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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 23rd, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 1st, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 4th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 7th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor


I find this manuscript now acceptable for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Based on three sets of previous reviews included with the submitted manuscript and my own reading, I find the manuscript acceptable for publication in PeerJ with minor revisions. The reviews appeared to be thorough and competent, reviewers agreed that the paper should be published, despite negative results and small sample sizes, and the authors appear to have addressed the concerns expressed. While I have an adequate background in mating systems and dispersal, I am not capable of judging the genetic tests, and have relied on the reviewers and authors for the validity of this aspect of the study.


Donald L. Kramer

Notes and suggestions from the editor
L52. ‘most all’ is not clear. Did you intend to use only one of these words or ‘almost all’?
L213,216, 226 citations to Table 1 presumably should be Table 2. Check the ms to be certain that all references to figures and tables are correct.
L267-268. Sentence needs to be rewritten because reference of ‘it’ is unclear. Do you mean ‘However, dispersal by both sexes may imply fitness costs that arise …’?
L293, 379 Italics missing for species names (check to be sure others were not missed)
L320, 360 Journal article titles should not have all words capitalized (check to be sure others were not missed)
Table 1. SI unit for grams is g. Footnote is ambiguous. It could imply that neither museum specimens nor group compositions were available. Perhaps a clearer statement would be ‘Because individuals were museum specimens, group compositions were not available; however, samples were known to have been collected from multiple groups and not to have included any complete groups.’

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.