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).
Thank you for your detailed attention to the comments from the reviewers.
I noted one minor grammatical correction, which can be addressed in the proofs:
p. 18, "The above description indicates that the shell of MH 435 does not significantly differs from that of MAJ 2005-11-1." should have have "differ" instead of "differs".
The reviewers' comments are generally reasonable and appropriate, and should be incorporated (or rebutted in your response letter) wherever possible. Please note that many of the suggestions are provided in PDFs available via the PeerJ author submission portal.
My only minor annotation to the reviewers' comments is that use of the term "steinkern" is acceptable (see comment from Reviewer 1), as it is a common technical term.
Finally, because you include some digital surface scans in the images, you may wish to include a short note on the methods used to produce these. If you deem fit (strictly optional), it also might be nice to include a downloadable copy of the scan data (depending upon museum policies, etc.), or at the least indicate where the data are archived so that other researchers might be able to access the scans in the future.
In my opinion, the manuscript of Anquetin et al. is interesting and well-written. However, I have included some comments and suggestions on the pdf version.
I'm available to the editor and authors for any possible doubt.
The developed methodology and research are suitable for this type of papers.
The data and conclusions are appropriate. I suggest changing the diagnosis and include comparisons in the discussion, as I indicated in the pdf version.
See the pdf
see attached PDF
This is a great manuscript in which the authors re-describe an important, but long-lost holotype of a historic fossil turtle. The figures are great, the description sufficient, and the discussion highly balanced and insightful. I only have some extremely minor comments that I added as sticky notes to the PDF. The authors are welcome to address these points at their own discretion.
Two quick points:
1) the citation style is a little uneven, in particular in regards to the use of "et al." Please fix throughout the manuscript.
2) All letters with diacritics appear with a strange font in the PDF. I presume this is not the fault of the authors, but rather an artifact created by an anglocentric journal. Please be sure that this is fixed in the production phase of the paper.
In conclusion, I overall agree with all major points presented in this paper, only have minor suggestions, and greatly recommend this for publication in PeerJ.
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.