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,
Thank you for your revised manuscript. Based on your responses and tracked changed document I have decided to ‘accept’ your manuscript.
You will be contacted in due course by the production staff, who will take you through the proof stage.
Thank you for choosing PeerJ as your publication venue, and I hope you will use us again in the future.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by David Roberts, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
This was an invited revision and resubmission of a rejected manuscript.
As you can imagine due to the current pandemic the review process has been delayed. I have accepted the reviewers' decision of ‘minor revisions’.
Please read through the reviewers' comments, and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
The language still needs some degree of elaboration, as I remarked directly on the main text file in PDF format.
Reference citations are sufficient.
Article structure, as well as figures and table, are in good condition. Sequence data is shared.
Main objective of this paper is to describe two new species of the potamid freshwater crab genus Heterochelamon. Recognition of the two new species seems to be supported by both morphological and molecular evidence.
The manuscript is the resubmission after my two-times reviews. I do not repeat the same report.
Discovery of two new species of freshwater crabs contribute the biodiversity research on the globe.
Molecular data seems to be sufficient. Morphological descriptions require minor reexamination, as remarked on the main text file.
As noted above, the recognition of new species seems to be justified. Discussion on the zoogeography contains some speculation, but clearly identified as such, acceptable.
I could normally communicate with the manuscript after resubmission with two-times review.
Species comparison could be expanded to mention potential relationship of the new species to other congeneric species. Four species are available for molecular phylogenetic analysis.
For more detailed comments and edits, please see the main text file remarked.
I know that drafting manuscript of a scientific article in foreign language is always challenging for non-native speakers, but we can not avoid it for normal communication in our community.
.
.
.
See attachment
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.