edits, please see the attached PDF file and make sure these changes are done. In particular, please ensure 'genitalia' and 'data' are used as plural (watch for verb agreement).

My decision is 'minor revision' with the emphasis on minor.

Version 0.3

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Unfortunately, the paper still needs some English work. I understand you had someone proofread the paper for you, but if you look at the attachment, you can see my edits on your Introduction indicate that work is still needed (note I have not thoroughly checked the rest of your paper). While some of my edits may be considered as stylistic changes, there are still many basic mistakes in grammar that simply cannot be in a published paper. I realize your paper is very long, but the onus on having the English up to acceptable levels is on the authors. As this work is taxonomic, it is even more important to have clear and unambiguous English throughout the text to remove any chance of future confusion from readers.

Based on this, my decision is 'minor revision'.

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear authors,

I have gone over your paper and rebuttal letter, and feel you have answered the large majority of the comments very well. Thus, as far as scientific validity and commentary goes, I feel your paper is acceptable in the current form.

However, in reviewing the English of the paper, I have noticed there are many corrections needed. I have gone over the Introduction (please see attached file) and made edits, but feel that the whole paper needs to be completely checked once by a native English speaker trained in biology before acceptance, as PeerJ does not offer such editing services, nor is this the job of the editor.

This is from the 'Acceptance Criteria': "The article must be written in English using clear and unambiguous text and must conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression."

I am sorry I did not attach such edits in the previous rounds of reviews - I usually like to do such checks on the "near-final" versions after the authors' revisions, but can see from this experience it would be worthwhile for me to do this in the initial round of reviews.

Therefore, as some minor work (English) is needed, my decision is "Minor revisions".

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Both reviewers were generally positive about your manuscript, and both offered very constructive and helpful comments (see their annotated manuscripts). Based on this, I have reached the decision of 'Minor Revisions'.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

I recommend that this article be accepted with minor revisions. Please see my comments on the annotated PDF file. I would also recommend having a native English speaker look through the article, there is some awkward phrasing and grammar that could be fixed.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

The manuscript is a great contribution to the knowledgement of Metrichia. Congratulations. I have made some suggestions in your text, the most important of them is the improvement of the descriptions of male genitalia. Sometimes the structure complexity are not shown in the text making your description too superficial.

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.