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.
Dear authors,
I am an academic editor of PeerJ. I read your revised manuscript, and found that you have carefully revised your paper according to review comments. So, I am pleased to inform you that your article has been accepted for publication in "PeerJ".
Regards
Jianhua Xu
Based on the review comments received, I feel that your article could be reconsidered for publication after some revisions.
It is significant to explore the relationship between mesopredators and the habitat. The article revealed the role of fragmentation and landscape changes in the release of common nest predators. It is helpful for human to recognize how our behavior works on the ecological habitat.
But I am very concerning the research site selection. How did authors make a decision to choice this area. If the observation place changed does the result also change?
I think the experimental framework is rational. However, the study should choice multiple places and then can prove the result is robust.
The findings are logical and meaningful. They are also significant to help human to know the effects of land use.
(1) explain why to select the current areas to investigate the common nest predators under the impacts of fragmentation and landscape changes.
(2) How to prove the findings.
Although I found the article interesting, informative, and relatively easy to read, the article did have a few areas of grammatical, sentence structure, and word choice issues that made these sections a little unclear. I have made specific comments in the article pdf.
No Comments
No Comments
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.