“…The authors are apparently aware of the flaw with that claim as they explained in their comment: ‘Despite the fact that there is a large fraction of complete annotated phage genome entries publicly available that still do not have an article or at least a genome announcement from the peer-reviewed literature linked to them for a variety of reasons (including Psychrobacillus phages Perkons and Spoks), we believe it is incorrect to ignore the existence of such entries when analyzing the place of any newly isolated phage within the context of known phages, regardless of the phages not being mentioned anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature’ [ 1 ]. Furthermore, they tried to fill the gaps in the data by providing some experimental details relevant to the isolation of Perkons and Spoks in their comment [ 1 ]. Obviously, this latest explanatory information, though still incomplete, should have been presented in a peer-reviewed fashion when they claimed to have found the first Psychrobacillus phages.…”