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.
Reviewer comments have been adequately incorporated, and explanation for using publications until 2022 have been addressed in both the rebuttal letter and Methods section of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The majority of the previous reviewer comments have been addressed. However, more recent research literature (from 2022-2025) should be included, as suggested by Reviewer 3, which will further enhance the manuscript. Once this has been addressed, the manuscript will be ready for acceptance.
**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.
1. Language and Style:
The manuscript continues to be well-written, with professional and technically sound English throughout. The authors have clearly made efforts to improve clarity and readability in the revised version.
2. Literature Review:
The authors have addressed the suggestion to refine the definition of Northeast India (lines 319–322) and have corrected the geographic classification accordingly. This improves regional accuracy and aligns with established biogeographic boundaries.
However, the inclusion of Sathyakumar et al. (2011)—the first camera trap confirmation of clouded leopard presence in the Sikkim Himalaya—remains absent. While I understand the authors’ intent to avoid excessive citation, this foundational study deserves mention for completeness and historical context. I recommend its inclusion in the literature review.
3. World Map Representation:
The authors have updated the map to reflect disputed boundaries (PoK and Aksai Chin), addressing a potential geopolitical concern. This revision is appreciated and aligns with publishing standards.
Visual Representation:
The authors have replaced the pie chart with a Sankey diagram (Figure 5), which significantly improves the visualization of thematic and methodological trends. This is a welcome enhancement.
While a chord diagram was initially suggested, the Sankey diagram serves a similar purpose and is appropriate given the dataset structure. There are no more changes needed here.
-
The discussion has been streamlined, and wordy or ambiguous passages have been revised for clarity.
The authors have responded thoughtfully to suggestions regarding the impacts of diet and parasites. While a comparative dietary table was not added, the revised discussion now emphasizes the need for geographically representative studies and outlines future research directions. The PRISMA checklist has been updated with more complete responses, reducing discrepancies between the checklist and manuscript content.
Since this is the second round of review, and authors have carefully revised the manuscript based on the original reviews, renewed comments on the sections below are not needed. The revision has improved the manuscript greatly, and I have no further suggestions or requests for clarifications or corrections.
-
-
The article now seems in an improved form than the previous version. The authors are encouraged to incorporate the recent publications (2023 to 2025) in the "Introduction".
Incorporate the publications on clouded leopard from 2023 to 2025 for critical analysis.
Thematic areas and conclusions are supported by the literature available from 1965-2022. The exclusion of the latest findings from 2022 to 2025 may lead to inappropriate conclusions.
The authors have addressed the majority of the comments, and the paper now seems in an improved shape, but the exclusion of the latest publications (2023-2025) for knowing the trend may lead to inappropriate conclusions.
Line 183-184: “All the published literature on clouded leopards was intensively searched using two electronic databases, Google Scholar and PubMed, available before December 31, 2022.”
Comment: Because the review paper critically examines the publication trends, the authors are encouraged to search for and incorporate the papers available on the clouded leopard from 2023 to 2025 for critical analysis. The recent literature (Leão et al., 2023, Baral et al., 2023, Sethi et al., 2023; Abedin et al., 2024) is visible in the ‘Discussion’ only. The publication trend on clouded leopard from 1965-2022 has been analyzed, but incorporating the literature available from 2023-2025 will help in finding emerging trends, drafting sound conclusions, and suggesting recommendations of conservation significance.
Figures/Tables
Comment: The figures and tables will also change after the incorporation of publications from 2023 to 2025. Please replace c. leopard from table text/headings/fig captions with clouded leopard.
**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.
**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
1. Your writing is clear and technically correct; you have used professional English throughout the text.
2. Your literature review is sufficient; however, I expected Sathyakumar et al. (2011) from Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve, titled "Assessing mammal distribution......", published in Mammalia. I am not recommending this paper for self-citation, but this is the first camera trap study from the Sikkim Himalaya, and the presence of clouded leopard was confirmed through camera trap photographs. If I am not wrong, the relative abundance index in the form of Photo capture rates was also provided for this species. Please consider including this in your literature review.
3. I do not agree with your definition of North East India, where you included Valmiki Tiger Reserve and West Bengal (lines 319 to 322), please correct accordingly.
4. In the world map, I strongly recommend changing the boundary of India (PoK and Aksai Chin excluded); otherwise, this can be an issue later on either for the authors or the publishers, or write a note beneath the figure explaining your views on this.
1. This is original primary research with clear objectives and outcomes. I expected one or two chord diagrams instead of a simple pie chart. There are studies where both camera traps and sign surveys were used; there must be some studies where threats to habitat loss and poaching were mentioned. A Chord diagram can express these situations better than any other visualisation tool.
-
This is a well-written manuscript; however, I feel the authors can provide more detailed information on the networking structure of the authors using bibliometric analysis. Findings can be detailed in some cases, like diet (a list of food items synthesized from the papers), threats and recommended action (a synthesized list), and any other heading that is already mentioned. This will improve the paper as in my humble opinion.
A language review would improve the text. It now risks causing direct misunderstandings.
Solid.
Valid. Discussion is in places speculative.
General comments
The authors present an exhaustive literature review of scientific articles on clouded leopards. Given the current decline in habitat and likely precipitous population sizes, an overview of the current situation is highly valuable. I commend the authors for their highly structured approach, including the use of the PRISMA 2020 checklist. However, several of the 27 items have been considered NA. Authors could input responses to many of these (as they indeed have relevant sections in the manuscript text), causing a slight discrepancy between the PRISMA report and the manuscript content. This is a non-critical objection.
The result section of the abstract holds several awkward or grammatically incorrect passages. I would recommend that authors use one of the readily available language models to correct these minor flaws, making sure their intended meaning is correctly conveyed to the reader.
The use of C. leopard is unnecessary. Using clouded leopards provides an easier read (and in plural).
In the discussion, some sentences are wordy and rather difficult to understand. For example, what does “The amount of funding and political climate in a country also represents the importance of research for conservation” really mean? Again, using a language model to assist the revision should pick up and resolve most, if not all, of these passages.
Finally, the discussion is far too long, perhaps because it also holds what really are Results, rather than the Discussion. I believe revision to improve the integrity of each section would improve the manuscript significantly.
Specific comments
L 63. Do not capitalize species names.
L 63-65. The Clouded leopard (hereby c. leopard), a medium-sized, vulnerable predator of the Felidae 64 family consisting of two species, has distinct morphological, food habits, ecological 65 characteristics, and geographic distribution. This sentence is grammatically incorrect or scientifically incorrect. Since there are two species, leopards should be in the plural. I.e., “Clouded leopards…” or rewritten to better describe the current distinction into two species.
L 72 Format error?
L 75. Again, it is referred to in singular Clouded leopard…. This is confusing. Be consistent. If it is described as two species, the rest of the text should align.
L 123-126. How is habitat loss different from deforestation, loss of functional connectivity, and infrastructure development in its natural habitat? This paragraph should be honed to remove redundancies.
L 149-151 Moreover, this review provides an opportunity to assess whether the current research focus coincides with research needs and priorities of c. leopard across its global range by 151 examining the employed research approaches of published studies. The purported sequential logic of this passage is unclear at best and possibly non-existent. The link between published data and conservation needs is tenuous. And if it is not published, on what grounds are conservation needs defined? This seemingly risks being rather subjective.
L 407-408. Do not capitalize species names. And the Royal Bengal Tiger is not a recognized species name, or?
-
-
-
The review is in a good form, and the authors have tried to consolidate the available information on the clouded leopard to highlight research gaps. With the moderate revision and further critical analysis, the paper can be improved. Critically analysing the findings and including very recent peer-reviewed publications would enhance the clarity.
Lines 1 to 4: Title
Comment: The title is appropriate, keeping in view the availability of the literature, identification of ga, ps, and future concerns. Please write “global publications instead of global publication” in the title.
Line 31: “carnivores, species like the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), renowned for its elusive nature”,
Comment: It is better to add an author citation while using the scientific name first time in the manuscript.
Line 39-40: The spatial analysis of clouded leopard research reveals that Thailand (n = 28) 41 the USA (n = 26) dominate non-range countries.
Comment: Present clearly the spatial analysis of clouded leopard research across range and non-range countries. Redraft in light the lines 239-240 to avoid ambiguity.
Line 63: The Clouded leopard (hereby c. leopard)
Comment: It is better to use clouded leopard throughout the manuscript, as c. leopard looks like a scientific name and may create confusion among readers.
Line 107: “In Lao PDR, the”
Comment: Please expand the abbreviation when using the first time in the manuscript
Line 410-415: Research focusing on generating a comprehensive and reliable dataset on the prey selection of c. leopard is critical to better conduct habitat suitability assessment and design protected areas with sufficient prey availability, ultimately contributing to the long-term population sustainability of c. leopard. Therefore, we strongly encourage future studies on feeding ecology, including diet composition, prey preferences, and feeding patterns of c. leopard.
Comment: More emphasis has been on diet and prey selection. You have cited a good number of authors (line 83-84) who have documented clouded leopard to prey on mammals such as hog deer, wild pig, rodents, slow loris, porcupines, squirrels, and pangolins (Grassman et al., 2005; Mohamad et al., 2015; Rasphone et al., 2022) and birds such as pheasant (Nowell & Jackson, 1996). If you have data available across different habitats and climatic regimes, you can present it in the review paper in the form of a comparative account of how and why diet changes across countries (range and non-range). For that, you can also add a table in the results and interpret the adaptive strategies of the clouded leopard in the Discussion.
Line 95-116: “C. leopard is widely distributed and found across the Peninsular region (Gray et al., 2021).
Comment: Adding a global map showing the distribution of clouded leopards can increase the readability and scope of the paper. Distribution can be described under a separate subhead.
Line 142-143: “ Within this study, we aim to identify the current focus of c. leopard research on the global 143 scale from 1965 to 2022 (over six decades) and identify the key knowledge gaps to pave the way 144 for an effective research and conservation roadmap.”
Line 251-254: “ Table 2 Range countries of the c. leopard with publications from 1965 to 2022. When the publications were based on multiple countries, we allocated the publication number to each studied country. Therefore, the total number of publications assessed in the current review study was not equal to the total number of publications from all the countries in the range.
Comment: The literature has been reviewed from 1965 to 2022, but it would have been better to include the very recent publications like Bhatt and Lyngdoh (2023); Lyngdoh, S., Habib, B. & Bhatt, U. (2021), etc., for critically preparing the synthesis.
Line 386-387: “ Though the highest number of publications for 387 free-ranging c. leopard focus on habitat use and distribution”
Comment: comparative analysis of the literature is needed to show the habitat use patterns across countries (range & non-range), and highlight the differences, if any, for interpretation in the discussion.
Line 309-490: “Spatial publication trend efforts to study diseases in c. leopards remain
relatively few”
Comment: Although the publication trend and strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies have been discussed but the analysis of the findings, like the distribution habitat use, diverse prey selection depicting its strategy, behavior, and ability to survive across diverse landscapes has not been critically done. Adding a few lines to the discussion would improve the paper. The clouded leopard survives in both protected and non-protected areas. How can the landscape-level planning be employed to manage the species and habitat in light of the available literature? Similarly, the possible climate change impact on the clouded leopard may be elaborated in light of the available literature on the clouded leopard (Imon Abedin et al. 2024), on other related
species.
For example, “Line: 489 high load of parasites has also been identified (Zahedi et al., 1986) as potentially important for their health”
Comment: How can these parasites affect the clouded leopard if their adverse impacts on other related species are known?
General Comment: Consider consulting the recent and missed peer-reviewed literature.
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.