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 December 31st, 2013 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 17th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 29th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 31st, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for your careful response to reviewer #2's concerns and re-analysis of some of your data. I believe your team has satisfactorily addressed the reviewer's concerns. I agree that a detailed analysis of the the sex effects would detract from your main message and that it could more fruitfully be addressed in a separate manuscript.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

I have received two reviews for your manuscript. One is very positive and recommends acceptance. The other is also positive, but suggests adding 'sex' as a covariate to the analysis based an his analysis of the data. I agree that this is a useful addition and ask you to consider adding it to the paper. I also agree with both reviewers that this a very-nicely done and interesting paper.

·

Basic reporting

The study is very well conceived and implemented and very timely. I found no issues with the basic reporting in this manuscript.

Experimental design

The experimental design was carefully designed and implemented, as such for a volunteer survey, but there were no recognizable flaws in the simple design.

Validity of the findings

The findings were all derived using appropriate analysis of the data and thus the inferences were all valid in my opinion and, moreover, were presented in a clear and concise manner.

Comments for the author

Overall, I found this to be an excellent paper; it was an extremely well conducted study and extremely well written (clear and concise). The findings are compelling and provide ample evidence of the need to implement some major changes in undergraduate and graduate training in ecology. Kudos to the authors.

·

Basic reporting

See attached

Experimental design

See attached

Validity of the findings

See attached

Comments for the author

See attached

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.