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 June 28th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 15th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 24th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 25th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Your manuscript is now satisfactory for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The manuscript was reviewed by two reviewers. Both reviewers find the manuscript interesting and valuable for publication in PeerJ. However, both reviewer suggest revisions before publication. I hope you find their suggestiions useful and revise the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

The paper describes ultrastructure of the spermatozoon in two monorchiid digeneans, Opisthomonorchis dinema and Paramonorcheides selaris. The applied methods are appropriate and the presented micrographs are of good quality. This contribution provides interesting results that might be used in systematic and phylogenetic considerations. The authors used the cytochemical test of Thiéry for detection of glycogen, however, a detailed analysis of the localisation of glycogen is missing. It is recommended, that the authors will improve their results with a detailed descripton of the occurrence of glycogen in various regions of the spermatozoa of two monorchiid digeneans studied. The presence of glycogen should be added also in Fig.4, for completeness and comparative purposes. A comparison of the occurrence of glycogen in monorchiid digeneans and other relative digeneans should be discussed, as the presence/absence of glycogen or electron dense granules is important character in the spermatozoa of parasitic platyhelminthes.

·

Basic reporting

This is an excellent ms, and I would like to highlight:
-the excellent quality of TEM micrographs.
-the interpretation of the obtained results is correct.
-the main ultrastructural characters are discused.
-the used references are enough.

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

The interpretation of TEM micrographs is correct and the obtained results will be very useful for a phylogenetic purposes in the Digenea

Comments for the author

All my comments, suggestions and corrections are highlighted in the attached pdf file

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.