Review History

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.

View examples of open peer review.


  • 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 25th, 2016.

Version 0.1 (accepted)

· Oct 25, 2016 · Academic Editor


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,


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

Additional comments

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.