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 July 20th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 18th, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 23rd, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 26th, 2017.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for making the suggested changes to the manuscripts from your reviewers. I am recommending it for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please review the comments of the two peer-reviewers, both of whom have provided annotated PDFs. I think they both have some good suggestions to improve your manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript addresses a fairly major shortcoming in the use of tolerance resistance in plants to arthropods. The material is presented in a straight forward manner and set up in a very readable format. The figures give good supporting back up to the points made in the text, and the references are thorough equally supportive. Some additional detail in the terminology used in the figures would improve their impact and utility in making the point of the review.

Experimental design

Well addressed, as to the types of normal exp. designs used in plant resistance research, those unique to the study of tolerance and the limitations posed by lack of development of new methods.

Validity of the findings

The logic-based conclusions reached by the authors make use of real-world data to point out the limitations of current knowledge about tolerance plant resistance.

Comments for the author

A good and timely review. Nice to know others are thinking of management tactics beyond single-gene, high-dose defenses.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

All comments are directly on PDF version of ms.

Experimental design

NA

Validity of the findings

All comments are directly on PDF version of ms.

Comments for the author

All comments are directly on PDF version of ms.

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.