Back to all available

Dealing with uncertainties: a review of parameters, model creation, and prospects for Finite Element Analysis in non-avian dinosaurs

evolutionary-studies
mathematical-biology
paleontology
zoology
biomechanics

Abstract

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a widely used and powerful tool for investigating the ecology of organisms through the mechanical performance of their anatomical structures. In recent years, with the increasing accessibility of the technique, the number of studies applying FEA to non-avian dinosaurs has grown considerably, exploring new taxa, applications, and skeletal modules, thereby improving our understanding of these extinct animals. Here, we present a state-of-the-art review of the application of FEA to non-avian dinosaurs and discuss the different methodologies that have been used over time to define the parameters required for FEA. These include data acquisition and modeling, material properties, loading regimes, as well as the display, visualization, and validation of results. We also address both the future prospects and the limitations of this technique.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].