Author: Michael Bech, et al.
Pass. WMF copyvio tool using TurnItIn. Some uncontroversial instances of standard phrasing as expected for the subject matter ("the opening of the Tethys", "teeth in the lower jaw"), otherwise unique content. --Florian (Elmidae) (talk · contribs) 14:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
First peer review
This review was submitted on 11 May 2018, and refers to this previous version of the article
The authors did a very good job given that the article is well-organized and relatively thorough. Yet, some sections can be improved and expanded, and the text can certainly be better referenced. I would, therefore, like to review the revised version of this article a second time before its publication. Here are the major points that I wish to see addressed by the authors before publication:
- Please first describe the skull of Baryonyx then the postcranium. Expand the description of the postcranium to include succinct information on the braincase, tall dorsal neural spine, pelvis, hindlimbs and tail based on the comparison with the closely related taxon Suchomimus. Please also mention the preserved bones of the holotype in the descriptive part of the article.
- Please mention the abstract of Munt et al. (2017) on the additional Baryonyx material recently unearthed from the Isle of Wight. They have been illustrated in their poster available on their ResearchGate profile.
- Develop the historical section on the discovery of Suchosaurus. This story is particularly interesting in regards to discovery of the first theropod remains and the first theropod to be named.
- Provide a brief list of synapomorphies for Spinosaurinae and Baryonychinae.
- Provide additional information on the palaeobiogeography and extinction of Spinosauridae based on the recent work of Candeiro et al. (2017).
- Discuss the hump/sail hypothesis (Bailey, 1997; Gimsa et al. 2015) proposed to explain the hypertrophied dorsal neural spines of Spinosauridae in a small paragraph.
- Cite and briefly mention the recent study of Sales et al. (2016) and Hassler et al. (2018) on Spinosauridae in the palaeogeography and palaeobiology sections.
See attached pdf file for detailed in-text comments.
Second peer review
This review was submitted on 13 May 2018, and refers to this previous version of the article
I think most of the writing is decent, and information is there. I would suggest that the authors have a look at making sure all statements are referenced appropriately throughout the manuscript. This would be of particular interest for areas where each sentence has a statement, but the reference doesn’t appear until the end of the paragraph. Can I also suggest there is consistency with regards to referencing authors/studies. Some studies get full author names (e.g. Charig and Milner found) others are just described as “a study found” without any obvious reason as to why.
I would also suggest that there could be a better ordering/rearranging of the manuscript as the description, history and classification sections present information that might belong in the others. In fact, I think the best solution might just be a rearrangement so it is ordered history, description and classification in that order.
I think the opening section should have references throughout which currently is unreferenced.
I would remove conference abstracts as they aren’t fully published data (or you need to add in a lot more abstracts e.g. Fowler D, 2007. Recently rediscovered baryonychine teeth (Dinosauria: Theropoda): new morphologic data, range extension and similarity to ceratosaurs)
Additionally there is a new reference that has appeared during the review period that pertains to aquatic habits of spinosaurs from Aureliano et al., 2018., (Semi-aquatic adaptations in a spinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of Brazil. Cretaceous Research. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2018.04.024.) that deserves checking/mentioning.
This text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License.