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.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on April 22nd, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on April 25th, 2017.

Version 0.1 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

This submission was previously reviewed by the GCB 2016 conference and the authors supplied the prior reviews and their response to those reviews. I have evaluated the reviews and the revised materials - the response/edits to the previous reviews are considered sufficient to move forward with acceptance. Latex references in the latest version were missing, but were fine in the diff version, so these should be updated.

External reviews were received for this submission. These reviews were used by the Editor when they made their decision, and can be downloaded below.

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.