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.
After re-reading the revised version of your work, I am of the opinion that it may be considered for publication in PeerJ. The previous reviewers had identified several formal problems, concerning, for example, the fact that the new synonyms did not indicate the basis or that the format of the citations of plant names seemed to follow the rules for zoological nomenclature, but not for botanical names. In the revised version of the manuscript these major problems have been fixed. When taking into account that the paper was already well written and structured and that it contributes considerably to the knowledge of the diversity in the genus Elatostema, I consider it suitable for publication in PeerJ.
# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sheila McCormick, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #
When revising your manuscript, please consider all the remarks provided by the reviewers, with particular reference to the suggestion made by rev2 when he/she notes that "new combinations are only valid if the complete protologue reference for the basionym is cited on the same page"
Google translation of the attached pdf [done by PeerJ staff]:
"The author of this article has done a checklist of the genus Streptomyces in Vietnam through field surveys, specimen inspections (inspection of specimen museums, and related botanical sites).
There is a large space in the article about the contents of the flora.
Since I (reviewer) is not good at flora, it is not convenient to comment in these aspects, but only comments or suggestions on the plant taxonomy in the article.
1. In this paper, the author proposes 10 new combinations, 1 new name, and 3 new synonyms, but none of the qualified authors and sources, including page numbers and illustrations, that are complete and directly reference their base name or replaced synonyms. And date.
Therefore, the names given by the authors of this article are all unqualified publications.
2. The authors combined the names of the red genus to the stairweed, but barely presented their own experimental data or evidence.
It is recommended that the authors come up with credible data to prove that the merger of the two genus is more reasonable. Otherwise, it is better to keep the two genus.
3. The new synonym proposed by the author does not indicate the basis.
This is unfounded and cannot be convinced.
4. This article lists the voucher specimens under each name, which is beneficial to others' inspection; this article also attaches photos of wild plants to some types, increasing the credibility.
But it would be better if you attach a photograph of a wild plant or a photo of a voucher to each new record.
5. Can you increase the content of taxonomy (including experiments, this article is changed to two articles: one is the taxonomic revision of the genus Streptomyces in Vietnam, and the other is the floristic analysis of the genus Streptomyces in Vietnam.
The above comments or suggestions are for the author's consideration."
This is a very well written manuscript, excellent in language and consistency. I marked a couple of minor comments in the attached file that I would like you to consider. Here I would like to mention few major points:
- the format of citation of plant names seems to follow the rules for zoological nomenclature, but not for botanical names. Author names must follow Brummitt/IPNI standard forms, not in brackets, and the year omitted;
- new combinations are only valid if the complete protologue reference for the basionym is cited on the same page;
- the authors complain that full access to the JSTOR Plants website is not available for free. But they do not mention if they ever used other websites that allow free access , sometimes even to the same images, and some in comparable quality (mentioned in my annotations).
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.