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 Dr. Alam,
Congratulations on the improvements to the MS. We are happy to accept it.
I, however, highly encourage you to consider the few suggestions made by Reviewer 2 (Prof. Di Dário), who once more made a very detailed revision of your MS. These few corrections of statement emphasis and typos, including a broken link on page 166, could be done during the revision of your MS proof.
Kind Regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Patricia Gandini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I am really glad to see that the manuscript improved substantially from the previous rounds of review. I congratulate the authors for presenting a much more concise, clearly written, and interesting manuscript that in my view should be published after just some minor adjustments are made in the text, as indicated in the attached pdf file. Given that the modifications I suggest are really small, I don't think it's necessary that the manuscript is sent again to a new round of reviews, as long as the adjustments are made. And again, this is an open review - Fabio Di Dario.
Same as previous rounds of review.
Same as previous rounds of review.
Same as basic reporting and previous rounds of review. Congratulations! Nice and relevant paper!
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting this greatly revised version of your MS.
Indeed, the readability of this version is greater. Anyhow, the reviewer Prof. di Dario made several suggestions of modification that turns it even better. Prof. di Dario voluntarily offered his email address in his report. Please, email him to get an editable version of his comments on your MS.
Moreover, as noted by Reviewer 1 and by myself, you did not deposited the original, crude data in any public database. In your response to the reviewers comments you justified that "As the amplicon length of sequences were about 172 bp (...) those sequences were not submitted to the GenBank database ...".
Please submit the original MiSeq data (2x 300bp, line 140) to The Sequence Read Archive (SRA) from the NCBI or any other similar public accessible high throughput sequencing database. It would be great to link your SRA submission to a BioProject and BioSamples, both also from the NCBI. Provide the access numbers in the MS, and also a link for the reviewers access the data during the revision process.
Note that data accessibility is imperative for the acceptance of any MS.
Finally, your MS describes nice science and we are willing to receive another revised version with the access numbers.
Best regards,
Thiago
The manuscript improved significantly since the first rounds of revision, but major adjustments in terms of language are still necessary. In order to try to speed up the process of revision, I took the liberty of editing the .docx version of the manuscript that was uploaded by the authors in the system, using Microsoft Word's Track Changes. Please see the attached file for details (I had to save it as a .pdf since the system doesn't accept other types of files, but authors can contact me - [email protected] - if they want to have access to the .docx file). I also indicated in that file some sentences that need further clarification - I'd have suggested changes in them as well if I understood the idea, but that was not the case in some parts of the text. It's still my opinion that the manuscript would greatly benefit from a more thorough review by someone close to the authors more familiar with the English language (ideally a fellow scientist) before the next submission. It's my understanding that the manuscript is improving between subsequent resubmissions, but the pace in which the language is being updated is not exactly fast. However, the contents of the manuscript are, in my opinion, scientific sound, and the manuscript also seems to be relevant to the assessment of biodiversity in the Republic of Korea. It will eventually deserve publication, but more work on the language is definitely necessary.
Please check previous reviews.
Please check previous reviews.
Same as those in Basic reporting, adding that this is an open review (Fabio Di Dario) - The manuscript improved significantly since the first rounds of revision, but major adjustments in terms of language are still necessary. In order to try to speed up the process of revision, I took the liberty of editing the .docx version of the manuscript that was uploaded by the authors in the system, using Microsoft Word's Track Changes. Please see the attached file for details (I had to save it as a .pdf since the system doesn't accept other types of files, but authors can contact me - [email protected] - if they want to have access to the .docx file). I also indicated in that file some sentences that need further clarification - I'd have suggested changes in them as well if I understood the idea, but that was not the case in some parts of the text. It's still my opinion that the manuscript would greatly benefit from a more thorough review by someone close to the authors more familiar with the English language (ideally a fellow scientist) before the next submission. It's my understanding that the manuscript is improving between subsequent resubmissions, but the pace in which the language is being updated is not exactly fast. However, the contents of the manuscript are, in my opinion, scientific sound, and the manuscript also seems to be relevant to the assessment of biodiversity in the Republic of Korea. It will eventually deserve publication, but more work on the language is definitely necessary.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for sending the revised version of this MS to PeerJ.
It is clear that the reviewers suggestions on the original version were taken in consideration and greatly improved the MS.
However, as noted by reviewer 1 during this round of revision, you did not provide the accession numbers for the original data. It is imperative that the original data are public available at one of the major data repositories.
As this must be done before final acceptance, I also highly encourage you to consider the very detailed comments of reviewer Fabio di Dario on a commented PDF he sent attached. There you will find grammatical corrections and suggestions that, although not from a native speaker, will greatly improve the MS readability.
At last, please provide the figures of phylogenetic trees in a higher resolution.
Looking forward receiving your submission back soon.
Kind regards,
Thiago
Overall, the study meet the criteria for scientific paper to be publish in PeerJ. This study also has an novelty in the methods and results, and I am sure will be a huge addition for the eDNA study in Korea in general. Notes for the phylogenetic tree figures: if it possible, a better resolution for the figures will be perfect. The second note is: it will be informative if the authors can show the reader about the genbank accession number for the results, or may be the the link of repository for the data obtained from this study.
no comment
no comment
The manuscript has improved substantially, and I truly congratulate the authors for their effort to present a much more coherent and easier to understand text. However, there is still a substantial number of phrases that need to be more properly clarified in terms of the English language, unfortunately. I made several suggestions throughout the text in the attachment file, but it is still my view that the manuscript would greatly benefit from a more thorough review from a fellow scientist with more skills in the use of the language. Also, following correct taxonomic procedures, it is necessary that species names authorities are indicated after the first mention of all species dealt with in the text. In addition, in my opinion, terms like "Japanese haplotype" or "Korean haplotype", etc, should be avoided in the text. The words Japanese and Korean (or Brazilian, for instance) typically refer to human beings, and of course that is not what the authors mean. Please try to use "haplotypes of (a particular species) identified in Japan", something like that, in order to avoid this confusion. Overall, I again congratulate the authors for their interesting paper. This is an open review - Fabio Di Dario.
As far as I can see, experimental design has no flaws and falls in the scope of the journal.
As in my previous review, I still think that results are overall consistent, and as far as I can see, underlying data was provided. However, there still are some questions raised in my review of the attached file in the discussion and conclusion that needs reviewing by the authors before the manuscript is accepted for publication. Please check the attached file for details.
Same as basic reporting - The manuscript has improved substantially, and I truly congratulate the authors for their effort to present a much more coherent and easier to understand text. However, there is still a substantial number of phrases that need to be more properly clarified in terms of the English language, unfortunately. I made several suggestions throughout the text in the attachment file, but it is still my view that the manuscript would greatly benefit from a more thorough review from a fellow scientist with more skills in the use of the language. Also, following correct taxonomic procedures, it is necessary that species names authorities are indicated after the first mention of all species dealt with in the text. In addition, in my opinion, terms like "Japanese haplotype" or "Korean haplotype", etc, should be avoided in the text. The words Japanese and Korean (or Brazilian, for instance) typically refer to human beings, and of course that is not what the authors mean. Please try to use "haplotypes of (a particular species) identified in Japan", something like that, in order to avoid this confusion. Overall, I again congratulate the authors for their interesting paper. This is an open review - Fabio Di Dario.
Dear authors,
Thank you for considering PeerJ.
Based on the comments from two reviewers and my own assessment, It is clear that this submission provides incremental information about the use of eDNA to assess fish biodiversity and original and relevant data for conservation of Korean fishes.
However, in order to accept this MS, it must go through a complete revision on the writing. Making the text clearer would solve most of reviewers comments. Reviewer 2 provided a commented version of the MS pointing out several grammar issues and unclear sentences.
While most of the issued should be clarified with the grammatical review, both reviewers pointed conclusions that might not be well supported by the data. For example, Reviewer 1 Line 37 and Reviewer 2 lines 382, 527, 533. Those type of issues should be careful addressed, either changing the MS accordingly or providing a weighty reply.
Looking forward to receive a reviewed version of your work.
Kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
attached
attached
attached
The manuscript clearly showing the potential of applying eDNA in Korean river. The one thing need to be improved the most is the English writing to meet the international audience
Authors present an interesting manuscript dealing with the use of eDNA techniques to assess species richness in four freshwater rivers of the Republic of Korea, presenting some interesting results which are potentially relevant to conservation and future studies on related subjects in Korea and other regions as well. As such, I congratulate the authors and recommend it for publication after major review based on the points below and in the suggestions, comments and remarks in the attached file. In my view, the main overall problem with the manuscript seems to be related to the proper use of English, which is often confusing and imprecise throughout the text. In the attached file, I made several suggestions and also indicate sections of the text that needs improvement. Even if my suggestions are accepted in the following version of the manuscript, it still might be interesting to the authors to evaluate the use of a professional scientific translation service, or to check on the possibility of having the text reviewed by a fellow native speaker. There are also some inconsistencies in the application of proper ecological/taxonomic/conservation terms, which also require review (again, I tried to indicate all I could in the attached file, but I probably missed something - please carefully re-check all the document). It might also be advisable for the authors to have the manuscript reviewed by someone more familiar with the proper use of terms from those areas of biological sciences. Please bear in mind that those criticisms are not meant to disqualify the paper, which indeed presents some interesting results. I congratulate the authors for the study conducted and for their effort to present it all in a nice, coherent, manuscript. This is an open review, and authors may contact me in case something in this review and/or in the attached file requires more clarification.
As far as I could comprehend (due to confusions of language used in the manuscript), experimental design has no flaws and falls in the scope of the journal.
Results seem to be overall consistent, and as far as I can see, underlying data was provided. There are, however, several questions raised in my review of the attached file in the discussion and conclusion that needs reviewing by the authors before the manuscript is accepted for publication. Some parts of the discussion are more speculative, but the degree to which they might be accepted in a likely upcoming version of the manuscript might depend more on the proper use of the language than its content. Please check the attached file for details.
Same as the basic reporting - Authors present an interesting manuscript dealing with the use of eDNA techniques to assess species richness in four freshwater rivers of the Republic of Korea, presenting some interesting results which are potentially relevant to conservation and future studies on related subjects in Korea and other regions as well. As such, I congratulate the authors and recommend it for publication after major review based on the points below and in the suggestions, comments and remarks in the attached file. In my view, the main overall problem with the manuscript seems to be related to the proper use of English, which is often confusing and imprecise throughout the text. In the attached file, I made several suggestions and also indicate sections of the text that needs improvement. Even if my suggestions are accepted in the following version of the manuscript, it still might be interesting to the authors to evaluate the use of a professional scientific translation service, or to check on the possibility of having the text reviewed by a fellow native speaker. There are also some inconsistencies in the application of proper ecological/taxonomic/conservation terms, which also require review (again, I tried to indicate all I could in the attached file, but I probably missed something - please carefully re-check all the document). It might also be advisable for the authors to have the manuscript reviewed by someone more familiar with the proper use of terms from those areas of biological sciences. Please bear in mind that those criticisms are not meant to disqualify the paper, which indeed presents some interesting results. I congratulate the authors for the study conducted and for their effort to present it all in a nice, coherent, manuscript. This is an open review, and authors may contact me in case something in this review and/or in the attached file requires more clarification.
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.