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).
Although I am not completely happy with your handling of my requests I will accept the paper.
your ms has now been reviewed. As you see one of the reviewers would like to have more information.
To their comments, I would like to add:
1. Provide Information of your supplementary table in the main text, as this is the information, which other labs might be interested in.
2. Describe your multiplex PCR in more detail; which loci did you include in one PCR?
3. Provide a Figure showing the chromatograms of your multiplex PCR
4. Use your data on real type of experiments; maybe you have samples from complete families. There you could should how well your primers work.
5. Keep in mind; your paper should be directly useful to other researchers in this field. Thus, include ALL necessary details, that others can repeat your work
To describe the power of a value e.g. in line 130 of Results and Discussion part, 1.1E-06 to 3.3E-08 should be written as 1.1x10-06 to 3.3x10-08.
The same form should be used I table 1.
In table 1 for values NA, Ho, HE and P1-P3 one number after the decimal is enough.
Concerning primer characterization, additional information about Polymorfic Information Content PIC and potential evidence for null alleles (at least) would be necessary. The presented characteristics are rather insufficient.
Furthermore, a test parentage analyze would have been nice to show the work potential of the markers in reality.
The establishment of multiplex PCRs was mentioned. It would be useful to present these panels.
The paper is well-written and clear. There are only a couple of minor typographical errors that I could find:
1. Line 91 “allow to setup” does not make sense, should read “allow a genetic identification and parentage DNA testing framework to be set up to …”.
2. Line 157 “composed of several hundreds wild ..” should read “composed of several hundred wild …”.
The study is clearly set out and the research question is clear.
The inferences made by the authors appear to be appropriate with respect to their analyses.
Whilst the study does not necessarily represent a major leap forward, it does make an important case for identification of smuggled parrots and a technique for this. It would have been nice to have seen more of a discussion of the practicalities of using their suite of microsatellite markers for discrimination between captive bred individuals and smuggled parrots, but I recognise that this is a concise study.
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.