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.
Thank you for the revised version of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Richard Schuster, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I recommend that you avail a language editing service for the manuscript to improve the writing.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor 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
no comment
no comment
no comment
The revised manuscript largely incorporates the changes I proposed to the original version.
Any comments or changes the authors chose not to implement have been adequately addressed.
I have also observed that this revised version includes changes suggested by the other reviewers. Therefore, I think the article should be accepted for PeerJ.
I received three reviews, and as you would see, Reviewer 2 has raised several serious concerns about the manuscript that need to be addressed. I request you to provide a detailed rebuttal to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version of your manuscript.
**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
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent and very interesting.
I have only made a very few, minor suggestions for improvement in a pdf copy of the manuscript (see attachment).
Dear Editor
Thank you for selecting me as the reviewer of this work titled " Cats, dogs, and sticky worms: Invasion by land flatworms (Geoplanidae) is favoured by pets" The authors explore a little-known topic about invasive terrestrial planarians and their phoretic capacity, specifically applied to pets such as dogs and cats. The concept is very interesting, not only because of the type of interaction but also because the methodology relies on citizen science. While the work aims to present fresh and new data, I believe this type of article functions better as short notes with very focused objectives rather than a full research article.
A native English speaker should revise their English. No sufficient literature supports some statements. Revision is required.
Tables 1 and 2 need changes. Figures also need better explanations. Other figures could be added. Figure 3 is not necessary to include.
The results, even in a short article, are not well explained. Some statistics could be included, or the figures could be described more clearly. More illustrative figures could also be added. In some cases, the source of the data is unclear, or at least, the information seems to come from different sources. Greater clarity is needed.
The original primary research and scope is well supported
The methods are poorly described, which impacts the reproducibility of the design. Additionally, in the results section, the authors fail to support their information with links or documents that verify the reliability of the records. They rely on poor-quality photos (which should not be omitted) and complex permissions to not show other information, thereby undermining the article's validity.
more details are provided below:
L68. Delete “The origin of the data deserves a detailed description.”
L68. “…one of us (JLJ) launched” delete ‘has’
L82. The link does not work; therefore, species cannot be observed. Authors must check other links to ensure that it is working.
L97-98. Given the context provided and the work's title, I expected the authors to offer more detailed information on how they selected the records that qualified for this study. It seems to me that the word choice in the article is more about people's clothing than about animals. Additionally, reviewing the first table, it also seems incorrect to me that some records were included in a potential analysis based on the email from the careful scientists. Examples include: #2 "...I think it was my cat who carried it on his fur" (which sounds like speculation) or #5 "on the dining room chair where my cat slept" (is there conclusive evidence of how it got there?). Also, number 12. Perhaps these records should be discarded, as mentioned in line L96. On the other hand, the words 'fur' or 'hair' are used repeatedly in the reports, and the filter should have been based on these words. Therefore, I request that authors provide more detailed information to validate the claims.
L99. Replace ‘map’ for ‘data visualization’
L100. Using the link provided, I filter by Caenoplana variegate and I obtained the 447 data provided in the manuscript, but also, I can observe that some records were red or blue. Why this information is not stated in the manuscript? And what represent different colors for the manuscript purposes.
L102. Up to May 2025? Please, state it.
L103. Replace “verified by one of us (JLJ)” for ‘verified by JLJ’
General comment: I understand the reason for providing the map, but when I see the figure, the map does not provide information about where the sticky planarians were recorded. I believe this change is mandatory. On the other hand, with this information, we can observe how the distribution of the sticky planarian compares to that of others. Maybe a pattern could be observed.
Results
L106. The records (except whose reason was speculative according to my above comment) must be displayed in a map.
L107-108. This information was not stated as part of the aims for this manuscript.
Table 1. What is Dept.? Department? County? What means the numbers? The main problem with the table is the absence of some link or online resource where the authors provide all photos to validate any sticky planarian record of the manuscript. I suggest strongly incorporate an online resource, for example, an online repository.
L112-116. I think that is possible obtain the information stated here, but this information looks like methods, not results.
L116-117 and Table 2. When examining Table 2, the species Obama nungara appears. However, the methods do not explain why this species is used for comparison. The comparison could easily be made statistically with a chi-square test. Nevertheless, the authors need to justify the comparison as essential or remove it from their results, as the methods do not support it.
L118-120. Authors must rephrase this sentence. In addition, which year the authors mention in the L119 (‘over this 5-year period’).
L121. ‘Abundantly’ is subjective because authors don’t test abundance in field. Frequent could be more suitable word.
L122. I am unclear why there is now less data on C. variegata (137) compared to the other species, if we are referring to the same information from the first part of the results.
L125-129. This doesn't look good. One way I, as a reviewer (or someone who reads it after it's potentially published), can verify that the reports are trustworthy is to see the photos in front of me to determine if they are original, not taken from an already published paper, or from someone else who submitted them without permission. I prefer showing poor-quality photos rather than not displaying them at all. Additionally, if special permission is needed to publish certain information, that should be addressed beforehand. Regarding the pictures again, the authors include a photo from iNaturalist; however, this platform was ultimately not considered, which introduces bias by favoring some data over others. The issue isn't simply using one data platform over another, but that the methods do not justify such choices. Another way to verify the information is by publishing the emails in an online repository, allowing reviewers or interested individuals to confirm that the data presented in the manuscript is indeed supported.
L128-129. With figure 2 is sufficient to show the general habit of this C. variegate.
General comment: I believe additional results could be included, such as a bar chart displaying the number of records over time, with one color representing records and a different color representing records showing the use of pets as transportation of C. variegata. Also, better describing the proportions and doing so each year could give a clearer indication that observing this behavior has become more "frequent."
Introduction
L36. Add some economic cost to generate impact
L42-51. Authors must support many affirmations between these lines. Here some references
1. Nicolosi, G., Galimberti, A., Tommasi, N., & Isaia, M. (2025). The invasive tropical planaria Bipalium kewense invades urban subterranean habitats in the city of Catania (Sicily, Italy). Biological Invasions, 27(1), 1-10.
2. Negrete, L., Lenguas Francavilla, M., Damborenea, C., & Brusa, F. (2020). Trying to take over the world: Potential distribution of Obama nungara (Platyhelminthes: Geoplanidae), the Neotropical land planarian that has reached Europe. Global Change Biology, 26(9), 4907-4918.
3. Brown, M. D., Lindo, J., & Robinson, R. (2022). First record of exotic terrestrial flatworms (Tricladida: Geoplanidae) Bipalium vagum Jones & Sterrer, 2005 and Dolichoplana striata Moseley, 1877 with confirmation of Platydemus manokwari de Beauchamp, 1963 in Jamaica. BioInvasions Record, 11(2).
L52-57. The same that my previous comment: add references for some statements.
L57. Create a new paragraph and in the new paragraph tell us about the target land planarian. The lines 209-217 would be inserted here.
L57. From “Our attention was drawn to observations of flatworms…” would be considered as new paragraph too because this introduces to the problem that authors want to describe.
L63. In the discussion section the ‘final step of invasion’ is not clear.
Discussion
General comment: The extension of the discussion vastly exceeds the results obtained in the manuscript. The discussion section is not a review of the theme, but a discussion of the results. Authors, please focus on discussing your results.
L142-150. ‘One of the extremes…’ I am not agreeing with the parasitism or pseudo-parasitism and their explanation on these lines. Interaction between land planarian and mammals as transport is phoresy. Please, delete all part about parasitism.
L151-155. The same reason above.
L156-175. This section must be deleted or minimized at a minimum. The authors do not show information about C. variegate movement.
L179-180. Why is this information higher in France than in other European countries? Please, include some socioecological reasons to justify this sentence.
L184-192. The authors made a comparison only in terms of frequency, but they do not provide a statistical reason to justify the sentence ‘…by domestic animals to be significant’ (L192).
L197-199. This is speculative, or at least suggests some action not observed by the pet owner. Additionally, land planarians could enter the house on their own.
L200-202. This paragraph is not part of the aim of this manuscript.
L203-206. The information in this insert is not part of the previous discussion mentioned in the preceding paragraphs (why or how planarians carry pets). In a different context, the information might be more relevant.
L209-217. These lines describe the target species. This is not belonged to discussion. I suggest incorporate this in the introduction or maybe in methods as subheading.
L218-228. Some elements could be incorporated to introduction, other I preferably delete it.
L234-253. All these information would be deleted because authors do not measured distance travelled by cats or dogs. Although the relationships is possible, further studies must be addressed.
L256. Which name is correct (‘(Dendy, 1896)Jones, 1999’)?
L286-292. Some of this could be maintained, but the authors must reduce it to three lines as maximum.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful.
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
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.