Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PERCEIVED STRESS AND RESILIENCE LEVELS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AMONG CRITICAL CARE NURSES IN SAUDI ARABIA: A CORRELATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In abstract you mentioned ‘The COVID-19 pandemic is a horrific phenomenon…’. This is a vague statement, not scientific, perhaps suitable for newspaper article. Please specify.
This manuscript needs English editing. For example, in abstract you mentioned ‘The fact that critical care nurses have reported high levels of stress even before the COVID-19 pandemic is compounding the situation, compared to any other nursing specialty.’ This sentence is not clear. I understood what do you want to say but there’s problem in your sentence construction.
You mentioned ‘Data analysed using descriptive and inferential analysis.’ This is not enough. Please specify your analysis.
Before you mention association between stress and resilience, you need to present findings of resilience which you did later.
In conclusion you mentioned ‘Though the results showed high level of resilience and less stress compared’ but your results say a different story. Your conclusion must be based on your results.
In introduction, you provided outdated information. Please update your information with latest publications such as:
1.	Rahman, M.A., Islam, S.M.S., Tungpunkom, P. et al. COVID-19: Factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies among community members across 17 countries. Global Health 17, 117 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00768-3
2.	Shimul SN, Alradie-Mohamed A, Kabir R, Al-Mohaimeed A, Mahmud I (2021) Effect of easing lockdown and restriction measures on COVID-19 epidemic projection: A case study of Saudi Arabia. PLOS ONE 16(9): e0256958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256958
3.	Mahmud I, Al-Mohaimeed A. COVID-19: Utilizing local experience to suggest optimal global strategies to prevent and control the pandemic. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2020 May-Jun;14(3):1-3. PMID: 32536840; PMCID: PMC7269624.
Experimental design: You have done a cross-sectional survey. Please mention this in your methods.
You mentioned that you calculated your sample size using the EpiInfo but you did not mention your sample size suggested by this calculation. Did you send email invitation to all critical care nurses? If yes, there is no point of sample size calculation.
In abstract you classified stress as no, mild, moderate, high and very high. However, in methods you did not mention anything about this classification. You only mentioned about high stress.
You must clearly discuss your classification system for stress and resilience with citations.
You do not need to say that you have used inferential statistics. Please specify the analyses you did. What types of regression?
You mentioned:  Interval scale and interpretation:
No stress/very low= 1-1.80, low= 1.81-2.60; moderate= 2.61-3.40; high =3.41-4.20; severe =4.21-5. Sum of scores were used to determine the resilience and mean scores were further used to categorize the levels of resilience.
These contradict your earlier writing where you mentioned ‘The scores range between 0 and 40, scores equal to 25 or higher were considered as high perceived stress associated with COVID-19’. Please clearly discuss your classification system with citations.
You did not discuss classification system for resilience.
Validity of the findings: Please do not repeat your findings in discussion. You do not need to present your p values in discussion. Summerize your key findings and discuss your key findings in relation to available literature.
Please also discuss your study limitations and implications of your results.
Conclusion
Limitations and recommendations need to be discussed before conclusion with further details. Do not give p values in conclusion. Mention your most important findings and take home message based on your study.
Additional comments: Authors need to improve their English. A professional English editing might be useful.
They must improved their argument with updated literature support.
Methods must be improved and inconsistencies between methods results must be avoided.
Discussion needs major improvement. Avoiding presenting detail findings including p values instead discuss and explain your findings in the context of available literature.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PERCEIVED STRESS AND RESILIENCE LEVELS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AMONG CRITICAL CARE NURSES IN SAUDI ARABIA: A CORRELATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Intro & background to show context. In the introduction the connection from 1st to 2nd paragraph is not the best. Should be another paragraph or improve the flow in the text.

Your introduction needs stronger flow. I suggest that you improve the description at lines 52-56 and connect the 1st and 2nd paragraph smoothly.
Line 91 where mentioned that it is essential for critical care compare to the rest health care providers, you may explain why?

 The English language is good in general and some minor modifications are added as comments in the text.
Experimental design: The Research question well defined, relevant Literature well referenced.
Validity of the findings: The author needs to outline the specific sampling methodology (purposive or randomized sampling).
Rigorous investigation performed to a Figures are relevant, high quality, technical & ethical standard, labelled & described.

I thank you for providing the raw data.  Some of your results could have been presented in pie graphs.
Additional comments: The manuscript is clearly written and the suggested comments and feedback provided before the Acceptance.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THREE NEW PENICILLIUM SPECIES ISOLATED FROM THE TIDAL FLATS OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors present the identification of three new species of Penicillium isolated from tidal flats of China.
The manuscript is mostly well written in professional English and in an ordered manner that makes it easy to follow. Some grammatical errors are found that should be corrected before publication. For example, (errors marked between parentheses):

Lines 44-46. Either a word is missing in the first line ("...coastal environments ARE based on both...") or the phrase is incomplete/truncated at the end.

Lines 46-47. Singular/plurals are mixed: "...carried out an extensive studies..." should be either "...carried out extensive studies..." or "...carried out an extensive study...".

These are just two examples but there are others. The full manuscript should be thoroughly checked to detect any other grammatical errors before it is ready for publication.

To the best of my knowledge, the appropriate literature has been cited.

Regarding the overall presentation of the manuscript, my only other concern is the final presentation of contrasting/identifying characteristics of the new species. A table summarizing what is explained in the discussion section would be of great aid. Also, highlighting the size bar for figure 1 (maybe changing to bold) would also be beneficial (it is hard to find as it is).
Experimental design: The experimental design of the isolation, molecular identification, and morphological characterization are well planned but some extra clarifications should be included.

Lines 91-95. The names of the primers used for each case should be included (it could be a table). For example, White et al. (1990) report 5 primers for amplification of the spacer region. It is not clear which pair of these 5 primers were used since two combinations are able to amplify the full region (i.e., ITS5-ITS4 or ITS1-ITS4).

Lines 95-96. To help make the manuscript self-contained please add the Tm used for each set of primers (this could be included in the proposed table).

Lines 111-112. Authors state that "sequences were aligned with MUSCLE or ClusalW implemented in MEGA6". For which sequences/regions was MUSCLE used and for which cases was ClustalW used? Also, the used parameters for each one should be noted (if default parameters were used this should be explicitly stated).

Lines 115-116. How were the substitution models and rates among sites chosen? If the "find best DNA model" tool of MEGA was used this should be stated. Also, the parameters used for the best model search should be included.
Validity of the findings: Regarding the analysis of the phylogenetic results, I have one concern about the ITS region.

Authors state that the ITS phylogram "does not show any clades the new species belong to" (lines 140-141) and that "Although the ITS phylogram also supports this clade, the two strains of P. hepuense AS3.16039 and AS3.16040 are separated, so only the three protein genes were used in the analysis of concatenated loci (Fig. 1, Figs S1–4).". The amplicons for the ITS regions are 800 bp long (lines 132-133) but once aligned the remaining sequences after trimming are quite short (363 nt). After reviewing their supplemental data I noticed that the sequences contain almost only the 5.8S region. Most of the ITS1 and ITS2 regions are truncated.  Since the 5.8S region is very conserved and slowly evolving, only a handful of sites are phylogenetically informative, and not enough resolving power is available.
If the ends of the sequences were trimmed due to poor alignments, a different algorithm should be tried. ClustalW and MUSCLE have been shown to perform poorly for ITS regions (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23185439/). I recommend using instead MAFFT with the E-INS-i option (https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/).
If, on the other hand, the ends were trimmed due to incomplete sequencing or bad quality at the extremes this should be stated.
Although the other marker regions provide good support for the placement of the three new species, care should be taken to correctly try to make the best use of the ITS sequences or point out its incompleteness.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THREE NEW PENICILLIUM SPECIES ISOLATED FROM THE TIDAL FLATS OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is reporting three new species of Penicillium. The methodology is sound and the descriptions and illustrations are OK. I only criticise that of the two new species there is only one strains so more detailed comparison between other taxa and variability within the taxon is not possible. I also notice that the strains are not deposited in recognized culture collection so the specimens or cultures are not available to the international community. The referecnes to the literature should be updated. Some articles and books have recently been published.
Experimental design: Experimental design is OK
Validity of the findings: The report of the newly described species is OK
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THREE NEW PENICILLIUM SPECIES ISOLATED FROM THE TIDAL FLATS OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: * Grammar needs a lot of work. There are also many names spelled incorrectly, e.g. Gibberella.
* Don’t believe that it is good enough to only say that ‘Genomic DNA extraction was performed according to Wang and Zhuang (2004)’. Unless Wang and Zhuang designed a new extraction method, please add details of the method used. The same for the PCR conditions.
Experimental design: * Primer information is missing, e.g. what primers were used? Glass and Donaldson 1995 have more than one primer combination for BenA.
* Based on the text, it is difficult to follow what phylogenies were calculated.
Validity of the findings: * My biggest problem with the manuscript in this form, is the fact that sequences of the proposed new species were compared with only ex-types of close relatives. This is in my opinion a bad approach as we don’t know what the infra species variation is like in these clades. In both cases, there are more sequences available on GenBank that can be included in the phylogenies.
Additional comments: In the introduction:
* Please make sure to check the numbers presented in Hawksworth and Lucking. It is not 12000 species described.
* Please expand why NGS cannot perform accurate species identifications.
* Add how many species of Penicillium is known. Also, why would we expect there to be many more undiscovered species?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THREE NEW PENICILLIUM SPECIES ISOLATED FROM THE TIDAL FLATS OF CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed all my concerns and suggestions.
Experimental design: The authors have addressed all my concerns and suggestions.
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed all my concerns and suggestions.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THREE NEW PENICILLIUM SPECIES ISOLATED FROM THE TIDAL FLATS OF CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: * The authors made several good additions, however, some of my original concerns remain. The paper is difficult to read and still contains many spelling and grammatical errors that must be attended to before publishing.
* Gibberella is not a genus name used for many years since the adoption of the One Fungus One Name concept. Please use the correct genus name.
* For primers: “primers AD1, AD2 and Q1, Q2 for the partial calmodulin gene (CaM)” and “T1, T2 and E1, E2 for the partial DNA-dependent RNA polymerase II second largest subunit gene (Rpb2)”. Which primers were actually used?
* For the concatenated phylogeny, the authors did not specify whether each gene region was treated as separate partitions.
* Keeping to the phylogenies, please keep the single gene trees also in the main paper. No need to have them as supplementary. Also, for these, why are the good reference strains that is available not included in especially the single gene trees? There are several more strains available for closely related species that have both BenA and RPB2. I include here the other reference sequences that are available
    * Aspergillus_yunnanensis_CGMCC3.19711T__ITS_MN066373_BenA_MN072909_CaM_MN072911_RPB2_MN072913
    * Aspergillus_yunnanensis_CGMCC3.19712__ITS_MN066374_BenA_MN072910_CaM_MN072912_RPB2_MN072914
    * Penicillium_yunnanense_NN051336-1__ITS_KY494989_BenA_KY495098_CaM_KY494929_RPB2_
    * Penicillium_yunnanense_CBS144485T__ITS_KY494990_BenA_KY495099_CaM_MN969340_RPB2_KY495048
    * Penicillium_soosanum_CCF3905__ITS_FJ430746_BenA_FM865812_CaM__RPB2_LT797562
    * Penicillium_soosanum_CCF3776__ITS_LT797554_BenA_HE651132_CaM__RPB2_LT797563
    * Penicillium_soosanum_CCF3778T__ITS_FJ430745_BenA_FM865811_CaM_LT970913_RPB2_LT797561
    * Aspergillus_ivoriensis_CBS551.77T__ITS_EF652441_BenA_EF652265_CaM_EF652353_RPB2_EF652177
    * Aspergillus_raperi_NRRL2640__ITS_EF652453_BenA_EF652277_CaM_EF652365_RPB2_EF652189
    * Aspergillus_raperi_CBS123.56T__ITS_EF652454_BenA_EF652278_CaM_EF652366_RPB2_EF652190
    * Aspergillus_raperi_NRRL5039__ITS_EF652496_BenA_EF652320_CaM_EF652408_RPB2_EF652232
    * Penicillium_raperi_PPRI9606_CMV006H9__ITS_MK450712_BenA_MK451105_CaM_MK451641_RPB2_MK450850
    * Penicillium_raperi_PPRI25781_CMV006G7__ITS_MK450711_BenA_MK451101_CaM_MK451640_RPB2_MK450849
    * Penicillium_raperi_PPRI9609_CMV006I2__ITS_MK450714_BenA_MK451107_CaM_MK451643_RPB2_
    * Penicillium_raperi_PPRI9611_CMV006I1__ITS_MK450713_BenA_MK451106_CaM_MK451642_RPB2_
    * Penicillium_raperi_PPRI25889_CMV012C2__ITS_MK450715_BenA_MK451243_CaM_MK451644_RPB2_
    * Penicillium_raperi_CBS281.58T__ITS_AF033433_BenA_GU981622_CaM_MN969291_RPB2_KF296453
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_CCF3906__ITS_FJ430747_BenA_HE651136_CaM__RPB2_LT797557
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_CCF3779__ITS_HE651147_BenA_HE651137_CaM__RPB2_LT797558
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_CCF3780__ITS_HE651148_BenA_HE651138_CaM__RPB2_LT797559
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_CCF4379__ITS_HE651151_BenA_HE651134_CaM__RPB2_LT797556
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_CCF3907__ITS_FJ430749_BenA_FM865813_CaM__RPB2_LT797555
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_MH248__ITS_HE651150_BenA_HE651135_CaM__RPB2_
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_MH285__ITS_HE651149_BenA_HE651139_CaM__RPB2_
    * Penicillium_diatomitis_CCF3904T__ITS_FJ430748_BenA_HE651133_CaM_LT970912_RPB2_LT797560
    * Penicillium_koreense_PPRI25780_CMV006G6__ITS_MK450699_BenA_MK451100_CaM_MK451623_RPB2_MK450842
    * Penicillium_koreense_KACC46682__ITS_KM048199_BenA_KM000844_CaM__RPB2_
    * Penicillium_koreense_KACC47720__ITS_KM048200_BenA_KM000845_CaM__RPB2_
    * Penicillium_koreense_KACC47722__ITS_KM048201_BenA_KM000847_CaM__RPB2_
    * Penicillium_koreense_KACC47721T__ITS_KJ801939_BenA_KM000846_CaM_MN969317_RPB2_MN969159
* The diagnoses provided for the new species do not actually distinguish them from closely related species. Can the authors rather focus on discussing the morphological differences between these species?
* Morphological comparisons of new species to close relatives: Please cite appropriate references. e.g. From the text, it is not clear who reported P. raperi as having ‘conidiophore elements’ sized 1.3-2.2? The use of ‘fast growth’ is not appropriate and only relative. I prefer the use of ‘faster growth than’.
* “…it grows more slowly on MEA at 25 °C than the other members (26–29 mm vs. 25–62 mm for P. oxalicum”. Growth thus still in the range of P. oxalicum? Similarly, “on shorter stipes (120–240 μm vs. 75–550 μm).” these ranges overlaps? Please rephrase where these types of statements are made
* I would be careful of these types of statements “Though the NGS using Illumina sequencing platform was widely used in the metabarcoding studies on environmental mycobiota, flaws exist in each step of the workflow.” without providing citations or what is meant. Metabarcoding is incredibly powerful to study diversity.
Experimental design: See above
Validity of the findings: I believe the species are new, but the data, analyses and comparisons are not up to standard. See comments above.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: COVID-19 MORTALITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH PRE-EXISTING IMPAIRED INNATE IMMUNITY IN HEALTH CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The present study examines the relationship between COVID-19 mortality and pre-existing impaired innate immunity.
2. Paper reports the analyzed transcriptomics data to find the differentially expressed genes between individuals affected versus unaffected for each pre-existing health condition. Next, the paper examined the relationship between the differentially expressed genes and the increased risk of COVID-19 related death.
3. The paper uses clear, unambiguous, and professional language throughout.
4. In this paper, there is sufficient background information to show how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge.
5. In general, the paper is self-contained and includes all results relevant to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: Strengths:
1. The paper includes clearly describes the introduction, methods, and major findings.
2. The paper performs sound statistical analysis and reports the details enough to replicate the study.
3. Conclusions are supported by the evidence presented in the paper.
4. The paper describes the knowledge gap associated with pre-existing health conditions and COVID-19 mortality. There are many similar publications to this one, but the current paper presents novel results and interpretations of those results.
5. In addition paper includes the "in-silico" validation of the findings using the public dataset.
Validity of the findings: 1. Utilizing the enriched gene sets and the R function cnetplot(), the paper describes the network analysis of the gene sets. The results were used to associate the enriched gene sets with the functional labels and clusters. In any case, the results of these analyses should be taken with a grain of salt as they are qualitative. To quantify the strength and statistical validity, quantitative analysis is recommended. Using the NbClust (Charrad et al. 2014) package of R, the optimum number of clusters can be calculated. Using the Goodman-Kruskal-gamma index (Baker 1974), the obtained dendrograms can be compared directly. Therefore, the subjective interpretation of the network analysis can be made objective.
2. Other related literature reports similar findings such as Treskova-Schwarzbac et al., 2021 in BMC Medicine, which, however, limits the impact of the primary findings of this paper.
Additional comments: The paper is well written and follows a logical flow. Many of its methods are sound, and it provides enough details to make it reproducible.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: COVID-19 MORTALITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH PRE-EXISTING IMPAIRED INNATE IMMUNITY IN HEALTH CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Minor:
Line plots, Fig. 2B and 2D and Fig. 4B: Are the lines connecting each point from each pre-existing health condition? Showing points may be useful to know observed HR and FC.
Experimental design: 1. Abstract and Introduction: Please clarify the purpose of the study. I was confused. Was the purpose (1) to identify gene expression patterns that are different between pre-existing health conditions because their HRs varies (Abstract lines 8-9, lines 19-20 and lines 42-44), (2) to identify gene expression patterns that are unique to those who are susceptible to get severe COVID for each pre-existing health conditions, because individuals have a different chance of the outcome (Abstract line 1-2, lines 23-32, lines 48-51, and lines 55-56), or, (3) to identify the pattern of gene expression changes before and after COVID (lines 34-40 and lines 84-94 in Methods)? Due to unclear purpose of the study, following the interpretation of each data analysis in the Results section was difficult.
2. Line 96-: I could not comprehend the interpretation of gene expression fold change (FC) similarity among different pre-existing health conditions. For each pre-existing health condition, FC was calculated using individuals with and without COVID. Then, genes with similar FC among pre-existing health conditions were identified. Biologically, what would similar FC indicate in this case? The comparison of FC among different pre-existing health conditions is confounded. For example, different pre-existing health conditions may have different gene expression patterns without COVID. Then, COVID may result in making similar gene expression levels regardless of the expression level without COVID. So, similar FC among different pre-existing health conditions may have different gene expression levels with COVID, and different FC may have similar gene expression levels with COVID. Clarification of the logic behind this analysis will be helpful.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors analyzed hazard ratios of COVID-19 mortality of fourteen pre-existing health conditions. Using transcriptomics data, differentially expressed genes between individuals with and without COVID were identified. They found a correlation between altered gene expression patterns and hazard ratios of COVID-19 mortality. Also, they found that some gene expression pattern differences between with and without COVID were similar among different pre-existing health conditions. They further found that these genes were associated with viral replication and innate immune responses. Their results are very interesting.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: COVID-19 MORTALITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH PRE-EXISTING IMPAIRED INNATE IMMUNITY IN HEALTH CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: My concerns have been addressed by the authors, and all my suggested changes have been implemented in the paper. There are no further comments.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: COVID-19 MORTALITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH PRE-EXISTING IMPAIRED INNATE IMMUNITY IN HEALTH CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I appreciate the authors' clarification. I do not have any further concerns.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: BACTERIAL PROFILE OF BOVINE MASTITIS IN ETHIOPIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: ok

English needs some work to fix punctuation issues and to check all taxonomic names of all species.

Depict 95% CI consistently in a single format throughout the text.

Figures legends need to be more detailed.
Experimental design: ok
Validity of the findings: ok
Additional comments: Could Figures 4 & 5 be ordered (plotted) by year (decreasing or increasing order)?

I would suggest that the discussion be focused on comparing and contrasting the findings here, without re-instating the results in it.

One point that could enrich the discussion is the potential for bacterial lineage variation across species. For instance, the bacterial population structure can often be stratified at the level of ST or sequence types. Are there any molecular epidemiology data suggesting the spread of single or multiple lineages across the country?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: BACTERIAL PROFILE OF BOVINE MASTITIS IN ETHIOPIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Tora and colleagues present a systematic review of the current literature reporting the prevalence and diagnostics of bovine mastitis in Ethiopia. Also, a meta-analysis was conducted to analyze plausible causes of disease dissemination. I find strengths in this study relevant, for instance, the careful assessment of the literature and the well-designed and conducted statistical analysis. The weakness that this reviewer finds is the writing in some parts that are confusing or contain grammar issues. The findings presented here I agree with the authors that may lead to better policies and redirect resources to tackle the incidence of bovine mastitis.
Experimental design: The criteria used for selecting the reports of bovine mastitis is sound. The statistical analysis is adequate. The only issue this reviewer finds is that the graph in Figure 3 contains a trend line that does not clearly state the purpose. Also, the bias analysis is not clearly described. By going into the raw data, I figured out this, but the conclusions drawn from the data are not clear.
Validity of the findings: The methodology used to generate the review supports the findings reported here, and I believe, makes a solid case for better policymaking. Also, the data is relevant when compared with other countries that take decisive actions against bovine mastitis. In the general comments, I include some specific issues that need attention.
Additional comments: I find that from 2019 to 2022 there are more new reports on bovine mastitis in Ethiopia but as authors state, there is a lacking a comprehensive review summarizing the data from different regions and prevalence.
In the following lines, I provide some suggestions to the manuscript.
Line 9, please correct to “…loss directly attributed to a devastating disease…”
Line 12, please add “has not been established…”
In Line 15, please add bovine mastitis.
Line 18, please replace besides with Additionally,
Line 20, please add “in the English language”
Line 21, please add “…and for the etiology being identified as bacterial mastitis”
Line 30, this reviewer does not fully understand the meaning of this line. Do authors refer to prevalence in the sampled cows? Or they refer to the truly diagnosed cases? Please verify.
In line 31, please write the full names of the species found. In line 36, S. aureus, S. epidermis can be used. Also, “coagulase” should not be in italics.
Line 44 please correct to “a huge national”
Line 59 please add “of dairy cows”
Line 80, please state what an unacceptable age is in this context.
Line 81, please correct “have reported”
Line 86, please correct to as reported, the second ranked…
Line 97, please correct to … bacterial mastitis, the types of mastitis registered and…
In line 107, this reviewer thinks that should be “focused on Ethiopia”
In line 112 please add the second most…
Line 120, please correct to “a comprehensive search of literature reporting bovine…”
In lines 136 o 138 I kindly request to check the writing.
Line 139 I suggest excluding
Line 149, I suggest “are presented in Figure 1”
Line 154, please change to according to these tools (add the reference). This section is a bit confusing; I can understand that the two authors who selected the literature provided a score to each paper and selected those with high scores. The way is written is confusing.
In Figure 1, captions are cut in the lower line, for example, the first box describing the databases used. Please correct this.
The numbering in the result section subheadings is incorrect, please change this (line 203).
Figure 2, the names of the regions are difficult to read, I kindly request that authors improve this figure and include other regions so readers can have a better idea of the distribution in this country.
Figure 3 is not publication grade. I kindly request that the authors improve this by moving the trend line equation so that is not overlapped with data points. The figure legend indicates that the type of trend used and the title in the y axis is not adequate, I suggest a number of studies.
Throughout the results section, please correct the naming of the organisms.
The rationale behind the analysis of Figure 3 as stated in lines 297-302 is not clear.
In the case of publication bias, authors are not indicating what factors are being considered here. Please add this to line 304.
I kindly request an addition to the lines 360-367: I think comparing the data presented here with contrasting data from countries with correct cow and dairy management is important because the policies used differ and the outcome when an outbreak occurs. This suggestion, I think, is relevant for a broader readership.
Also, I suggest (not mandatory but desirable) including a couple of bullet points contrasting the current situation of cow management in Ethiopia with possible solutions. This may strengthen the content of the discussion section and perhaps one day reach policymakers.
In line 405 please modify the “need of hour” statement to a clearer message.
I hope these comments help the authors improve the manuscript; I strongly believe that the publication of this work may help the community of dairy producers in Ethiopia.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper focuses on the screening of higher and lower N efficiency cultivars of alfalfa from growth parameter and gene expression. N efficiency parameters including stem-leaf dry weight (SDW), plant dry weight (PDW), total root length (RL), etc., NRT2 and AMT1 genes were demonstrated to be the effective parameters for screening the higher N efficiency cultivars of alfalfa. Therefore, this paper has a certain scientific value and academic significance in screening different N efficiency cultivars of alfalfa, however, the language needs to be completely polished, especially the abstract content.
Experimental design: “Materials & methods” are described with sufficient detail, however, it should be modified, including “the low N level, 21 mg N·L-1”, “Nitrogen Content” (It should be described concisely), “Nitrogen Efficiency” (It should be easily understood), etc.
Validity of the findings: This paper is a scientific exploration based on cultivation and gene expression experimental data. Good experimental results have been obtained, such as 4 N efficiency types of alfalfa cultivars, NRT2 and AMT1 genes and so on. It's a comprehensive research report.
However，most of the experimental results are disorganized, and the experimental data provided in this paper can not support the experimental results completely. It is suggested that the experimental results should be reorganized , and the table and picture should be reconstructed.

1. Some tables and pictures should be reprogrammed.
  Table 1 was too long to be put in the paper, and it should be put in supplemental file.
  In table 5, the number corresponding to cultivar should be put in.
  In Fig 1, the number should be replaced by the cultivar name, for instance, “15” should be replace by “LW6010”.
  In Fig 2 and Fig 3, the note part possess too little information, and the letters at the top of the histogram bars should be noted.
2. In introduction, the description of Alfalfa should be described in more details. In discussion, the titles are too simple.
Only a few problems are listed here. Careful revisions are needed further.
Additional comments: The author did much works for the paper, however, it was seem that more wirting experiences and serious attitudes were needed for you.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article discusses an indicator of the effectiveness (use or absorption) of alfalfa N. It has been shown that efficiency parameters N, including dry stem-leaf weight (SDW), dry plant weight (PDW), total root length (RL), etc., NRT2 and AMT1 genes are important markers for screening plants for the trait under study. ... The article is of interest to a wide range of geneticists and breeders of alfalfa. However, the language needs improvement - the text contains inconsistent sentences, typos and the sudden use of a capital letter at the beginning of a word. For example, the sentence on line 48 says "Arabidopsis", followed by "rice".
Experimental design: In the materials and methods, it is not entirely clear how the inoculation was carried out - and what specific microorganisms were used. However, this whole part is quite detailed and allows you to establish the scheme of the experiment. It is quite suitable for the formation of some conclusions.
Validity of the findings: Despite the large range of data obtained, they are poorly integrated and insufficiently discussed. the results are difficult to read due to weak English, enumerations and references to tables. Better to reorganize text and illustrations in an analytical way. For example - Figures 1 and 2 represent a set of the same sotra in different conditions - a comparison of these dendrograms suggests itself. in addition, such data can be presented on a two-dimensional graph - much more clearly. Column graphs in Figure 2 and, to some extent, by 3 can also be in the application, while in the text of the article something integrative would look good - profiles of the dynamics of development or analysis of principal components or principal coordinates, with the allocation of clearly distinguishable groups. infinite small columns reduce the quality of perception. in addition, if you consider them as individual comparisons, without integration, then you need to calculate the multiple comparison correction (FDR)
Additional comments: try to be stricter with statistics, but more creative with the presentation of the results


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I suggest a thorough review of the English. For example, line 66, "NRT2 and AMT1 genes were high affinity genes." should be "NRT2 and AMT1 are high affinity transporters".

It is confusing when a lot of abbreviations are used. It is not common to use "N" instead of "nitrogen".

In the background, Authors spent a lot of effort to explain the difference between "N efficiency" and "N use efficiency". It is confusing and it is not necessary for the topic.

Authors explained the reason of using NRT2 and AMT1 as marker genes for NUE. Some references where people has done so are needed.

Not enough information about alfalfa. It is important to let reader know what is the yield of alfalfa. The ultimate goal should be less fertilizer, less waste with higher NUE and higher yield.
Experimental design: Authors defined NUE as shoot dry weight / total plant nitrogen accumulation, where the latter is defined as plant nitrogen content x plant dry weight. So the NUE, according to authors, is the shoot part (vs root in dry weight) of the total assimilated nitrogen. For me, authors are describing the ability of a plant to transfer assimilated nitrogen to the shoot and it is irrelevant to the ability of a plant to absorb and assimilate nitrogen from the soil or fertilizer, which will not help in guiding the fertilizer application in real practice.

Alfalfa is a legume, and its NUE is directly linked to its native rhizobium strain that the alfalfa is in symbiosis with, at least, the dominant strain. But authors used one single strain (without given any information on it) to inoculate all the alfalfa varieties in the study. On top of that, no information about nodulation is provided. So it is not clear how much nitrogen is directly absorbed by root, or from symbiosis.

An explanation why only NRT2 and AMT1 is selected as marker for NUE? On top of that, there should be multiple members of NRT2 and AMT1 family, what's the expression of the other members? Only one reference gene is selected, "18s" and no reference is provided for this gene. Also, no primer efficiency is provided.

Numbers and units should be carefully reviewed before submission. Line 104 "the low N level, 21 mg N/L", but later all the number referred to "N2.1". Line 181, "Five grams of total RNA"? or 5 ug?
Validity of the findings: The data is well analyzed. Figure legends need to be more specific. Information like repeat number and statistic analysis used should be added to legends, so that readers can interpret the data without influenced by text.

My question about the definition of NUE and its relevance to the real agricultural practice remains. So I cannot comment on the impact of this research and I do not know how much can be translated into the real field.
Additional comments: This manuscript is not well prepared. Issues with the English, inconsistency of numbers and units should be carefully resolved before submission.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Even though you have revised the language of this paper completely, we still consider that the language should be polished using language editing services of PeerJ.
    From the abstract, we can not see the reasons why four N efficiency types of alfalfa cultivars are classified: (1) Very efficient, e.g. LW6010; (2) Efficient, e.g. Gannong No.3; (3) Anti-efficient, e.g. Gannong No.7; and (4) Inefficient, e.g. In the abstract, N2.1 should be replaced by N21. The abstract content needs to be rewritten.
Experimental design: The root scaning content in Morphological Parameters part should be described in detail. Careful revisions are needed further.
Validity of the findings: In the paper, nitrogen (N) should be indicated for the first time, then nitrogen should replaced by N. “P” should be replaced by “p”.
1. Some tables and pictures should be reprogrammed.
    In table 4, the ANOVA method should be used to indicated the significant differences among cultivars in N efficiency.
    Fig 2 and Fig 3 should be improved by sigmaplot or origin software. There were some mistakes for letters at the top of the histogram bars in Fig 2 and Fig 3.
2. In discussion, the first title should be deleted. The other titles should be modified.
    Only a few problems are listed here. Careful revisions are needed further.
Additional comments: The quality of the paper is far from meeting the demands of publishing on <PeerJ>. It is best to consult your tutor more in revising this paper.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The work is devoted to the important problem of assessing the efficiency of nitrogen use by alfalfa plants. The proposed method can make genetic experimentation and selection more intense.

The article provides the rationale and goals for the development of such a method, briefly but sufficiently describes the background.

The work is written in understandable language, but full of stylistic flaws. It is worth paying attention to the use of the words "phenomenon", "development" in all cases of their use. There are proposals that seem inconsistent. So, for example, on lines 79-81 the meaning eludes the reader.

The experimental part is described in sufficient detail, however, on line 139 it is necessary to clarify that you are measuring gene expression. Otherwise, the reader may misunderstand you. I would also recommend briefly describing the parameter estimation method you are referring to on line 148.

An obvious drawback of the work is the poor description of the statistical analysis. It is necessary to add details to the description and provide the motivation for using the methods, in particular the membership function. There is also a related error when doing many pairwise comparisons. And you need to either add a correction for multiple comparisons (bonferonni or one of the benjamini-XX, depending on the task), or justify why you do not make such an amendment. The text mentions various statistical estimates, for example, the coefficient of variation, all of them are also worth mentioning in the materials and methods.

Figure 2, which contains a lot of bar graphs, can be presented in the appendix, while in the text of the article, a principal component or principal coordinate analysis would look good. Genotypes should be used as objects on the scatter plot, and features can be displayed as projections (biplot). Thus, Figure 2 can be replaced with 3 scatter plots, and maybe even the common one.
Experimental design: does not cause big remarks
Validity of the findings: in addition to the already mentioned correction for multiple comparisons, the cluster analysis shown in Figure 1 is not described in the materials and methods. To be honest, the allocation of clusters raises questions. Due to the fact that 4 types of efficiency of nitrogen assimilation are given in the discussion, it is necessary to describe in detail why the clusters were identified in this way and not otherwise.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Corresponding changes has been made, however, there are still a lot of mistakes that need to be corrected. For instance, N2.1 should be replaced by N21 in abstract.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: 1.In the paper, “nitrogen (N)” should be indicated for the first time, and then nitrogen should replace by N.
2.The P should be replace by p.(line 212)
3.Three paragraphs in conclusion part should be combined into one.
4.In Fig3, Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ and Ⅴ should be indicated by corresponding growth periods.
5.Fig3 and Fig 4 should be improved further, and the letters at the top of the histogram bars should be indicated by related information.
6.The mistake for the letter in Fig 4 has been marked by red line.
Only a few problems are listed here, and careful revisions are needed further.
Additional comments: More serious attitudes are needed in  revising this paper.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Corresponding changes has been made, however, there are still some mistakes that need to be corrected, especially in table and figure parts.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: 1. In table 4, the details of the ANOVA analysis should be written in “Note” part.
2. In Fig 3 and Fig 4, some markings such as cultivars, growth periods, N levels and organs should not be recurring, which spoiled the beauty of figures.
3. Fig3 and Fig 4 should be improved further.
Additional comments: Corresponding changes has been made, however, there are still some mistakes that need to be corrected, especially in table and figure parts.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: N/A
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: Authors concluded that they have classified alfalfa into four different N efficiency types and suggested that there should be different managements and applications of N in alfalfa production. However, no experiment was done in a real production condition (with both experiments in sand filled pots). And the most serious default is that authors didn't consider the N symbiosis between alfalfa and rhizobium. Legume crops, unlike cereals, they have the ability to fix N through N symbiosis. In the real production, the rhizobium in the field is surely more complicated than single Sinorhizobium meliloti inoculation used in this experiment. Authors profiled the gene expression of NRT2 and AMT1 genes, but they are more relevant to nitrogen use efficiency in cereal crops. NUE is a quantitative trait, where multi-year large scale field trial is needed for selecting high NUE variety. Therefore, I do not see much value in this research without at least three cycles of field trial.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 5
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Corresponding changes have been made, however, figure 3 and 4 need to be improved.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: 1.Figure 3 and 4 should be improved on the basis of the previous manuscript. The aesthetics and standardization of these pictures are too bad.
2. The minor tick marks on the ordinate in figure 3 and 4 should be deleted.
Additional comments: No comment


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 5
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article has been substantially revised and can be published without significant changes.
Experimental design: Adequate
Validity of the findings: Adequate
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 5
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Accept in present form
Experimental design: Accept in present form
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF NITROGEN EFFICIENCY SCREENING SYSTEM IN ALFALFA (MEDICAGO SATIVA L.) AND ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA NITROGEN EFFICIENCY TYPES
Review round: 6
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Corresponding changes have been made, however, figure 3 and 4 should be improved.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Figure 3 and 4 should be improved on the basis of the previous manuscript (reviewing-58454-v3). The ordinate values of Figure 3 and 4 should be all on the left.
Additional comments: No comment


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND BINGE DRINKING IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The work by Herrero-Montes and colleagues provides an interesting approach to the relationship between binge drinking and alcohol use disorders.

However, several points need to be clarified:

1.- Some important references have not been mentioned in the paper (or are not referred to in the latest version). For instance, the references to some of the epidemiological data could be updated to provide more accurate information (e.g., "ESPAD Report 2019: Results from the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs [Internet]. 2020."; or "Griswold, M. G., Fullman, N., Hawley, C., Arian, N., Zimsen, S. R., Tymeson, H. D., ... & Farioli, A. (2018). Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet, 392(10152), 1015-1035."). Also it seems that are affirmations that would have a better backup if they were accompanied by proper references (i.e., line 61 "depending on the authors"; lines 244-246)

2.- There are seemingly contradictory affirmations that need to be clarified. For example, "Binge drinking (BD) refers to a pattern of alcohol consumption for which, currently, there is no consensus on its definition or terminology" (lines 42,43). However, afterwards, the authors did not provide any references to this apparent lack of consensus; instead, they provided, in fact, two consensual definitions by the NIAAA (2004) and their adaptation to the Spanish population (Parada et al., 2011). If the authors are interested, they could check the recent paper by Maurage and colleagues (2020), where insightful contributions are made on this matter (Maurage, P., Lannoy, S., Mange, J., Grynberg, D., Beaunieux, H., Banovic, I., ... & Naassila, M. (2020). What we talk about when we talk about binge drinking: Towards an integrated conceptualization and evaluation. Alcohol and alcoholism, 55(5), 468-479.). In this same regard, the affirmation "BD often results in alcohol intoxication" (line 87) seems to be in contradiction with the definition provided where it is said that binge drinking is "a drinking pattern that brings the amount of alcohol in the blood to 0.08g/dl (0.08%) or more." (line 46, 47).

Also, the use of terms like "harmful alcohol use", "alcohol dependence", and "alcohol use disorders" should be reviewed to provide a more consistent argumentation. In this regard, it is not clear why the authors did not stick to the most recent definition (DMS-V and Curry et al., 2018) and why they refer to the previous versions of the DSM and ICD. This critical conceptualization issue can hamper the study's conclusions and should be carefully addressed. Indeed, the sentence that forms the manuscript's conclusions affirm that BD is associated with alcohol dependence AND alcohol use disorders (AUD), but taking into account the latest definition provided by the authors (DMS-V and Curry et al., 2018) these terms are partially overlapping.

Is it possible to talk about alcohol dependence and alcohol use disorders as independent entities in the author's opinion? The sentence

3.- It is really interesting to include the paragraph from lines 96 to 102. In which way do the authors think that their current investigation tries to overcome the questions pointed out by Kuntsche et al. (2017)? For example, do the authors have any way to measure different alcohol consumptions pattern regarding their sample? Have they tried to isolate binge drinking effects from those of more regular "heavy drinking"?
About this same set of affirmations by Kuntsche et al. (2017), do the authors assess the presence of potential psychiatric conditions to control the potential effects of these conditions on the relationship between binge drinking and "excessive alcohol consumption". If not, it should be stated as part of the study's limitations.

4.- Why the authors did not propose any hypothesis?

5.- The discussion would be more precise if the authors used the same unit of measurement to compare results (i.e., lines 261-265; 2 out of 10 proportion vs percentage).

6.- There is an erratum in the line 195 where it says non-DB it should say non-BD
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Which was the criteria to classified as binge drinkers those participants who reported that their typical consumption (Q2 of AUDIT) was 1-2 drinks and/or that they never had more than 6 drinks (Q3)?

Are there significant differences in sex distribution within the whole sample?

This could be an important question as the previous literature have reported sex-related differences in the effects of binge drinking (Wilsnack, R. W., Wilsnack, S. C., Gmel, G., & Kantor, L. W. (2018). Gender differences in binge drinking: Prevalence, predictors, and consequences. Alcohol research: current reviews.) and so should be address in the discussion of the results.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND BINGE DRINKING IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: General comments
The article focuses on a major global problem and social vice: the trend of harmful alcohol consumption. The article attempts to define the subject and also offers a survey study on it. However, certain improvements should be strongly considered in lieu of a major revision.
Experimental design: Concept comprehension
One striking question in this entire study is “what is binge drinking?”. The question was not answered in the abstract and in the first few lines of the introduction (lines 42-44), but these parts rather created a more confusing and vaguer announcement of the concept. Line 42 states “…currently there is no consensus on its definition or terminology…” but in contradiction to this claim, offered a definition from an accredited body in the following sentence.  These opposing views should be clarified. It is understandable that the word “consensus” was used, however, since there is an explanation for the term by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, that can be used. It is suggestable for the authors to use the NIAAA definition in the abstract and opening segment of the introduction to offer the scientific audience, scholar, or stakeholder a fundamental understanding.

Understanding of technical scope
Some other important questions have been left unanswered. In the entirety of the manuscript, the alcohol consumption limit standard for men is higher than that for women. This is stated in lines 48-52. Even for data categorization, lines 148-149 state “The cut-off points for detecting risk consumption in the university population in Spain are set at  8 points for men and 6 points for women.” No technical basis for this classification was offered in the entire manuscript. Thoughts such as difference in hormonal biochemistry, muscular makeup, lifestyle activity, etc could come up out of curiosity in the comprehension of any audience, yet without any standard clarification. Recent literature should be explored to answer this question and then properly incorporated and cited in the manuscript.
In a similar course, no justification for the point system attributed to each answer to the questions in the questionnaire was given. For example, lines 149-150 states “Furthermore, 13 points is the cut-off point for harmful consumption and probable alcohol dependence in both genders” THE CURIOUS QUESTION IS WHY? Why not a lesser number such as 12, or a higher number such as 20? A concise but descriptive summary should be offered regarding the questionnaire arrangement. Citing the literature from which it was adapted might not suffice.
This should be done for the study variables too.
Validity of the findings: Inadequate discussion

The entire discussion section of this manuscript is a more formal declaration of results along with a comparison with other literature in scarce amounts. For each stated result, the cause/origin should be clearly discussed. Discussion regarding the factors for the continuous trend of such results over time should follow. Thereafter, optimal and workable solutions should be offered with citations from recent literature. Thoughts such as government regulations, societal views, medical opinions, physiological and psychological effects, and nutritional opinions should also be included to develop a befitting discussion section.

A simple example can be taken from lines 247-248 “Regarding risky alcohol use we found that the percentage of students in the BD group who were  risky drinkers was higher than those who were not BD”. The subsequent line should declare what Regarding risky alcohol use means. Is it related to the body mass index (BMI)? Is it related to medical history? Should a hypertensive patient take the same amount of alcohol with a health patient? What are the standards of some notable governments (such as European Union) on the amount of alcohol that should be consumed, or the amount of alcohol that beverage producers can add to their beverages? Are there any formal requirements to declare the alcohol contents on the beverage labels/packages? Who is a student in this context? A teenager in the same school and an adult (above 40 years) in the same school and class – can the same consumption standards be recommended for them? This orientation should be used for reconstructing the discussion aspect.
Additional comments: Vague conclusion.

Authors should consider constructing a conclusion that crisply describes the problem studied, the result of the problem studied, and RECOMMENDATION(S) for the solution of the problem. The conclusion of the manuscript should be rewritten.

Technical writing

Abstract
The entire abstract section should be reconstructed. For example, the first three sentences are seemingly vague and sanding alone without many connections. The abstract should be an executive and technical summary of the whole study.

Personal pronouns
In too-many parts of the manuscript, the use of “we” was excessive. This should be removed and “the study” should be used as the sentence subject in such cases. “To the best of OUR knowledge…” can be corrected to “after an exploration of pertinent literature…” etc


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND BINGE DRINKING IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all of the issues raised in the first review. These changes have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

I do not have any other comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND BINGE DRINKING IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article has been revised and its quality has been significantly improved. However, certain minor corrections are suggested to further garnish its scholastic appeal.
Experimental design: The stated hypothesis seems like a tautological declaration.

The authors wrote in the background "Binge drinking (BD) refers to a pattern of alcohol consumption characterized by the CONSUMPTION OF LARGE AMOUNTS of alcohol in a short period of time followed by periods of abstinence. This drinking pattern is prevalent worldwide, mainly among young people."

The written hypothesis states "the hypothesis was that university students with a pattern of BD consumption had a higher prevalence of excessive alcohol consumption."

The manuscript has already explained that binge drinking is a type of excessive alcohol consumption. Having that as the hypthesis is analogous to stating an hypothesis stating that all boys are males.

The hypthesis might be in a fashion of proving that college students in particular are notabaly into the practice of binge drinking.
Validity of the findings: The authors stated from the abstract that the "...we conducted a study to evaluate excessive alcohol consumption and its relationship with the practice of BD in university students."

Nonetheless, the about 4-word line conclusion section is comprised of a vague repition of the BD definition and a declaration about prevention and early detection.

Considering the study's intent and justification, it is expectable that the conclusion should be a comprehensive summary of the finalized findings with regards to evaluation on alcohol consumption and the social practise of BD amongst early university scholars.

The conclusion should be restructured.
Additional comments: The authors stated from the abstract that the "...we conducted a study to evaluate excessive alcohol consumption and its relationship with the practice of BD in university students."

The use of personal pronouns in technical writings are not too ethical. Technical writings are meant to be as objective as they should be. Personal pronouns offers a compromise to this. A suggested approach is " ...the study was conducted to..."

This should be corrected in the entire manuscript.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE RESPONSIVENESS OF SOIL CARBON FRACTIONS, MICROBES, EXTRACELLULAR ENZYMES AND CO2 EMISSION: MITIGATING ROLE OF TEXTURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this clearly written article, the authors explore the effect of warming on microbial processes in soil, including microbial biomass, community structure, and soil carbon storage.  The article has professional structure, and the raw data provided is clear.

Areas for improvement:
It would help to include a note in the raw data saying each line is a replicate.  It was unclear what the three numbers per category are otherwise.

The authors could state hypotheses in the introduction and then evaluate them in the Discussion.

Please say more about how you selected the research site.

A brief literature search found this article (Koven et al. 2017) which might help put soil temperature range in context of other ecosystems:  https://escholarship.org/content/qt7q68v57x/qt7q68v57x.pdf
Experimental design: The research question is clear and relevant, finding the effect of warming on soil microbial properties.  Adding in the effect of soil type is also relevant, since broader modeling efforts may need to consider soil type when scaling findings to larger areas.  Methods are described in detail.

Areas for improvement:

L127 what plants were growing in these soils?  Knowing some of the soil history would put the results in context.

Statistical Analysis:  A linear (or in some cases nonlinear) regression would make more sense for these results than ANOVA.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated and tie back to the original research question about the effect of warming on soil microbial properties.  Appreciate the quantitative detail such as listing fold-change for each microbial group and soil property.  The research is methodical and the variety of factors measured in the soil sample is valuable.

Areas for improvement:

Here or in the Introduction:  how was the temperature range decided?  Testing 10degC to 50degC is helpful in seeing a broad range of response, but one would expect the effect of climate warming to be just a few degrees C, right?  Do you expect the broad scale patterns you found translate to the narrow scale of climate effects?

Adding in some background about the environment where the soils were sampled could help with this – what is the seasonal max and min temperature there?

L390 instead of “increased strongly”, please quantify this such as % increase in decomposition rate per 10degC
L404 When mentioning fold-change, this is over what temperature range?
L413 Here and elsewhere (L434, etc.), please add a transition so the reader knows you are referring to your own results, rather than those of another study.
L442 Please clarify that one R2 is for sandy soil, and the other is for clayey soil
L451  For these studies cited, what ecosystem where they studying?

Fig 2. Why would temperature increase recalcitrant C?  It seems that temperature would decrease this.  Also, there is nearly a fivefold increase in recalcitrant C which is surprising.

Fig 3 and elsewhere:  Please add in the figure captions that this is after X days incubation.

Fig 4 and elsewhere:  It would be easier to compare these graphs if the Y axis ranges were the same (0-10 in this case).

Please consider reworking some of the figures so that sandy and clayey soil is in the same panel, so it is easy to compare the two soil types.  The other factors could then be separated out, such as having Emission and Cumulative CO2 in separate panels in Figure 8.
Additional comments: Enjoyed reading this article, as it points to the question of how soil C might be a feedback on warming, and considers variation by soil texture.  This is definitely an unresolved question with much need for research.  Good luck in preparing this article for publication.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE RESPONSIVENESS OF SOIL CARBON FRACTIONS, MICROBES, EXTRACELLULAR ENZYMES AND CO2 EMISSION: MITIGATING ROLE OF TEXTURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is admirable in that it measures many important components of soil, however unfortunately I found it difficult to follow. Although many components were measured, the relationships between these components are not conceptually integrated, so the organization of the manuscript is disjointed.

There are also many confusing sentences. For example (lines 13-14): C factions, microbes/biomass, and extracellular enzymes are not soil processes, but elements part of the soil environment than can influence key processes. I would recommend revising most sentences in the manuscript to increase clarity for the reader. Additionally, this manuscript has many strange word choices. For example (line 44): what does “incessant” movement in the soil systems mean here? This was very distracting when reading the manuscript.

The manuscript included relevant literature, however oftentimes what was actually measured by this study does not fit with the citation that was used (e.g., studies on temperature sensitivity).

For the most part, the figures, tables, and raw data are clear.
- Table 1A: What are the units here for sand/silt/clay?

Clear hypotheses are not stated in the manuscript.
Experimental design: This manuscript is within the aims and scope of this journal. While research questions and a knowledge gap is stated, the research questions are very broad and the experiment does not meet the stated goals. Some specific comments:

- Line 125: Can you justify storage at 4c for the microbial and enzymatic analysis? Were these processed right away? Usually these samples are stored at -20C or -80C if stored for more than a couple of days (e.g., German et al., 2011 Soil Biology & Biochemistry).

- Line 133: I am assuming these jars were kept open? Please specify. If kept close, the headspace seems too small.  Were these jars kept in the dark?

- I am not familiar with the specific CO2 or C fraction methods used here, but it seems fine. How often was CO2 measured throughout the 84-days?

- Line 188: It is a bit misleading to say soil microbial community analysis when only colony counts were done. Please change the title of this section and corresponding text throughout the manuscript to reflect this. Usually the microbial community would be DNA, RNA, or PLFA type of analysis. It’s okay to do colony counts, but I wouldn’t really consider that microbial community analysis (more like an estimate of the potential relative density of the bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes).

- Line 204: Please break this section into two paragraphs—one describing the colorimetric approach (phenoloxidase and peroxidase) and the other describing the fluoroumentric approach (B-glucosidase and cellulose)
Validity of the findings: I have some serious concerns about the conclusions drawn from this work:

- Temperature sensitivity is not measured in this manuscript despite interpretation of temperature sensitivity throughout the Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Here, you are comparing responses at different temperatures, but that is different from measuring temperature sensitivity. Usually temperature sensitivity is reported using Q10 (which is not a great metric in my opinion) or using parameter estimates for temperature sensitivity from a model (e.g., Macromolecular Rate Theory, Arrhenius, or Square root model). Your analyses and overall interpretation in your manuscript would be much improved if you used one of these approaches to compare the temperature sensitivity rather than just comparing responses between different temperatures.

- The regression approach used to compare and interpret the temperature responses is also misleading. As it is, you are only interpreting the linear relationships between your measured variables and temperature and using that to make claims about the relative importance of temperature on each factor. However, some of these relationships are clearly nonlinear (example: fungi). That does not mean the importance of temperature on fungal growth is less important than bacteria, only that the relationship is less linear. Some other kind of statistical analysis (maybe comparing sum of squares?) would be more appropriate if you want to make these types of claims.

- Lines 292-293: Please clarify that this measurement is only of potential community growth in media (very different from soil conditions).

- Lines 510-512: This is too bold of a statement to make for only measuring two soils.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE RESPONSIVENESS OF SOIL CARBON FRACTIONS, MICROBES, EXTRACELLULAR ENZYMES AND CO2 EMISSION: MITIGATING ROLE OF TEXTURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have tried to evaluate and investigate the effect of increasing temperature on Soil composed of the microbial community, enzymes, C fractions of labile, recalcitrant, and stable pools. The authors have related this study to the current global warming issues. Though the study was interesting, there are many issues in the manuscript that have to be addressed. The main comments are (a) sentence making, (b) unnecessary using words to create a complex sentence, (c) grammatical errors and tenses, and (d) references missing. Therefore, it is requested that the authors address the comments and suggestions below to improve the quality of the manuscript. At present, I would like to reject the manuscript in its current form and suggest major revisions.
Experimental design: 1.	Check for grammatical errors in the abstract.
2.	Use the conjunction word “and” in the proper place. Lots of and is seen in the abstract. Too much and in a sentence changes the meaning. Check and rewrite
3.	Explain the difference between microbes and biomass for the sentence “microbes and their biomass”.
4.	What is MBC, MBN, and MBP that has been mentioned in the abstract? If carbon is mentioned as C, then the above term also has to be expanded and explained. Also, mention the same in the introduction section. “Microbial biomass carbon (MBC), Microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN), and Microbial biomass phosphorous (MBP)
5.	Change is 3.2 times and four times to “3.2 and 4 fold times”.
6.	Mention what is C in the introduction section as mentioned in Abstract “Carbon (C).”
7.	Provide more literature for Carbon and divergent fractions in Soil for better understanding. Mention the role of these fractions and why it is important to study the effect of global warming on these fractions. However, authors have mentioned that this is a vague topic to date, include some literature that has related studies to the current study.
8.	Mention some literature regarding the phenoloxidase, peroxidase, invertase, β-glucosidase and cellulase role in Soil.
9.	Is it humic acid or humin acid?
10.	Mention what OM is? “Organic matter” and again place the word “and” in the necessary place.
11.	Break long sentences into two sentences for the readers to understand the message conveyed.
Validity of the findings: 1.	It is not necessary to mention soil samples again and again in the soil sampling section.
2.	The reference for “Decomposition of Leaf Litter in Relation to Environment, Microflora, and Microbial Respiration” illustrates the CO2 capture method from incubated Soil is not included in the reference section. Please include and check for other missing references in the materials and methods section.
3.	Check for grammatical mistakes and tenses in the materials and methods section.
4.	It is necessary to mention the concentration of H2SO4 used during the analysis of reducing sugar. Recheck the methodology for sugar analysis. Badalucco et al. 1992 report the analysis carried out in OD of 485 nm, but the current study has carried out the work in 490 nm. In addition, the mixture was incubated in a water bath at 28oC for 30 min. The current study reports 25oC for 20 min. Suppose the method has been modified. Mention the term modified in the methodology section.
5.	The culture was grown in nutrient media, and the time intervals decided was 4, 5, and 7 days concerning the individual strains. It would be interesting to see the colony's formation on plates since bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes have different morphology. Further, in the soil, the most common bacterial species found are E.coli. Under ideal conditions, the growth of this culture doubles. A 4 d interval for a bacterial culture can lead to the merge of colonies. A pictorial representation of these plates would be better to understand.
6.	Mention the word “respectively” wherever necessary throughout the manuscript.
7.	The word ending with “ly” in most cases throughout the manuscript changes the sentence meaning, and also, these sentences do not follow the standard writing. It is suggested that authors go through the manuscript and look for odd words with the ending “ly”. Replace these words for the readers to understand.
8.	It is suggested that, in future studies, the analysis of TOC in Soil is carried out using a TOC analyzer for accurate results. The analytical techniques utilized in this study cannot provide accurate results but only approximate. Similar comments for N, P, K analysis
9.	Though authors have concentrated on C cycling and CO2 emissions, It would be interesting to study the effect of temperature for other gases emitted from Soil such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Additional comments: Authors are requested to improve the quality of English in the manuscript by using English professional service available such as Grammarly.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE RESPONSIVENESS OF SOIL CARBON FRACTIONS, MICROBES, EXTRACELLULAR ENZYMES AND CO2 EMISSION: MITIGATING ROLE OF TEXTURE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There are minor issues in the manuscript that have to be addressed. At present, I would like to reject the manuscript in its current form and suggest minor revisions.
Experimental design: 1. Line 34 - microbial biomass N (MBP) - check if correct MBP or MBN
2. Line 56-57 - What is CP in RCP, LCP, and SCP.
3. THe manuscript includes lot of abbreviations. Authors are suggestion to include a abbreviation section before introduction section. Through this  readers would understand the acronyms at ease while reading
4. Line 124 - 129. where is point (1) since only (2) and (3) is visible. Recheck and rewrite.
5. Line 162 and 219 - It is suggested that subtopics are provided for different methodology in the Determination of soil C fractions section and Examination of enzymes activity.
6. Remove line 209 - 211 -  On the other hand........dilution
7. Check throughout the manuscript - Authors have mentioned the difference in the results mentioning it in fold. However, it is observed that authors have not mentioned the fold is determined compared to what. Recheck and rewrite for better understading of the readers
8. Figure representation of the methodology would be intersting for the readers. - just a suggestion
9. Authors are requested to check for grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. For example place a comma before respectively.
Validity of the findings: Authors have compared the results with reported literatures. The quality of the manuscript has improved
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE RESPONSIVENESS OF SOIL CARBON FRACTIONS, MICROBES, EXTRACELLULAR ENZYMES AND CO2 EMISSION: MITIGATING ROLE OF TEXTURE
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have carried out the the changes carefully and the manuscript quality has improved. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript for publication in PeerJ
Experimental design: All the sugestions and comments have been carried out carefully.
Validity of the findings: All the sugestions and comments have been carried out carefully.
Additional comments: Authors have improved the the quality of English in the manuscript and have corectted the grammatical errors in the manuscript.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ELITE YOUTH MALE FOOTBALL PLAYERS AGED 13–15 ARE BASED UPON BIOLOGICAL MATURITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Comments to the editor
Dear Editor,
I consider this article interesting and sufficiently appropriate in providing additional and extended knowledge on the role of maturity to discriminate the level of play in young football players. However, the authors are invited to proofread the English language of the text to make it clearer and more convincing. Moreover, the authors should reinforce the content of the introduction to improve the rationale. Other changes are required to improve the manuscript. Here below additional specific comments

Intro
Line 39: suggested rewording: “Studies revealed that … are superior in anthropometrical (height, body mass, and body fat) [cite here] and performance (speed, agility…) [cite here] variables.”
Line 47: “replace “abilities” to “characteristics”. Please replace it throughout the manuscript.
Line 50: “football clubs” instead of “blub teams”
Line 53: a reference is needed.
Lines 56-57: please rephrase for clarity.
Line 57: please describe “TW”.
Line 61: “correlation with them”. Remove “between physical and physiological abilities”.
Line 62: fix “strentht”
Line 62: other?? Please be specific
Line 67: what about study hypothesis?
Inside the introduction, the Authors are encouraged to reinforce the rationale by also implementing other information from more recent papers. Especially for the use of anthropometrical (both body dimension and body composition data) variables.
The authors are invited to consider the following articles to address this point:
1) Bioimpedance Vector References Need to Be Period-Specific for Assessing Body Composition and Cellular Health in Elite Soccer Players: A Brief Report
https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk5040073

2) Importance of anthropometric features to predict physical performance in elite youth soccer: a machine learning approach
doi: 10.1080/15438627.2020.1809410
3) Anthropometric and Functional Profile of Selected vs. Non-Selected 13-to-17-Year-Old Soccer Players
doi: 10.3390/sports8080111

Methods

Line 70: suggested rewording: “were performed during the fourth weekend of September and during the first and second week of October prior to start…”
Line 76: “All subjects…” this sentence is redundant. Please remove it.
Line 82: please fix the refusal
Line 85: please DO NOT use “physiological ability” to express a physical capacity or quality coming from a (physical) performance tests. Use sprint performance, or agility/change of direction, or aerobic performance.
Line 119: “to obtain” instead of “take”
Lines 154-155: please rephrase
Line 161: please fix “Fatand”
Please DO NOT use “p = 0.000”. You can replace it as p < 0.001 or p < 0.0001 if you have four 0 in a row.
Discussion
An English language revision is needed to raise the quality of the discussion.
Line 190: “significantly lower” appears misleading when linked with sprint performance. Perhaps, it would be more informative, replacing it as “better performance” or similar.
Line 191: reformulate “physiological ability” as suggested in a previous comment. Please apply this correction throughout the manuscript.
Lines 192-193: please rephrase for clarity.

Table 1: please fix/adjust the columns (F and p-value) width. Please also explicit the “F”, “p”, and “n2” columns. I understand they are common statistical parameters. However, for the sake of clarity, it would be appropriate to report them clearly.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Please, an English language revision in needed within the entire manuscript.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ELITE YOUTH MALE FOOTBALL PLAYERS AGED 13–15 ARE BASED UPON BIOLOGICAL MATURITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear Authors,
I would like to encourage you to improve the English style of your article. Moreover there are some few error in the text. Please, revise them. The Author should revise dramatically their results section. Please, see below.
Experimental design: I believe that the results are not so original and quite weak. It is not enough to conclude that players in early maturity stage have better anthropometric and physical performance characteristics. That's clear and well know. To provide this in a Chinese population is not enough to justify this work.

I suggest to the Author to revise their result section and, in turn, discussion. I believe the Authors should remove or reduce actual results and provide correlations between Skeletal age and physical output during test. You are aiming to assess "the relationship between biological maturity and physical characteristics. You may correlated these factors, while you are showing us only the relationship between physical measurements and physiological capacities (Table 2). Moreover, you are describing the characteristics of different groups (Table 1 and table 3). Conversely, you have to correlate SA and CA with different physical outputs. When you'll have the slope between SA or CA with physical results for each test, you should provide a comparison between the slope of the relationship between maturity status vs physical results using chronological age or Scheletal age.

Differences in these slope will help you to provide and clarify the effects of scheletal maturity on test, suggesting that SA approach describe better the maturity vs test relationship that CA approach. These may be provide for each test you utilised.

After that the discussion should be completely change. I'll look at that after these changes.
Validity of the findings: Please see above comments
Additional comments: Line 38 to 45 should be reworded. "physically, body mass, and body fat and physiologically...." this phrase should be grammatically improved and corrected.

Line 49-51. Already reported in the first section, please removed.

Line 56 to 57: please, provide more REFs.

Line 58: What is TW3, please clarify across the introduction.

Line 60-61: not clear, please remove or revise it.

Line 66: Why is important to abbreviate S&C?

Line 71: please, remove injury information because of this information is already reported in “subjects” section.

Line 97: "motor" measurements ???

Please, provide a clear review of the literature about the relationship between SA and physical tests in different population (what test other performed? What results?). The use of more papers clearly based on this aspect will be appreciated. Additionally, clarify why you study add new findings that previous one, please.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ELITE YOUTH MALE FOOTBALL PLAYERS AGED 13–15 ARE BASED UPON BIOLOGICAL MATURITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors are invited to check the text format throughout the manuscript.

see lines 39-47
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Abstract
I would suggest the authors to reduce the text linked to the Results section.

Statistical analysis

line 182: be specific on the use of eta squared or Cohen's d, which belong to two different standardized family of effect size.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TEXT MINING FOR IDENTIFICATION OF BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES RELATED TO ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT ORGANISMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank your for a very well-written manuscript. The language is clear and the writing style is concise. A pleasure to read. A few comments

* Something is wrong with your PubMed IDs in Table 1 - None of the texts in the "text" column matches the PubMed IDs. E.g. your best scoring article PMID: "7232201" is a case report in French. Apart from this, I'm don't really find Table 1 particularly informative - perhaps include the entire list as a supplementary?

* You mention that you are looking for "metadata that enrich the characterization of target sequences", but I am not entirely sure what the criteria for "relevant" are. Could you please elaborate?

In terms of the annotations listed starting on line 70, many of these annotations are already integrated in PubTator Central. Have you tried this database for your search?

The paragraph starting on line 117 seems a bit redundant. Consider removing?

I guess the search term you list on line 139 ("antibiotcs resistance") contains a typo?
Experimental design: Methodologically, the method seems sound and is well described. You are not the first to embark on this endeavor, though.

* Did you test existing methods, E.g. BioReader, MScanner, MedlineRanker, and others? In order to justify publication of another tool for text classification, you should comment on how your method stands out from existing methods.

* There's a MeSH term for antimicrobial resistance (https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D004352). May I suggest checking how well this performs as a classifier? Could be a nice baseline for you to compare your method to.

* It is a bit unclear how you defined the two classes (relevant and irrelevant). It seems like you calculated the distance to your dictionary and set a more or less arbitrary threshold to define relevant or irrelevant, or did you manually curate the classes in the training set? If you assigned classes based on distance to the dictionary, isn't the whole classification step a bit redundant? Couldn't you just calculate the distance of any new article, and if it was above the threshold, you classify it as relevant? Seems like you are trying to predict a metric you just showed can be calculated.
Validity of the findings: Seems like your method performs quite well. As commented above, I need some more information about your relevant/irrelevant classification. Without this, it is hard to evaluate whether your method performs as anticipated.

Perhaps add a discussion of why your method fails for some cases.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: TEXT MINING FOR IDENTIFICATION OF BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES RELATED TO ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT ORGANISMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There is significant lack of justification, limitations, and context for this work in the field. There is not a professional article structure, and the R&D is structure is very lacking, does not connect back to current literature, and is minimal.

Additionally, Indeed AMR is a huge problem across many domains of science and has become a One Health problem. Importantly, it is not just a biological problem but a multi-domain problem. The paper hones in only on the biological perspective for most of it – this is problematic in keeping the domains, language use, and interdisciplinary initiatives siloed. It is needed to add in more context and discussion relevant to this concept of One Health and how that can/will impact the model created and outcomes. Or,  while this discussion and domain component is more important to recognize and discuss, the authors could further justify the biological focus for the scope of this project and provide limitations in the results and discussion for this approach.
Experimental design: There is no discussion on the size of the scientific articles extracted from pubmed. How was that collection determined? How were those key search terms determined? Does this mean that only open access articles were used for mining? This is not adequately explained or justified.

The first line of the R&D states “Using as search criteria the keywords “antibiotcs resistance”, we had access to the content of 4,517 scientific articles from PubMed”. There are two problems with this sentence – one I am hoping that it is just a mistype (that occurs several times) in the paper for antibiotics (not antibiotcs) and two when you use just the search term antibiotic resistance on pubmed, there are over 200K+ papers. 91K+ are full free text.  How was 4,517 obtained? Was there more search terms added? Were the terms from Table 2 utilized as well or were they pulled as the CARD terms from the set of 4000? I viewed the searchtermarticle.py and the google colab is not accessible and pulls from a personal google sheet. Perhaps this will be fixed after publication but this does not clarify the above questions and further highlights that antibiotic resistance was the only search term used, and does not make any of this step reproducible. All of this needs to be justified and explained both for methodology used (and a section on limitations as based on this search and open access/not open access) needs to be added as well as making the code actually workable to reproduce the results in the paper.

The breakdown of relevant versus not relevant. There is some discussion of this in the methods, but there are a lot of limitations to discuss and also a lack of explanation of a use case of this kind of model on any AMR related phrase where this could be used. What about this utility for a biologist? Is it mostly just based on the amount and occurrence of CARD terms in the articles? Is that really a robust way to determine relevant or not relevant? How did the use of this dictonary, as stated in the conclusions, facilitate similarity in binning?
Validity of the findings: It is a huge jump, with no justification, to state this method could be used for other biological topics. There is no implication of that in this work, there is minimal justification of this working for AMR.
Additional comments: Figure 3 has no axis labels

All the tables in the table legend are called table 1