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 December 8th, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 3rd, 2018.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 19th, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on February 7th, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on February 14th, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 15th, 2018.

Version 0.4 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

This paper is ready to be published - thanks for all of your hard work!

Version 0.3

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

This English in the text is much improved, although I have added a few edits here and there; please take a look. As well, the references remain to be cleaned up, a lot of formatting and missing italics (which will not do for a taxonomic paper). Please take a look at the attached MSWord file, and go over everything thoroughly one last time, particularly reference formatting.

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

I have looked over the manuscript myself once more. While the English has been corrected in places, it still needs work. I have corrected the Abstract and Introduction to give you an idea of the amount of work needed; you may wish to either ask a colleague or a professional service for help. Regardless, please in your rebuttal name the individual or service that has corrected your work.

I look forward to seeing (hopefully!) a near final version of your work.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Both reviewers were overwhelmingly positive about this work; with the only recommendation being that the English needs brushing up. I agree with this assessment, and thus my decision is minor revisions are needed. I look forward to seeing your revised version.

·

Basic reporting

I think this is a wonderfully thought out and performed experiment with excellent results. The manuscript is clear with some grammatical issues (I suggested edits directly in the PDF file). The introduction and background are sufficient. My only concern are some missing references (Barnard & Barnard, 1983, Fabricius, 1775, Fiueroa et al., 2013, Latreille, 1818, Leach, 1814, Linnaeus, 1758, Pinkster, 1970, Stebbing, 1899). There are also several references in the reference section that are not cited in the text (Agusti et al., 2006, Azzaroli et al., 1980, Blackman et al., 2017, Creutzberg, 1963, Dermitzakis et al, 1981, Felsentstein, 1985, Hou and LI, 2010, Katoh et al., 2002, Popov et al., 2004, Stock 1977, 1980).

Experimental design

This is original research within the aims and scope of PeerJ, the experiment, methods, and results are well defined with clear relevance and a very important description of a new cryptic species.

Validity of the findings

The data is robust with multiple methods coming to the same conclusion. The conclusions are well stated and answer the original question without ambiguity. The DNA sequences were not provided, which is not a problem for me, but I am not sure about PeerJ's standards. The authors do state that they will be available upon publication in BOLD and GenBank.

Comments for the author

I recommend to accept this publication but do suggest minor grammatical changes. Nicely written!

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Clear and relevant paper on the evolutionary history of endemic freshwater species. Convincing evidence. The English needs careful checking on the use of plurals and adjectives.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Comments for the author

Complete and relevant paper on the evolutionary history of endemic freshwater species. Convincing evidence. The English needs careful checking on the use of plurals and adjectives. Sentences are sometimes too long. Punctuation might help clarity in such cases.

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.