Published Peer Review History. What can you learn?

Making the review process transparent gives the scientific community a chance to learn more about how other experts are reviewing manuscripts. Read robust examples of peer review, organized by manuscript section.

FROM THE PEER REVIEWS:
Based on the information provided in the introduction, the rationale for this particular study is unclear and needs strengthening. Why do we need to understand how different factors influence the behaviour of young puppies when previous studies have shown that performance on tasks at this age has poor predictive power for later behaviour? I recommend that the authors reframe the introduction to clearly outline what research on puppy testing has already been published and why this particular study is necessary and important – I’m assuming it is to understand sources of variability so that test performance can be improved, but this isn’t clear from what is written.

Behavior test for seven-week old puppies (Canis familiaris): Inter-rater reliability and factors associated with test performance

View the full review

FROM THE PEER REVIEWS:
You really need some clear definitions of restoration early on in the introduction and need to cite the most recent SER [Society for Ecological Restoration]] guidelines. I think you need to clearly distinguish between restoration ecology and ecological restoration and define what you mean by a restoration project.

AUTHOR RESPONSE:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer and have now defined the terminology around active restoration vs rehabilitation by referring to the SER guideline documents. See LN 67 – 74, the opening lines of the introduction.

Coral reef restoration efforts in Latin American countries and territories

View the full review