Digitization of the Marine Herbarium “TAR” to Increase Biodiversity Knowledge
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article gives information on the digitization of a unique Italian phycological collection. It will be of interest to phycologists who were previously unfamiliar with this collection and maybe to phycological collections that are contemplating a digitization program.
The article would be more useful if it focussed on any unique or distinctive challenges of digitizing algal specimens, and if it gave some more detailed task analysis data of the digitization steps, and predicted rates of work.
There are a few minor comments on the pdf
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are a few areas where the English could be improved. These are marked on the pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
we appreciate your constructive suggestions that helped improve the manuscript. Reviewer 4's suggestion to include the species list as supplementary material was particularly helpful, as it enabled us to correct several errors in the species count that were made during the rush to meet the submission deadline. The revised total species and Rhodophyta numbers are now on page 5, lines 188, and in Table 1 of the updated document.
The numeration of pages and lines below refers to the document you revised. There are no corresponding items in the revised version due to the changes made. After adding two new bibliographic references to address the reviewers' requests, the quotation numbers were also changed.
Referee 1
The article would be more useful if it focussed on any unique or distinctive challenges of digitizing algal specimens, and if it gave some more detailed task analysis data of the digitization steps, and predicted rates of work.
An additional paragraph on the usefulness of the digitization of seaweed herbaria, with the relative references, was included in the Introduction section (page 3 lines 97-104)
page 2 line 42 The number is currently almost 4000
The number of world herbaria was updated and the bibliografic quotation (Thiers 2021 to 2024) changed (page 2 line 42)
page 2 line 56 It might be useful somewhere to point out any differences between phycological specimens and their metadata from other herbarium specimens. For example, difference descriptors for collection locality (eg/ littoral, floating, water depths, etc.)
A brief paragraph was added reporting this piece of information (page 2 lines 70-75)
page 3 line 109 "dressers" is probably not the right word in English -- we would use "cabinet" or "case"
Dressers was changed in cabinets (page 3 line 121)
page 7 line 191 should be 72 metadata elements
“elements” was added (page 8 line 244)
page 8 line 205 something wrong with the English here
The entire paragraph was rewritten (page 9 lines 260-263)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors, This is very important research you are presenting. The value of biological collections is extremely important.I have several suggestions; these are highlighted in green in the manuscript. Please check the number of scanned images; it doesn't add up to the same number. Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
we appreciate your constructive suggestions that helped improve the manuscript. Reviewer 4's suggestion to include the species list as supplementary material was particularly helpful, as it enabled us to correct several errors in the species count that were made during the rush to meet the submission deadline. The revised total species and Rhodophyta numbers are now on page 5, lines 188, and in Table 1 of the updated document.
The numeration of pages and lines below refers to the document you revised. There are no corresponding items in the revised version due to the changes made. After adding two new bibliographic references to address the reviewers' requests, the quotation numbers were also changed.
Referee 2
Dear authors, This is very important research you are presenting. The value of biological collections is extremely important.
I have several suggestions; these are highlighted in green in the manuscript. Please check the number of scanned images; it doesn't add up to the same number. Best regards
page 1 line 18 Check this number
The number 353 refers to the number of digital specimens obtained at the end of the digitization process, while 394 is the number of the sheets that were digitized. The different number is a result of combining some sheets with the same MIDS, as explained on page 4 (lines 176-177) of the Results section. To avoid confusion, we preferred to change the legend and the column header in Table 1.
page 4 line 152 What kind of review? Is it about misapplied names?
A few lines were added (page 4 lines 173-175) to explain. Moreover, two lines were added at the end of the Conclusion section (page 10 lines 321-322) to confirm that these specimens will be analysed asap to complete the digitization process.
page 4 line 156 And what about 1982 and 1984, clarify both years. And the period before 2009?
page 4 line 157 To expand on the explanation in this section, it's very general. For example, Figure 2 shows the years with the best harvests, and the years in which they were poor. What is the reason for this?
To answer these questions, we widened the argument already reported in the Discussion (page 9, lines 275-281) of the revised manuscript
page 5 table 1 The sum gives me 394, please check
The number was not changed, and the explanation is reported above
page 7 line 192 394?
The number (page 8 line 245) was not changed and the explanation is reported above
page 9 line 282 highlight the letter h in blue
Modified as suggested (page 11 line 348)
page 9 line 284 the comma is missing after the surname
Modified as suggested (page 11 line 350)
page 10 line 300 the period is missing after the letter j
Modified as suggested (page 11 line 365)
page 10 line 321 no comma after the journal name
Modified as suggested (page 12 line 387)
page 11 line 332 Write a semicolon after the letter E and comma after Chapman
Modified as suggested (page 12 line 397)
page 11 line 353 Missing commas, semicolons, please check
Modified as suggested (page 13 line 418)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider of great interest the dissemination in scientific journals of advances in the computerisation and digitisation of specimens from groups that are underrepresented in biodiversity repositories. This also applies to collections of modest size and mainly local range, such as the TAR herbarium. This journal has recently published some work on these topics (Santos et al., herb. LISI).
However, the paper on the TAR herbarium has a significant problem: according to current standards, the project to digitise and make the collection available cannot be considered achieved, as the complete dataset of the collection is not available in GBIF (or any other platform): only data on one family with 17 species, and no images. The paper would therefore mean a preview while awaiting the publication of all the analyzed data and associated images.
In my opinion, the paper could be published when the collection is fully available on GBIF (or perhaps another platform?). Aside from updating the link, the current text would require some improvements, such as providing information both about the collectors, and the context of the collections, especially those from the Taranto Sea (result of sporadic visits or exhaustive sampling?). Since the materials are relatively recent, I think it would be possible to obtain this kind of information. Otherwise, the description of the project context and the digitization process are clear and well structured, as does the geographic, temporal, and taxonomic characterization of the collection.
See also the revised version attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we appreciate yourconstructive suggestions that helped improve the manuscript. Reviewer 4's suggestion to include the species list as supplementary material was particularly helpful, as it enabled us to correct several errors in the species count that were made during the rush to meet the submission deadline. The revised total species and Rhodophyta numbers are now on page 5, lines 188, and in Table 1 of the updated document.
The numeration of pages and lines below reported is referred to the document revised by each reviewer. There are no corresponding items in the revised version due to the changes made. After adding two new bibliographic references to address the reviewers' requests, the quotation numbers were also changed.
Referee 3
I consider of great interest the dissemination in scientific journals of advances in the computerisation and digitisation of specimens from groups that are underrepresented in biodiversity repositories. This also applies to collections of modest size and mainly local range, such as the TAR herbarium. This journal has recently published some work on these topics (Santos et al., herb. LISI).
However, the paper on the TAR herbarium has a significant problem: according to current standards, the project to digitise and make the collection available cannot be considered achieved, as the complete dataset of the collection is not available in GBIF (or any other platform): only data on one family with 17 species, and no images. The paper would therefore mean a preview while awaiting the publication of all the analyzed data and associated images.
In my opinion, the paper could be published when the collection is fully available on GBIF (or perhaps another platform?). Aside from updating the link, the current text would require some improvements, such as providing information both about the collectors, and the context of the collections, especially those from the Taranto Sea (result of sporadic visits or exhaustive sampling?). Since the materials are relatively recent, I think it would be possible to obtain this kind of information. Otherwise, the description of the project context and the digitization process are clear and well structured, as does the geographic, temporal, and taxonomic characterization of the collection.
See also the revised version attached.
We modified the text (page 10 lines 315-316), confirming that the digitized collection will be soon fully available on GBIF
page 4 line 158 Please, add some comments (and numbers) on the collectors, and on the context of the collections.
A few lines have been added (page 5 lines 180-182).
page 5 line 168 "(see an example in Figure 3)" or similar
Modified as suggested (page 5 line 195, 197, 199)
page 5 lines 176-178 Better absolute numbers (and percents in brackets)
Absolute numbers were added and percent moved into brackets (page 5-6 lines 201-202, 204-207)
page 6 line 187 In which years?
A column was added into Table 3 (before Table 2) reporting all the years of each NIS collection
page 7 line 189 from
Modified as suggested (page 8 line 242)
page 8 line 222 Dou you think that the sampling has been exhaustive enough to state this?
We hope that adding more details about the long-term activities of the Phycology Laboratory, as requested by another reviewer, makes the claim's veracity more evident (see page 9 lines 275-281)
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting and the paper is very well structured, presenting valuable information in this field work. The article is adequately related to the relevant literature. The paper needs improvements of the data that are presented.
- Provide functional links (see comments in the text – materials and methods)
- In order to improve the quality of the manuscript, please provide graphs and additional data (see comments in the text)
- Insert abbreviations section at the end of the article, before references
The cited references are relevant and support any claims made in the article.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we appreciate yourconstructive suggestions that helped improve the manuscript. Reviewer 4's suggestion to include the species list as supplementary material was particularly helpful, as it enabled us to correct several errors in the species count that were made during the rush to meet the submission deadline. The revised total species and Rhodophyta numbers are now on page 5, lines 188, and in Table 1 of the updated document.
The numeration of pages and lines below reported is referred to the document revised by each reviewer. There are no corresponding items in the revised version due to the changes made. After adding two new bibliographic references to address the reviewers' requests, the quotation numbers were also changed.
Referee 4
The topic is interesting and the paper is very well structured, presenting valuable information in this field work. The article is adequately related to the relevant literature. The paper needs improvements of the data that are presented.
- Provide functional links (see comments in the text – materials and methods)
- In order to improve the quality of the manuscript, please provide graphs and additional data (see comments in the text)
- Insert abbreviations section at the end of the article, before references
The cited references are relevant and support any claims made in the article.
page 1 line 2 You should include the full name of Herbarium - Istituto Sperimentale Talassografico of Taranto
The full name was not reported here to avoid a too long title. As suggested, all the full names were reported in an abbreviation section before References to make the text more readable
page 1 line 12 add the full name of this abbreviation for the first time, and then you can use just the abbreviation - Probably National Resilience and Recovery Plan
The full name was not reported here to fulfill the 200 word limit. It was now reported in the added abbreviation section suggested.
page 1 line 15 firstly, you should mention the full name of the herbarium (Istituto Sperimentale Talassografico ofTaranto) and then you can use just the abbreviation TAR.
The full name was not reported here to fulfill the 200 word limit. It was now reported in the added abbreviation section suggested.
page 1 line 17 add the full name of this abbreviation for the first time, and then you can use just the abbreviation.
The full name was not reported here to fulfill the 200 word limit. It was now reported in the added abbreviation section suggested.
page 1 line 21 firstly, you should mention the full name of this data base (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) and then you can use just the abbreviation GBIF.
The full name was not reported here to fulfill the 200 word limit. It was now reported in the added abbreviation section suggested.
page 3 line 97 NSCs
It was not modified as suggested, since it is referred to the Herbarium TAR (page 3 line 109)
page 4 line 145 this link is not available. provide a functional link
The functional link to the ISO home page was included (page 4 line 165)
page 5 line 161 Provide a list with the scientific name/family/phylum of all the digitized species (as supplementary file). Provide data regarding species listed in IUCN Red List (if they are such species)
Table A1 was added as suggested
page 5 Table 1 provide a graph/table with each phylum and all the families
Table 2 was added with all the families for each phylum, as suggested (page 6 lines 208-232)
page 5 lines 167, 168, 170 provide a specific graph for this data
This information was included into the new Table 2. A graph, either an istogram or a pie chart, with all the families was poorly readable, especially for Rhodophyta.
page 6 line 183 delete bracket
Modified as suggested (page 7 line 237)
page 7 line 198 provide accurate data
A more complete information about details at level 2 of MIDS was added (page 8 lines 252-255)
page 7 line 202 put full stop after family
The full stop was added (page 8 line 258)
page 8 line 215 Research
Modified as suggested (page 8 line 271)
page 8 line 216 Ecosystem
Modified as suggested (page 8 line 272)
page 9 line 274 Insert abbreviations section before references
This section was added according to the journal rules (page 10 lines 337-339)
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the dataset has not yet been published on GBIF or other platforms, in my opinion the supplementary information provided and the improvements to the text make the publication of the paper feasible. Let me insist again on the importance of making the complete collection data available online as soon as possible.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments.
