Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 17, 2024
Decision Letter - Claudio D'Iglio, Editor

PONE-D-24-29709Pelagic cnidarian assemblages show range-edge effect at the boundary of ocean surface, as illustrated in the case of the Amazon River PlumePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tosetto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The MS is valuable, well written and structured, reporting essential information regarding the abundance and distribution patterns of cnidarian assemblages in the neuston layer. There are only some minor concerns that should be fixed to make the paper fully published.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudio D'Iglio, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

4. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

5. We note that [Figure 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.   

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The MS of Tosetto et al. focused on the range-edge effect of cnidarian assemblage related to the ocean surface boundary. The paper covers enough aspects to interpret their findings, and their initial hypothesis rejected with the elaborated results. It is my opinion that the paper has a good structure, with a good amount of data coming from different sampling techniques. It requires only some minor adjustments to be suitoble for the publication.

Below just few specific comments.

Specific comments

Title:

The title is clear and well frames the performed study.

Abstract:

Abstract should summarize the performed study, presenting the importance of the study. In this case authors provide an exhaustive summary of the study performed and results obtained but it is missed the aim of the study, a possible ecological application of these findings.

Keywords:

Keywords are well sorted.

Introduction:

It is suggested to add a short insight related the zoology and morphology of the cnidarian groups, could be an addition information to better understand the ecologic role of these organisms. Ecology and data analysis aspects are fully explained with a good number of cited papers, well done.

Material and methods:

It is suggested to add some picture related to instruments used in order to better explain the sampling activity; studied area, species and relative abundance, software and all statistical tests are well explained.

Results:

Lines enumeration stop at 189 (pg. 8). In the “Responses to mesoscale processes and environmental gradient” section there are two statements related to bottom depth results, which is correct? Despite of these structure mistake, results are clearly presented and well organized considering the remarkable amount of data. Well done.

Discussion:

Results are good summarized and discussed in this section with a proper interpretation of study’s findings, also a coherent and updated bibliography is reported.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study conducted by Giachini Tosetto and colleagues focuses on the abundance and distribution patterns of cnidarian assemblages in the neuston layer, contributing valuable insights to marine ecology. The authors formulated clear hypotheses, providing well-supported results that challenge initial assumptions. The structure of manuscript follows a logical progression that is clearly explained from the introduction of the research questions to the presentation of results and their implications. From a scientific point of view, the focus on the interface between oceanographic and atmospheric processes is of high relevance, and the attention paid to the range-edge effects near the Amazon River Plume adds significant depth to our understanding of the spatial distribution of these communities. The fluent use of English and technical terms characterizes the text, as well as the clear and coincise language that makes the findings accessible to readers without oversimplifying the complex processes described. The discussion is well grounded in the results, especially regarding the suggested location of the community core in deeper hypoxic waters, which is an interesting conclusion. I would just like to suggest replacing Nausithoe aurea Silveira & Morandini, 1997 with the accepted name Nausithoe maculata Jarms, 1990 (according to the World Register of Marine Species - WoRMS).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Dear Prof. Dr. Claudio D'Iglio

Please find the corrected MS of our study “Pelagic cnidarian assemblages show range-edge effect at the boundary of ocean surface, as illustrated in the case of the Amazon River Plume”.

We sincerely appreciate the useful insights provided by you and the referee to improve our study. As detailed in the rebuttal letter below (responses in bold) we took into account all corrections and suggestions to prepare the revised version of our MS.

In relation to copyright of the maps stated in the decision email, the authors produced all maps specifically for this work with QGIS (stated in the methods) which is an open source software. Therefore, there is no need of additional permissions.

We hope that you will find that the revised manuscript adequately addressed all comments and that it now is suitable for publication in Plos ONE.

We thank you very much, in advance, for the attention you will grant to our re-submission.

Editor Comments:

The MS of Tosetto et al. focused on the range-edge effect of cnidarian assemblage related to the ocean surface boundary. The paper covers enough aspects to interpret their findings, and their initial hypothesis rejected with the elaborated results. It is my opinion that the paper has a good structure, with a good amount of data coming from different sampling techniques. It requires only some minor adjustments to be suitoble for the publication.

Below just few specific comments.

Title: The title is clear and well frames the performed study.

Abstract: Abstract should summarize the performed study, presenting the importance of the study. In this case authors provide an exhaustive summary of the study performed and results obtained but it is missed the aim of the study, a possible ecological application of these findings.

R. We explicitly stated the aim of the study in the resubmitted version of the MS.

Keywords: Keywords are well sorted.

Introduction: It is suggested to add a short insight related the zoology and morphology of the cnidarian groups, could be an addition information to better understand the ecologic role of these organisms. Ecology and data analysis aspects are fully explained with a good number of cited papers, well done.

R. Thanks for the suggestion, but the ecological relevance of cnidarians was already included in the introduction (lines 69-77)

Material and methods: It is suggested to add some picture related to instruments used in order to better explain the sampling activity; studied area, species and relative abundance, software and all statistical tests are well explained.

R. Thanks for the suggestion, we included a link to the instrument manual, which has also a picture, in the resubmitted version of the MS

Results: Lines enumeration stop at 189 (pg. 8). In the “Responses to mesoscale processes and environmental gradient” section there are two statements related to bottom depth results, which is correct? Despite of these structure mistake, results are clearly presented and well organized considering the remarkable amount of data. Well done.

R. Thanks for noticing, we corrected both.

Discussion: Results are good summarized and discussed in this section with a proper interpretation of study’s findings, also a coherent and updated bibliography is reported.

Reviewer Comments:

Reviewer #1: The study conducted by Giachini Tosetto and colleagues focuses on the abundance and distribution patterns of cnidarian assemblages in the neuston layer, contributing valuable insights to marine ecology. The authors formulated clear hypotheses, providing well-supported results that challenge initial assumptions. The structure of manuscript follows a logical progression that is clearly explained from the introduction of the research questions to the presentation of results and their implications. From a scientific point of view, the focus on the interface between oceanographic and atmospheric processes is of high relevance, and the attention paid to the range-edge effects near the Amazon River Plume adds significant depth to our understanding of the spatial distribution of these communities. The fluent use of English and technical terms characterizes the text, as well as the clear and coincise language that makes the findings accessible to readers without oversimplifying the complex processes described. The discussion is well grounded in the results, especially regarding the suggested location of the community core in deeper hypoxic waters, which is an interesting conclusion. I would just like to suggest replacing Nausithoe aurea Silveira & Morandini, 1997 with the accepted name Nausithoe maculata Jarms, 1990 (according to the World Register of Marine Species - WoRMS).

R. Thanks for the positive review. We corrected Nausithoe maculata name.

Decision Letter - Claudio D'Iglio, Editor

Pelagic cnidarian assemblages show range-edge effect at the boundary of ocean surface, as illustrated in the case of the Amazon River Plume

PONE-D-24-29709R1

Dear Dr. Tosetto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Claudio D'Iglio, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Claudio D'Iglio, Editor

PONE-D-24-29709R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tosetto,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Claudio D'Iglio

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .