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. Montero-Pau 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 ecologists and evolutionary geneticists studying aquatic invertebrates. Thanks again for choosing PeerJ to publish such important work.
# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Ann Hedrick, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #
Dear Dr. Montero-Pau and colleagues:
Thanks for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. I apologize for the lengthy time in review, but we needed more time than usual to find reviewers.
I have now received two independent reviews of your work, and as you will see, both are very favorable. Well done! Nonetheless, the reviewers raised some relatively minor concerns about the research, and areas where the manuscript can be improved. Please note that reviewer 2 has included a marked-up version of the manuscript in his review.
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,
Line 56: "Predicting the outcome of these factors…" What are 'these factors'? Are you refering to the two listed in the previous sentence, or the whole set listed in the first paragraph?
LIne 59: "dispersing" The verb tense seems wrong to me. But, this could be a matter of style.
In general, there is an excessive use of ambiguous pronouns to start sentences. Using words like 'it', 'these', 'they', and so on decreases comprehension by the reader. Ambiguous pronouns are used abundantly throughout the MS and I strongly suggest that the authors edit their MS to specifically remove these words, especially when they are used in the begining of a sentence.
Lines 103-108: In this final paragraph of the introduction, the authors outline what they did. It would be nice to follow those enumerated sentences with a few sentences about what they found. What are the main take-aways?
Line 117: "which are major taxonomic groups in the zooplankton". This phrase would imply that zooplankton are themselves a proper taxanomic group which (emphasis on the word 'the'), of course, they are not.
Overall, I found this paper to be interesting and well thought out. I do not have any substantial comments on it and I look forward to seeing it published. I believe that it will be useful for the field.
The MS is clear and well documented. Figures are easily understandable and of good quality.
The MS could nonetheless be checked further by an English native as some sentences read awkward to me (I'm not an English native, I can hence be wrong).
The question is extremely well posed and is relevant. The authors used a simulation-approach to tackle the question and the simulation design is very good to me.
Notably, the set of parameters is well defined and well argumented. My only worry concern the use of a single founding individual (although other scenarios are simulated); to me authors should justify it better, and/or include further results for other scenarios. For instance, authors could easily confront results from 1 vs. 20 founder for some figures to clearly show what the impact of increasing the number of founders is. They argue that 1 founder is a likely scenario for instance for glacial lakes, but there are many other scenarios where I guess 20 founders is also likely.
That's a good and interesting paper. I have easily read it, it is easy to follow and it tackle a fascinating question. Although I'm not a specialist, the methodology and overall simulation design seem robust to me (but see my comment about the scenario of a single founder).
I have provided some comments and some corrections in an attached file. Two of these comments should be seriously considered by the authors: one concern some results that sounds illogical to me (but authors may have an explanation, and/or I may have missed something) and the other concerns the choice of presenting only the results with a single founder.
I'm sure you'll be able to easily deal with these 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.