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.
Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript. I am now in a position to accept your submission for publication in PeerJ.
Congratulations and thank you for choosing PeerJ.
Your manuscript was reviewed by two referees who have only made a few minor suggestions for improvement. Please consult the two annotated manuscripts for these proposed changes. In addition, you will note that the first reviewer points out that the supraoccipital crest is not clearly visible in the drawing, and that the second reviewer would welcome some additional information regarding the association between dorsal fin rays and pterygiophores.
In addition to the reviewers’ suggestions, here are a few remarks I have after reading your manuscript.
- lines 23–24: you should probably cite species names, not just the genus
- line 32: ‘an anteriorly’, not ‘ a anteriorly’
- line 55: spell out genus name at the beginning of the sentence
- lines 55–57: this sentence is somewhat difficult to read, please rephrase it
- lines 65 and 70: are you sure these should be third level headings?
- line 137: ‘consists only of’ instead of ‘consists in only’
- line 210: add a comma after ‘segmentation’ to improve readability
- lines 295–311: I wonder if this part would be more appropriate in the Introduction (I let you decide)
One reference (lines 381-382) should be corrected
Description needs in some emendation:
Lines 173-174: ascending process and alveolar process of the maxilla is a nonsense!
Line 177: unclear what is concave; not fenestra but interosseus space.
Lines 182, 209: it is not necessary what might be preserved (but not preserved).
Line 304: lampridiforms or Lampridiformes?
Line 336: add Borisyak.
The data are well presented. I have suggested wording/English changes in the uploaded Word document. One important thing is that the serial or supernumerary association of anteriomost dorsal fin rays with relevant pterygiophores should be clarified.
One might argue whether the separate genus is warranted, but, particlarly in the absence of a formal cladistics analysis this is a subjective matter.
I find very little to criticize here - just tighten up the English/wording, and it's ready to go.
I reviewed in WORD and reconverted to PDF - italicized words did not convert - sorry about that.
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.