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 August 29th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 26th, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 4th, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 5th, 2017.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' very minor concerns. This MS is a good contribution to the literature and I recommend acceptance for publication in PeerJ.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Both reviewers suggest minor revisions, and both have provided annotated PDFs along with written reviews.Having examined the MS and the referees' comments, I agree with their assessment. This MS is nicely written and provides novel biodiversity information. Thanks to both reviewers for their contribution.

Please revise and return with a response letter, point-by-point rebuttal/response, and other elements as stipulated by PeerJ.

·

Basic reporting

I have made my comments regarding terminology, nomenclatural conventions, and typos or missing commas.

Experimental design

The description of these new species is important, especially given the environmental threats and possible extinction of species and habitat.

Validity of the findings

These are the first new species of this genus discovered from the region.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

.

Experimental design

.

Validity of the findings

.

Comments for the author

Line 70; Dudgeon et al, 2005 is cited as 2006 in the literature, in this same line, Finlay 2010 has ae extra comma and a D before the )
Line 81; mentions a supplementary file 1 which I didn’t see
Line 89; should be a comma after For examination and description
Line 134; ..thumb-like, ca. as long as – what is ca., suggest authors write out word which ca. is describing, nearly??
Line 140, 165, 167; same comment about use of ca.
Line 187; Cernotina hastilis Flint 1996, Flint 1996 is not in literature cited, nor is Botosaneanu 2002, in the next line (line 189)
Line 201; the reference Paprocki et al. 2004 is not in the literature cited
Line 212, 213; the reference Paprocki and Franca 2015 is not in the literature cited

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.