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