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.
Dr. Swen Renner:
Dear Swen:
Thank you for submitting your paper on the “Movement and ranging patterns of the Common Chaffinch in heterogeneous forest landscapes.” As you may know, PeerJ is part of the Peerage of Science group so I have read the four very detailed reviews you received from them and your detailed response. Given this process, my decision is to accept your manuscript for publication immediately.
I have one personal comment, however. We all write papers that introduce preliminary results as a means to establish methods. They are inevitably descriptive and, at least for the ones I write, not the most exciting papers in my portfolio. Of course, so armed with your methods, you will be able to do some exciting tests of various hypotheses. I hope you will consider sending such papers to us at PeerJ.
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.