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 April 12th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 2nd, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 4th, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 5th, 2017.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

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.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

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)

·

Basic reporting

One reference (lines 381-382) should be corrected

Experimental design

no comments

Validity of the findings

no comments

Comments for the author

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.

·

Basic reporting

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.

Experimental design

NA

Validity of the findings

One might argue whether the separate genus is warranted, but, particlarly in the absence of a formal cladistics analysis this is a subjective matter.

Comments for the author

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.