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 authors
I am happy to accept your nice contribution for publication at PeerJ. Thank you for considering our journal.
Best wishes
Pedro
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The reviewers made a few comments. As I expected, all them agree in that the article is sound and that is well-written.
Please, proceed attending the reviewer's comment and submit a revised version.
.
.
.
The project was well designed, the results carefully analyzed and presented as concisely as possible and the significance made clear.
See attached.
The manuscript is well written and structured, with all sections in clear professional English. The authors refer to relevant literature and provide detailed context were needed e.g. explaining application of place names in Vietnam. Sequence and occurrence data used are shared as supplementary files and info is provided on where the studied herbarium specimens can be accessed.
The data and methodology used are suitable for the answer the posed question on the phylogenetic position of the studied species. This study is part of research focused on the Scirpo-Caricoid Clade of Cyperaceae by the authors and contributes to a better understanding of generic limits in this group.
Data and methodology are sound. The conclusions are solid and based on the presented results.
There are a few small corrections to made (see the annotated PDF in attachment).
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The authors present the rediscovery of an "Eriophorum" species narrowly endemic to an ~200km area of Vietnam. Using a combination of morphological, embryological, and molecular data, they demonstrate that this species is nested within Trichophorum and is only distantly related to Eriophorum. Based on this evidence, they transfer the species to Trichophorum scabriculme.
This is by far the easiest review I have ever conducted. The writing is clear, the evidence for their results is overwhelming, the figures are helpful, and the species descriptions and key are thorough and useful. My only suggestion for improvement is that the overall length of the manuscript can be reduced significantly. I appreciate that the authors provide such a thorough context for the taxonomic delimitations of this these clades, but I found it to be unnecessarily long - and, much of it is rehashed again in the Discussion. Similarly, the phylogenetics section could be reduced - this is essentially the same tree, using the same molecular markers, that the authors have now published a number of times. A simple acknowledgement that the topology is consistent with their previous studies, and a brief mention of the placement of T scbirculme, could be sufficient.
The manuscript is well written throughout.
The experimental approach is fully in line with current methodologies.
The findings are clearly presented and explained.
I look forward to seeing this in print.
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.