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.
The manuscript has been well refined, and both the reviewer and myself feel this version is acceptable for publication. If you wish, please consider a simplification of the title as suggested by the reviewer. I look forward to seeing the published version of this work!
All considerations accomplished.
All considerations accomplished.
All considerations accomplished.
The new version has important improvements considering format (figures and tables), text and general conclusions. As we (reviewers) commented in the first round of review, this will be an important double contribution for marine biology: for biogeographical studies (considering regions in general), and for hydrozoan genetics&population studies in particular (indeed, very needed).
I just recommend to simplify the title to (avoid to repeat "clinging jellyfish"): "Mitochondrial diversity in <Gonionemus> (Trachylina:Hydrozoa) and its implications for understanding the origins of clinging jellyfish in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean"
I have received comments from two reviewers. Both are very positive about your subject matter and work, with one recommending outright acceptance, and the other with some constructive comments that can help improve your paper. In particular, I agree with reviewer 2 that discussion about "origin" and "invasion history" are not clearly definable or obtainable by your results. Instead, your contribution seems to be more on “genetics related to population identity and structure”, and I hope you can restructure your paper (and title) in such a manner to reflect the slightly more speculative nature of the work.
Based on this, my decision is "major revisions" are needed. I look forward to receiving a new version.
Clear, unambiguous, professional English, language used throughout: yes
Intro & background to show context: yes
Literature well referenced & relevant: yes, excellent, including difficult to access papers
Structure conforms to PeerJ standards: yes
Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled & described: yes
Raw data supplied (see PeerJ policy): yes (Genbank)
Original primary research within Scope of the journal: yes
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap: yes
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard: yes
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate: yes
Impact and novelty not assessed: is assessed
Negative/inconclusive results accepted: inconclusive results are clearly indicated
Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated: limited by available/accessible material
Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled: cannot be evaluated, but best possible sampling with available resources was done
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results: yes
Speculation is welcome, but should be identified as such: no speculations, but differing hypothesis are presented
Phylogeographic studies on hydromedusae are desperately missing and the present study is thus a highly welcome trail-blazer publication with a high impact potential. Moreover, it concerns a serious stinger jellyfish and a species with a long-standing taxonomic discussion. Although more data are clearly needed for more robust conclusions, the study will certainly attract a wide audience and incite other researchers to contribute additional data from other populations.
The article has minors considerations regarding main objective, results and final discussion/conclusion.
Overall it is a very well written article, with adequate references, background and general structure.
The article has a proper design dealing with genetics and marine populations considering a very peculiar organism.
Findings are very interesting and well presented; speculative scenarios are well identified in most of the article (minor corrections are suggested).
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.