Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorLauren O'ConnellStanford University, Stanford, United States of America
- Senior EditorGeorge PerryPennsylvania State University, University Park, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
The authors have conducted lots of field work, lab work and statistical analysis to explore the effect of brumation on individual tissue investments, the evolutionary links between the relative costly tissue sizes, and the complex non-dependent processes of brain and reproductive evolution in anuran. The topic fits well within the scope of the journal and the manuscript is generally written well. The different parameters used in the present study will attract a board readership across ecology, zoology, evolution biology, and global change biology.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The authors set out to show how hibernation is linked to brain size in frogs. If there were broader aims it is hard to decipher them. The authors present an extremely impressive dataset and a thorough set of cutting-edge analyses. However not all details are well explained. The main result about hibernation and brain size is fairly convincing, but it is hard to think of broader implications for this study. Overall, the manuscript is very confusing and hard to follow.
