Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

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)

· Sep 26, 2017 · 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)

· Sep 18, 2017 · 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.

Additional comments

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

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.

Additional comments

All comments are directly on PDF version of ms.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.