Authors' Response to Peer-Review Reports: https://bio.jmirx.org/2023/1/e50618/
Published Article: https://bio.jmirx.org/2023/1/e49063/
This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “The Loch Ness Monster: If It’s Real, Could It Be an Eel?”
Round 1 Review
This paper  is an interesting assessment that verifies the obvious—that any monster of ~6 m cannot be an eel (Anguilla anguilla), although there is a reasonable likelihood that eels of ~1 m could account for some of the “sightings” of elongate animals in the loch. However, even though the outcome is unsurprising, the author approaches the subject in a rigorous and systematic way. As such, the manuscript is of value in eliminating eels as possible candidate species for the mythical monster.
The manuscript is well-written and referenced.
Essential Revisions That Are Required to Verify the Manuscript
Other Suggestions to Improve the Manuscript
Verified: The content is academically sound, only minor amendments (if any) are suggested.
Conflicts of Interest
This paper was peer-reviewed by the Plan P Hashtag Community partner #PeerRef.
- Foxon F. The Loch Ness monster: if it's real, could it be an eel? JMIRx Bio 2023:e49063 [CrossRef]
Edited by G Eysenbach; This is a non–peer-reviewed article. submitted 06.07.23; accepted 06.07.23; published 21.07.23Copyright
©Don Jellyman. Originally published in JMIRx Bio (https://bio.jmirx.org), 21.07.2023.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIRx Bio, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://bio.jmirx.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.