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 6th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 11th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 29th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 29th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

I believe that the revised version properly addressed the points raised by the reviewers and can now be acceptable for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Reviewers 1 & 2 provided many detailed suggestions throughout the text, so I'd suggest you pay particular attention to the comments on their corresponding pdfs.

·

Basic reporting

All raw measurement data of both male and female for all described and redescribed species should be provided in tabular form as additional supplementary material.

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

Kindly refer to the annotated pdf

·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

The manuscript as well as all supplementary materials are very well written. I have just some minor comments provided directly into the .pdf file of manuscript (see attachment) and some comments to Suppl. mat. 2:

Page 1
Lines 9-10:
"OL, distance between posterior and anterior ocelli (measured from
posterior ocellus to anterior ocellus)" - this abbreviation is redundant as it is not mention along the text

Line 30:
"Bouché," - replace by "Bouché."

Page 3
Line 16:
"Notauli" - should be replaced by "notaulus"
Line 22:
"1/2x" - should be replaced by "0.5x"

Line 30
"(BMNH)" - replace by "(BMNH))"

Page 4
Line 21:
"1/5x" - should be replaced by "0.2x"

Line 33:
"Notauli" - should be replaced by "notaulus"

Page 5
Line 5:
"1/5x" - should be replaced by "0.2x".

·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

An excellent and thorough revision. Well done!

It would be preferable to also include the FigWeb URL in citation of the online keys in the main body of the manuscript:

"Multi-entry online keys were produced using Lucid ® v. 3.3 and are available at FigWeb (www.figweb.org) 112 (van Noort & Rasplus 2016) and as supplementary material 3."

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.