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.
All three reviewers were unanimous in recognising that you did an excellent job addressing their concerns.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Excellent work by the authors. Congrats!
no comment
no comment
no comment
Thanks for addressing the comments.
I confirmed the improved MS.
No problem.
OK.
I am looking forward for seeing this publication.
Although all three reviews were brief, the reviewers found several strong points in your manuscript but all 3 identified aspects that need to be addressed before it would be acceptable for publication.
No comment
No comment
Orlov, Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Ananjeva, Nguyen, Sang, and Geissler, 2012, Russ. J. Herpetol., 19: 23-64 noted extensive confusion with Rhacophorus robertingeri in the literature and mentioned R. chuyangsinesis considered as a junior synonym of R. calcaneus. Thus, the authors need to correct data.
Because computer programs change over time and the default parameters are not necessarily rigid, it would help to specify what the default parameters are. This also helps the reader to know that you judged particular parameters and associated assumptions to be the best ones for your data.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Excellent manuscript by the authors. Since the manuscript talks about geological phenomenon, I felt Two important papers from Indian sub-continent were mission from the manuscript. I would be good if the following papers are cited in the revised manuscript.
1. Taxonomic revisions of Rhacophorus genus in Indian sub-continent was given in Biju et al 2013. This paper did not find a place in the manuscript.
2. Similarly, Vijayakumar et al 2016 provided insights on glaciation, gradient and geography of Western Ghats, that perhaps shaped diversification in Raorchestes genus. This can be cited in the manuscript.
Format of text is not consistent throughout the manuscript. For example, "et al." are italicized in some case, but not, in normal, in other case. Correct such basic formatting throughout the manuscript before submission.
The results of the present study and the former one (Li et al., 2013) were very different. Especially, the estimated ancestral area is quite different. The present authors must clarify any difference in samples, analysis, and interpretation on the results between them.
As shown on Fig.S1, 1) a lot of nodes lacked a significant supports. Further, 2) the topology is not consistent between Fig. S1 and Fig. 2. Need to improve or explain on these two major concerns.
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.