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.
The authors have addressed all comments of this reviewer sufficiently and the ms is now acceptable for publication.
The authors have addressed all comments of this reviewer sufficiently and the ms is now acceptable for publication.
The authors have addressed all comments of this reviewer sufficiently and the ms is now acceptable for publication.
The authors have addressed all comments of this reviewer sufficiently and the ms is now acceptable for publication.
Dear authors, both reviewers raise important issues you should address.
-clarify and discuss limitations of the experimental design (participants selection, plant taxonomy)
- discuss the robustness of results and some limitations therein
Please consider all points discussed and address them systematically.
[# 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/ #]
The basic structure of the ms is just fine.
The design of the study is interesting, but does suffer from some potential shortfalls:
Given that the authors only included "knowledgeable" participants, the exclusion of plants and applications that are only named by one participants considerably reduces the sample. IN case of lay participants this would be ok.In case of "expert informants" this is problematic.
The overall sample of the study is relatively small, as it has shown that in ethnobotanical free-listing a much higher participant number is needed to attain a complete knowledge overview.
The use of plant families is problematic, because family taxonomy has changed considerably over the last decades (see APG 2 vs APG 3 vs APG 4), i.e. the affiliation of a large variety of genera to respective families has been changed. Thus, the same data might give other results if a different taxonomic concept is used. This should be at least discussed.
In case of genera, the concept is ok. However, the authors should either exclude introduced species (as knowledge about them would have been introduced together with the species in many cases), or it should be at least discussed.
See the above discussed problematic of not including individual mentions, and the problematic of taxonomy and species mintroductions.
While I support the publication of this work, there are some aspects needed to be addressed. Particularly, about the biocultural significance of the objectives of the study.
Introduction
Lines 46-56. In my opinion it is necessary a more extensive presentation on the subject that puts better focus on the problem of study. For example, a definition of local medical systems and their the biocultural significance are needed.
In my opinion, there are some aspects needed to be addressed.
For example:
Study area
Line 186 and line 481. The four communities appear to be affected by various socio-cultural factors that make them very different from each other. The fact that they are rural, more than 10 km from the city and close to a natural area are not, in my opinion, sufficient reasons to make them comparable in the terms proposed in the article. Please justify better how these situations are really comparable.
Data analysis
The fact that only 64 species were left for statistical analysis does not seem to me to be representative of the medical systems of each place, so what is really being analyzed? Please justify the logic behind the quantitative analysis. The medical systems aren't being dissected much?
I think it would be interesting to test how the pairs vary by comparing the similarity data between the 4 communities. Perhaps the number of plants in common is lower but could add some light to the ideas being discussed.
Line 266. Please, include the definition of ethnospecies.
In my opinion, there are some aspects needed to be addressed.
Legend of Tables, replace sex by gender.
Line 403. The statement "revealing that the selection of medicinal plants does not occur in a random way" is not very obvious considering the existing literature about this topic? Please, re edit and explain the biocultural significance of this results.
Line 419. Why the authors think that this is impossible? Mass media, exchange by virtual communications are an important force of exchange of plant information worldwide that cross countries and borders.
This paper is creative and imaginative. It focuses a new light on some elements of the field, and will lead to new avenues of investigation in some areas of ethnobotany. The manuscript is a very interesting text that follows the line of work of the research group, very relevant because it allows the analysis of new theoretical frameworks for the ethnobotanical discipline considering ecological inputs as structural frameworks.
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.