We’ve recently replaced Rapid PREreviews with Structured PREreviews.
You can write a Structured PREreview now.
We’ll be updating older Rapid PREreviews like these soon.
| Question | Yes | Unsure | N/A | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Are the findings novel? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the results likely to lead to future research? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the study? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the methods and statistics appropriate for the analysis? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the principal conclusions supported by the data and analysis? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript discuss limitations? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Have the authors adequately discussed ethical concerns? | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Does the manuscript include new data? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Are the data used in the manuscript available? | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Is the code used in the manuscript available? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Would you recommend this manuscript to others? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Do you recommend this manuscript for peer review? | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
I was impressed with the technique developed for the analysis of CT scans of compound eyes and the calculation of their visual properties that are reported in this preprint. Having developed a similar analysis procedure myself (Taylor et al. 2018; DOI: 10.7554/eLife.40613), I can appreciate that a…