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 March 18th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on April 11th, 2015.

Version 0.1 (accepted)

· Apr 11, 2015 · Academic Editor


It is my rare pleasure to report back that a paper can be accepted without revision, but both referees were in agreement that the paper is so well done that it can move forward as it is. I look forward to seeing this online.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comments. Meets standards.

Experimental design

It would be nice to see more sampling along the gradient in the Mid-Atlantic region. This could be done in conjunction with possibly detecting the qualitative connection between South Carolina and Woods Hole stated in Carlton et al. (2011).
Although the clear break and structure shown with the single marker used in this study is enough support this particular manuscript to stand on its own.

Validity of the findings

No comments.

Comments for the author

There are many qualitative statements on anthropogenic influence through habitat and transport. Chthamalus has been shown to take advantage of niches on vessel hulls and show flexibility in natural and man-made shoreline habitats. This provides qualitative support for these statements and therefore makes them valid for this manuscript.


Basic reporting

I enjoyed reading this study on the phylogeography of C. fragile along the US Atlantic coast. While there is only so much one can say given that the authors only used one marker and the geographic sampling was rather sparse, I feel like the analysis is publication worthy given the relatively strong results. The study opens up the possibility for a more in depth study that integrates molecular data, ecology, history, habitat availability, and potentially, the role of predator prey interactions, all of which I found to be important factors for explaining a range expansion along the California/Baja coast (e.g. Fenberg et al. 2014 - “Historical and recent processes shaping the geographic range of a rocky intertidal gastropod: phylogeography, ecology, and habitat availability”).

Experimental design

They followed an appropriate design for a standard CO1 phylogeography study.

Validity of the findings

I agree with their findings of the paper, which is suggestive of a range expansion of this species from the Virginia area towards New England over the past 100 years or so.

Comments for the author

I look forward to seeing this paper in print soon.

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.