Peer Review for Paper on Predicting a Lemur’s Lifespan in Wild and
Captivity.
Summary
This study examines factors influencing lemur lifespan in wild and captive settings using data from the Duke Lemur Center and Generalized Linear Models. Results show captive lemurs live longer due to controlled environments and medical care, with species differences significantly affecting lifespan in both groups. In the wild, sex influences longevity, with males outliving females, while birth month shows inconsistent effects across settings, emphasizing the need for species-specific conservation strategies.
Strong positive points:
The study thoroughly explores lifespan determinants for lemurs in both wild and captive settings, using well-defined variables like sex, species, and birth month. This dual-environment approach provides valuable insights into how environmental conditions and biological factors interact to influence longevity.
The use of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) with Gaussian distribution is appropriate for the continuous lifespan data, effectively capturing relationships between predictors and outcomes.
Visualization and Validation:
The paper includes clear and informative visualizations, such as lifespan distributions and coefficient plots, which effectively convey key findings.
Critical improvements needed:
The paper as a whole is complete and substantial. The abstract can be shorter and concisely express the main content of the article.
Suggestions for improvement:
Expanding the dataset to include additional environmental and behavioral variables, such as habitat quality and diet, could provide a more
comprehensive understanding of factors influencing lemur lifespan.
Discussing the limitations of the dataset, such as potential biases in captive data or underrepresented species, would enhance transparency.
Evaluation:
R/Python cited (1/1 pts)
The manuscript appropriately cites R and other libraries(eg，Python).
Data cited (1/1 pts)
Data from the Duke Lemur Center is well-documented and cited.
Class paper (1/1 pts)
No indication of class paper.
LLM documentation (1/1 pts)
The entire chat history is available in inputs/llms/usage.txt.
Title (2/2 pts)
The title is generic and could be more descriptive of the study’s focus.
Author, date, and repo (2/2 pts)
All required information is included.
Abstract (3/4 pts)
The abstract summarizes the entire paper well, but it could be more concise.
Introduction (2/4 pts)
The introduction is sparse and does not adequately describe the context of the article.
Estimand (1/1 pts)
Estimand is included in the article.
Data (10/10 pts)
The data sources and variable visualization are introduced in a relatively rich manner, and the data processing is also relatively detailed.
Measurement (3/4 pts)
The Measurement section discusses this in detail and is helpful for model building.
Model (8/10 pts)
The reasons for establishing the model are described in detail and the establishment of the model is relatively reasonable.
Results (7/10 pts)
The results section uses diagrams for summary and is quite detailed, but lacks data to support the summary.
Discussion (6/10 pts)
It is not explicitly stated in the Discussion section, but there is some analysis of the model and paper in the results section.
Prose (5/6 pts)
The article is clear and easy to read.
Cross-references (1/1 pts)
Reasonable citation
Captions (2/2 pts)
Graphs/tables/etc (4/4 pts)
The picture titles and icons are clear, the tables are formatted correctly, and they are numbered.
Surveys, sampling, and observational data appendix (8/10 pts)
The data appendix is comprehensive, the data is cleaned, and some data analysis is clear.
Referencing (4/4 pts)
The references are quite comprehensive.
Commits (2/2 pts)
Repository indicates consistent and meaningful contributions.
Sketches (2/2 pts)
Simulation (0/4 pts)
Not found in the article.
Tests (0/4 pts)
Not found in the article.
Parquet (0/1 pts)
Reproducible workflow (4/4 pts)
Workflow is reproducible with clear documentation and code.
Enhancements (4/4 pts)
Good use of additional visualizations.
Miscellaneous (3/3 pts)
Minor formatting and consistency issues.
Estimated overall mark:
85 out of 112.
Any other comments:
This is an excellent paper. It would be better if it adds some data-based analysis.
khushaal-nandwani
commented
1 day ago
Peer Review for Paper on Predicting a Lemur’s Lifespan in Wild and Captivity.
Summary
This study examines factors influencing lemur lifespan in wild and captive settings using data from the Duke Lemur Center and Generalized Linear Models. Results show captive lemurs live longer due to controlled environments and medical care, with species differences significantly affecting lifespan in both groups. In the wild, sex influences longevity, with males outliving females, while birth month shows inconsistent effects across settings, emphasizing the need for species-specific conservation strategies.
Strong positive points:
The study thoroughly explores lifespan determinants for lemurs in both wild and captive settings, using well-defined variables like sex, species, and birth month. This dual-environment approach provides valuable insights into how environmental conditions and biological factors interact to influence longevity. The use of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) with Gaussian distribution is appropriate for the continuous lifespan data, effectively capturing relationships between predictors and outcomes. Visualization and Validation: The paper includes clear and informative visualizations, such as lifespan distributions and coefficient plots, which effectively convey key findings.
Critical improvements needed:
The paper as a whole is complete and substantial. The abstract can be shorter and concisely express the main content of the article.
Suggestions for improvement:
Expanding the dataset to include additional environmental and behavioral variables, such as habitat quality and diet, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of factors influencing lemur lifespan. Discussing the limitations of the dataset, such as potential biases in captive data or underrepresented species, would enhance transparency.
Evaluation:
R/Python cited (1/1 pts) The manuscript appropriately cites R and other libraries(eg，Python).
Data cited (1/1 pts) Data from the Duke Lemur Center is well-documented and cited.
Class paper (1/1 pts) No indication of class paper.
LLM documentation (1/1 pts) The entire chat history is available in inputs/llms/usage.txt.
Title (2/2 pts) The title is generic and could be more descriptive of the study’s focus.
Author, date, and repo (2/2 pts) All required information is included.
Abstract (3/4 pts) The abstract summarizes the entire paper well, but it could be more concise.
Introduction (2/4 pts) The introduction is sparse and does not adequately describe the context of the article.
Estimand (1/1 pts) Estimand is included in the article.
Data (10/10 pts) The data sources and variable visualization are introduced in a relatively rich manner, and the data processing is also relatively detailed.
Measurement (3/4 pts) The Measurement section discusses this in detail and is helpful for model building.
Model (8/10 pts) The reasons for establishing the model are described in detail and the establishment of the model is relatively reasonable.
Results (7/10 pts) The results section uses diagrams for summary and is quite detailed, but lacks data to support the summary.
Discussion (6/10 pts) It is not explicitly stated in the Discussion section, but there is some analysis of the model and paper in the results section.
Prose (5/6 pts) The article is clear and easy to read.
Cross-references (1/1 pts) Reasonable citation
Captions (2/2 pts)
Graphs/tables/etc (4/4 pts) The picture titles and icons are clear, the tables are formatted correctly, and they are numbered.
Surveys, sampling, and observational data appendix (8/10 pts) The data appendix is comprehensive, the data is cleaned, and some data analysis is clear.
Referencing (4/4 pts) The references are quite comprehensive.
Commits (2/2 pts) Repository indicates consistent and meaningful contributions.
Sketches (2/2 pts)
Simulation (0/4 pts) Not found in the article.
Tests (0/4 pts) Not found in the article.
Parquet (0/1 pts)
Reproducible workflow (4/4 pts) Workflow is reproducible with clear documentation and code.
Enhancements (4/4 pts) Good use of additional visualizations.
Miscellaneous (3/3 pts) Minor formatting and consistency issues.
Estimated overall mark: 85 out of 112.
Any other comments: This is an excellent paper. It would be better if it adds some data-based analysis.