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 31st, 2018 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 25th, 2018.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 25th, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 26th, 2018.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 26, 2018 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Dr. Diakova and colleagues:

Thanks for re-submitting your manuscript to PeerJ, and for addressing the concerns raised by the reviewers. I now believe that your manuscript is suitable for publication. Congratulations! I look forward to seeing this work in print, and I anticipate it being an important resource for the hymenopteran community, especially researchers interested in trichogrammatid systematics. Thanks again for choosing PeerJ to publish such important work.

Best,

-joe

# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 25, 2018 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear Dr. Diakova and colleagues:

Thanks for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. I have now received two independent reviews of your work, and as you will see, both are very favorable. Well done! Nonetheless, both reviewers raised some relatively minor concerns about the research, and areas where the manuscript can be improved. A few things in particular: 1) make sure missing references are included in your work, 2) make sure that ALL figure legends contain all of the information necessary to make the figure “stand alone”, 3) try to provide images that more clearly accentuate the structures that you are observing. Please also remember that both reviewers provided marked-up versions of your manuscript.

I agree with the issues raised by the reviewers, and thus feel that their concerns should be adequately addressed before moving forward.

Therefore, I am recommending that you revise your manuscript accordingly, taking into account all of the issues raised by the reviewers. I do believe that your manuscript will be ready for publication once these issues are addressed.

Good luck with your revision,

-joe

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

pdf attached

Experimental design

pdf attached

Validity of the findings

pdf attached

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Comments for the author

The paper is written in a good English, although I’m not a native English speaker. The structure of the paper is good and meets the Journal criteria and needs. References are not accurate either in terms of year of citation or journal. I noticed two mistakes (see attached pdf), there could be more but I’m not going to check all the references, this has to be carefully done by the authors. Legend of figures are very scarce and not informative at all, they should describe what’s in the plates and schemes much more in details, especially when the pictures show an extensive lettering (i.e. fig3). I found Fig 3 rather confused hard to read, I suggest to split it into 2 plates of the same size incorporating more data on the reported structures (details of sockets, structures on males). The authors reported data of three Megaphragma species, in two species of both sexes. I suggest the authors to add SEM data of males as well, Fig2 is just not enough to pick the differences and drawings are not true data.
I would like to see more pictures of the multiporous tip of the basiconic sensillum, it is not clear to me on the basis of the picture in Fig.3.
I’m also rather convinced that PS is an olfactory placoid sensillum, please provide pictures clearly showing the absence of pores (130.000 x is not needed).
Comments and suggestions are reported on the attached PDF.

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.