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 March 31st, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 30th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 10th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 12th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Based on the review comments received, I feel that your article could be reconsidered for publication after some revisions.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

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?

Experimental design

I think the experimental framework is rational. However, the study should choice multiple places and then can prove the result is robust.

Validity of the findings

The findings are logical and meaningful. They are also significant to help human to know the effects of land use.

Comments for the author

(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.

·

Basic reporting

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.

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

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.