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.
Your manuscript is now satisfactory for publication.
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.
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.
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.
The interpretation of TEM micrographs is correct and the obtained results will be very useful for a phylogenetic purposes in the Digenea
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.