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).
Well done on a polished MS.
I found this MS interesting and well written, and I have no issues with it. The one referee has some very minor comments (see below).
This is a well written paper and other than a few editorial comments below I was happy with the presentation and usefulness of the paper
Good, there are plenty of replicates and a good experimental design
Useful and applicable findings for management of this invasive alien
there were a few edits needed to this otherwise useful and well written paper
line 26 use feet not m
line 124 data were ( pleural)
line 198 insert space between 30 and m
line 199 Fig. not Figure
line208 Data are ( pleural)
line 291 do not put sp name into italics ( as in all other refs)
line 295 do not capitalise words in titles of journal articles
line 310 b no vol of pages given to ref
line 210, 234, 247, 357, 414, 439, 445 do not capitise words in titles of journal articles
line 445 give journal in full
All aspects of this article conform to basic reporting requirements.
All aspects of this article conform to experimental design requirements.
The experimental question and methods are clearly defined and appropriately analyzed.
The conclusions of this study are well supported by the data and analyses used in the article.
The authors are weighing-in on a topic of current controversy and importance in invasive species (and Caribbean coral reef) ecology by providing an additional analyses of a dataset used to examine the relationship between invasive lionfish and native predators. It is this reviewer's opinion that the scientific process is at its best when these controversies play-out with rapid publication that is unfettered by attempts to suppress valid but contrary analyses. For this system in particular, time will tell. The authors have done an excellent job of describing opposing studies in this article and are careful to point out weaknesses in the data and conclusions. The writing is clear and to the point, and was a pleasure to read.
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.