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 September 20th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 24th, 2016.

Version 0.1 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Dr. Reginato,

Your paper has been reviewed by two referees. Although their comments are minimal they are both clear in recommending publication in PeerJ. I share their view that this is a solid manuscript.

A couple of very minor points are rasied by the referees. Please address these in the final version of the MS.

Best wishes,
David

·

Basic reporting

There is a small typo in the main text for Table 1, “Vou cher”, that needs fixed

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

I am unqualified to judge the technical aspects of the DNA extraction process but regarding analysis I am confident that the authors have used the best practice in the field. They demonstrate awareness of duplicated CDS and focus on phylogenetic informative regions for analysis thus avoiding any confusion over paralogy. Moreover good bootstrap values are demonstrated using maximum likelihood analysis, providing further confidence in their results.

For reproducibility, the authors have provided all software with references and happily they include the software versions as well. Inclusion of code or commands used to generate the figures and analysis would be useful but this should not be a barrier to acceptance of this publication. Moreover I recommend that the journal provides access to the tables in an easily computer readable form rather than just the PDF.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The authors report a sequence-based analysis of plastids from the Melastomataceae taxon of flowering plants. The work is of relevance in understanding the relationships within the taxonomic group, while both the list of markers and the primer sequences will be of utility in future analyses.

Minor point:
The text in some of the figure panels is very small, particularly Figs. 3C and 3D.

Experimental design

The technical approaches used for DNA extraction, DNA assembly and phylogenetic tree inference appear to be sound and appropriate.

Validity of the findings

The work will be of interest and value to the field and is appropriate for publication in Peer J.

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.