Review History

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.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 18th, 2019 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 1st, 2019.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 22nd, 2019 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 23rd, 2019.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 23, 2019 · Academic Editor


Corrections are OK so the manuscript is acceptable as it is.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by James Reimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 1, 2019 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Both reviewers have suggested minor revisions. Please consider them and submit a revised version of your manuscript.


Basic reporting

Straight forward paper, the authors present two species from an interesting environment and provide valid argument that one of them is new, using an integrative approach. well done.

Experimental design

I included a question as to what was actually placed on the ocean floor. You say bones, but I was curious to learn more. Can you direct the reader to a voyage report perhaps?

Validity of the findings

The authors present good illustrations and discussions of the species they discovered. I did suggest to delete the comment for the new species habitat, that it is suspected to also live on hydrothermal vents since there is currently little evidence to support this.
It might be useful to include a table of genetic distances in addition to a tree, but you do present a selection of these in the discussion.

Additional comments

I look forward to seeing it in print.


Basic reporting

The manuscript describes a new species of squat lobster of the genus Munidopsis and the occurrence of another rare species in the carcass fall of the western Pacific. The text is correct and the illustrations are adequate. The references, as well as the comparisons with other species is adequate. I have no problemas to accept the ms for publication after a few suggestions.

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

The findings are adequate. My minor comments are the following:
1. Line 45. Can you add a reference? e.g. Baba et al., 2008
2. Line 75. " In the present paper"
3. Line 93. Add affiliation of this colleague.
4. Line 176. Eye movable or fixed?
5. Line 217. Frontal margin oblique?
6. Line 273. Carpi. Dorsal or external surface?
7. Line 277. P4 propodus is slightly shorter than P2 and P3.
8. Line 283. Include depth.
9. Lines 305 and 310. and also different number of plates in the telson.
10. Discussion. Have you got any explanation of these low differences among species?

Additional comments

see above

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.