Visitors   Views   Downloads

Novel mating behaviours in the squaretail grouper: Response to “Fake spawns and floating particles"

View preprint
RT @Sal_Keith: Interesting series of paper https://t.co/ziFI57EoGg, criticism https://t.co/W4qNMv5trN, rebuttal https://t.co/dZO1wBtnii Ve…
RT @Sal_Keith: Interesting series of paper https://t.co/ziFI57EoGg, criticism https://t.co/W4qNMv5trN, rebuttal https://t.co/dZO1wBtnii Ve…
274 days ago
Interesting series of paper https://t.co/ziFI57EoGg, criticism https://t.co/W4qNMv5trN, rebuttal https://t.co/dZO1wBtnii Very strange that BMJ Ecology published paper & criticism but would not publish the rebuttal. Seems unfair, especially coz paper is really cool! @theruchka
275 days ago
Instead the authors were left to respond in @PeerJ https://t.co/l9dRGYdlV0
https://t.co/rCCa4AZDrM Our response to a recent critique of our paper on squaretail grouper mating behaviours. @Oceans_NCF
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Rucha P Karkarey conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Amod Zambre conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Kavita Isvaran conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Rohan Arthur conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

We received due clearances from Nature Conservation Foundation’s Research Ethics Committee and from the Department of Science and Technology and Department of Environment and Forests, Lakshadweep.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

This is not relevant to our manuscript since it is an opinion piece.

Funding

This work was supported by the Rufford Foundation and the Pew Marine Fellowship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies