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 revising your manuscript, I am pleased to confirm that your paper has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by David Roberts, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Your manuscript needs some minor modifications which are marked in the annotated manuscript provided.
no comment
no comment
no comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
I have just the recommendations (personal point of view):
1) It is not necessary to use so thick scale bars and the letters used in figures seem to large in the ratio of the photo/drawing area.
2) Dataset is reduced, but I mean, for the confirmation of the new species is just enough to use sequences of the congeners and one or two close genera as the outgroup.
Your manuscript is not acceptable for publication in its present form.
However, if you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript.
The discussion section has to be improved, you could use some new references in order to have more arguments to reinforce your results.
Best regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Authors has reported A new species of freshwater crab of the genus
Qianguimon, as the fifth species of this genus. The results have been well present. Moreover, molecular analysis added to morphological results has been validated finding. However, in the discussion section, i observed no discussion about findings. I have submitted a series of corrections in the attached version of paper. I emphasis that the discussion section should revise according the comments of attached version. Finally I recommend to publish the article after a major revisions.
The authors used compound sentences in the parts of living color and ecology. These parts should be rewritten and checked by a native speaker of English.
No comment.
No comment.
The main comment is the author should show the DNA results, such as the minimum interspecific divergence between the new species and other species of this genus. And provide a table of genetic distances within the new species and between five species of Qianguimon.
Comments in attached pdf.
Comments in attached pdf.
Comments in attached pdf.
Comments in attached pdf.
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.