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: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND REALIST SYNTHESIS ON TOILET PAPER HOARDING: COVID OR NOT COVID, THAT IS THE QUESTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are some grammar mistakes, for example, “With no doubt, the COVID-19 has been the worse pandemic since the 1918 flu pandemic” should be “worst” instead of “worse”. Furthermore, the above sentence is also an example of ambigious reporting. What is meant by the COVID-19 pandemic being worse than the 1918 flu? Does it refer to the reproduction number, the economic impact or the rate at which it kills? Thus, language needs to be revised, both the grammar and accuracy of communication.

Most literature is adequately cited, however, the study is missing the consumer and retail service perspective. The literature on unusual purchasing has also studied toilet paper hoarding during COVID-19 (e.g. Laato, S., Islam, A. N., Farooq, A., & Dhir, A. (2020). Unusual purchasing behavior during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: The stimulus-organism-response approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102224.). Including research on this domain to the study would strengthen the paper. Perhaps first and foremost, these studies introduce the argument that toilet paper hoarding can in certain situations be rational behaviour.

The article structure is clear. Figures and tables are professionally drawn, informative and clear.
Experimental design: I like the idea that you looked into previous research on toilet paper hoarding, not just at the phenomena in the COVID-19 context. The methodology is adequately described with regards to the literature review and the realist review. The investigation is clearly reported and could be repeated by scholars. However, I have a few concerns regarding the experimental design and execution.

- The communication needs be improved with regards to reporting the research problem, hypotheses and research questions. Currently these appear in the Introduction section, but entangled with each other and the surrounding text. I am also confused by the choice of words, as you write “we aimed to conduct a systematic literature review…” instead of simply “we conducted a systematic review…”. Is conducting a SLR your research aim or rather the research method?

-In the materials and methods before jumping into the search string, you could explicitly mention that you are following the PRISMA systematic literature research method.

-The search string omits the important keyword “Toilet roll” (only looking at paper and tissue). I am not sure whether this would have had an impact on the discovered articles.

-the inclusion and exclusion criteria does not mention which types of documents you included (e.g. conference papers, journal articles, book chapters, editorial reports). Nor does it state whether you included only articles in English or articles in other languages as well.

-The results section does not state whether you screened the papers by title only, title and abstract or by assessing the full text articles. This could be clarified in the text even if it is visible in the PRISMA diagram (figure 1).

-The CATOTIM algorithm seems preliminary compared to the systematic review and the realist review. It seems odd that it is included in the materials & methods and the result sections. Still, the algorithm itself is well reported, interesting and worthy of discussion (Figure 3). To fix the issue, I would simply add it into discussion.
Validity of the findings: The findings are reported in an orderly fashion and are interesting. The reporting is well supported by Figures and Tables. However, the findings could benefit from a comparison to prior literature on hoarding

The one additional thing that concerns me is that in the CATOTIM algorithm and surrounding discussion there is no mention that hoarding toilet paper could under unusual circumstances be rational behaviour. That being said, overall, I found the discussion on the findings interesting and relevant.
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: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND REALIST SYNTHESIS ON TOILET PAPER HOARDING: COVID OR NOT COVID, THAT IS THE QUESTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally well-written and clear, with extensive relevant references and some historical background on key phrases.
One word I think misused - in the sections on "inadequate" use of toilet paper - which in colloquial English could be taken to mean "insufficient" use - which is not what the authors mean. I suggest revising to use the word "pathological" use of toilet paper or similar.
Experimental design: This is not original primary research - it is a systematic, empirically-based literature review.
But given the novelty of the topic and the fact that there's no structure in the rapidly growing literature that emerged in the past 6 months or so, it is an original systematic review of the literature.
Given that this is a survey - yes, the research question is welldefined, relevant and meaningful. The range of papers covered is detailed and wide-ranging so it is a rigorous review.
Validity of the findings: All underlying information about references is included. The conclusions are clear, well-stated and link with the aims and objectives of the paper.
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: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND REALIST SYNTHESIS ON TOILET PAPER HOARDING: COVID OR NOT COVID, THAT IS THE QUESTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: As stated in my initial review, the paper is well written. With their revision, the authors managed to improve the structure and readability of the work even further.

One potential problem with the work is a mismatch between cited literature and the list of references. Going through the revisions I noticed that a study on unusual purchasing during COVID-19 (Laato et al., 2020) is cited but does not appear in the list of references.
Experimental design: I have no further comments on the experimental design.
Validity of the findings: I believe the authors have sufficiently addressed the concerns raised in my first revision.
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: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND REALIST SYNTHESIS ON TOILET PAPER HOARDING: COVID OR NOT COVID, THAT IS THE QUESTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Review of a revised submission - revisions address the commentary effectively
Experimental design: Review of a revised submission - revisions address the commentary effectively
Validity of the findings: Review of a revised submission - revisions address the commentary effectively
Additional comments: Review of a revised submission - your revisions have addressed the commentary effectively.


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: OCCUPATION AND LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS: THE MEDIATION ROLE OF SELF-REPORTED PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL HEALTH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: It comes as a surprise, that there are a lot of authors involved in this paper, especially since not all of them are affiliated in Sweden (i.e. Japan, Iran). It might be useful to quote the “authors´ contribution”, since this is a standard in international journals.
Experimental design: It would be interesting to get information about the kind of psychiatric support people get and what kind of occupation they had, since this might have an impact on the results (line 132ff).

It is not clearly described, based on which criteria the socials workers have made the decision, who to excludes from the sample (line 135f).
Validity of the findings: Raw data were supplied, but the central item concerning occupation is missing, so further examinations and proofs of the findings could not be done.

Declare, which statistical program has been used, such as SPSS, SAS or other programs (LISREL). In SPSS there is a tool for mediation analysis, that may be used (Field, A. 2013, Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th Edition, p408ff).

Please describe how the variable “qol” (quality of life) is computed i.e. weighted or sum scores, as this is not comprehensible yet.

It might have been useful to include covariates (gender, age, education) in the analysis, as these control variables proof correlation effects of the mediation variable. If this analysis was done, it should be commented on.
Additional comments: The paper describes an important and relevant topic. It uses throughout a clear and  professional English language and the structure conforms to international standards.
The paper is easy to follow: Research design is clearly structured, well defined, relevant and meaningful. Tables and graphs support the key messages. Key results are well summarised and the authors point out the limitations of the study. Literature is up to date and research is within the scope of PeerJ.


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: OCCUPATION AND LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS: THE MEDIATION ROLE OF SELF-REPORTED PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL HEALTH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Firstly, the language used in the manuscript is mostly unambiguous, professional and helps to understand the study. However, some uses of the language should be adapted to the general meaning because it creates some strange structures (for example, line 83: diminishing not only their health (maybe affecting their health and diminishing life satisfaction levels; line 166: physical health was significantly (maybe using physical and psychological health’s perception because they came from self-reported measures) and also avoid the use of contractions throughout the manuscript (line 138).

Secondly, although the references used are adequate and appropriate, more references from the last 5 years could be adequate, if possible, to create a more updated theoretical background. Additionally, more information about previous pieces of research or the absence of these studies analyzing the relationship between the variables of the study will be needed in the introduction in order to clarify the need of investigating this topic. In this sense, it would be appropriate to justify the hypotheses with references. Besides, some references used throughout the manuscript are missing at the references section (Cloninger, 2004) ore the year is not the same (Henwood et al., 2014).

Regarding the raw data included, it contains the appropriate information. However, I have identified that in the raw data document there are 287 individuals and in the manuscript you have mentioned that 283 participated. Probably, there is a misunderstanding here. Try to clarify it.

Figures and tables used are adequate. In Figure 1 it could be better to change the concept job by occupation used in the manuscript.

Finally, there are some headings with full stops (line 129).
Experimental design: A Data analyses section will be needed before the Results section in order to clearly specify the analyses performed and the statistical analyses programs used.

In the Discussion section, the importance of filling the knowledge gap that must be identified in the introduction should be included here and the results can be discussed using the hypotheses mentioned in the introduction.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: I really appreciate the effort of analyzing an interesting and important topic. I hope that with the suggestion indicated the manuscript quality will be improved.


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: MONOMORIUM (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE) OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA WITH DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES, M. HEGGYI SP. N. AND M. KHALIDI SP. N.
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This taxonomic paper follows a number of similar papers on the ants of the Arabian Peninsula produced by the senior author, often, as here, with the assistance of co-contributors. The paper has a pleasingly professional feel about it, and follows a good, logical sequence. I particularly liked the photographs of ant specimens that illustrate key diagnostic features. I feel this is a very helpful aid to the reader. The English language format is smooth, without major irregularities or awkward phraseology, but, as is usual in a paper with many technical details, I noticed a number of small errors that I have highlighted on the .pdf. I have also included pop-up notes here and there with suggestions for the authors. The bibliography is comprehensive, but I was unable to find some of the listed authors cited in the actual text. In terms of the article structure, I am not convinced that a separate section on ‘Biogeographical analyses (V.) is needed, as it seems to me that the information contained under it could easily be discussed for each species under ‘Geographic Distribution’.
Experimental design: This is a standard, well-integrated taxonomic paper. The taxonomy is of the older, morphological variety but the taxonomic keys and diagnoses appear sound, and in keeping with what I know of the genus covered (Monomorium). The authors have correctly followed the new species policies, and their work meets the ICZN standard and the published work and the nomenclatural acts have been registered in Zoobank. The key to the workers of Arabian Monomorium is easy to follow; in just a couple of cases it could be tweaked to cover exceptions in one or other of the couplet lugs (most notably the first lug of couplets 1 and 2). In terms of more substantive issues, one taxon, namely Monomorium barbatulum, looks to me like a Trichomyrmex, and has the broad head and metasomal configuration of the latter genus. Heightening my suspicions, I note that a specimen whose image appears in AntWeb was identified as a Trichomyrmex by the senior author in 2016. I suggest the authors revisit their interpretation of this ant. I have also queried whether Monomorium wahibiense should be synonymised under Monomorium abeillei, but I leave that to the authors’ discretion.
Validity of the findings: All data have been provided. The species’ descriptions could be checked for standardisation of the way synonymies are described in the text, and I noticed ‘Syn. n.’ for ‘syn. n.’ on a couple of occasions. The captions for the figures are truncated, and I am wondering if this has been brought about by the process of electronic transmission. I also query the duplication of captions for the diagnostic images of the workers in three orientations (as is done in AntWeb). I note that this duplication is not identical, as ‘sp. n.’ is bolded in the second entry but not the first.
All in all, I consider this paper an important contribution to our taxonomic understanding of the ants from this region.
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: MONOMORIUM (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE) OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA WITH DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES, M. HEGGYI SP. N. AND M. KHALIDI SP. N.
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Dear Author,
Your manuscript has very important information about the taxonomy of the Arabian Monomorium genus. Pictures are of very high quality. Descriptions are suitable and large enough. New species and other taxonomic acts are suitable.
I suggested some small changes to the text.


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: MONOMORIUM (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE) OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA WITH DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES, M. HEGGYI SP. N. AND M. KHALIDI SP. N.
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No change from previous report.
Experimental design: No change from previous report.
Validity of the findings: No change from previous report.
Additional comments: I am pleased to see most of my recommendations have been followed. However, I would still like to see a justification for Monomorium barbatulum being included within the genus. (I accept this may be warranted but, based on my previous comment, its close resemblance to a Trichomyrmex and an earlier placement of a specimen under that genus should be noted.) A small handful of typographical errors still present are highlighted in the revised MS, and an annotated copy is attached with this review.


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: ARITHMETIC PROCESSING IN CHILDREN WITH DYSCALCULIA: AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper reports an experiment comparing children with dyscalculia and children with good academic performance on an arithmetic verification task.

The paper is well written, structured and easy to read. The figures are adequate and the authors have done a good job supplying the raw data. In fact, I was able to re-analyse their data (using a slightly different method) and was able to confirm the results presented in the paper.

In terms of the figures, I *personally* do not like bar charts and would instead recommend an alternative. For example, representing the mean with a dot and adding error bars. In terms of the error bars, the nature of the error bars (i.e., SD, SEs, or CIs) should be included in the figure caption for figure 2.
Experimental design: no comment. Well done.
Validity of the findings: I was able to confirm the results presented in the paper through a re-analysis of the supplied data.

It is unfortunate that the sample size is a little low for a between-groups comparison. However, I completely understand the difficulty associated with recruiting children with dyscalculia, and therefore in this context I would consider the sample size as 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: ARITHMETIC PROCESSING IN CHILDREN WITH DYSCALCULIA: AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1)	Literature references
-	In the manuscript, most of the literature related to the main topic has been covered and there is a good effort by the author. Considering the conclusions and speculations made by the author in the discussion, references to the working memory deficits in dyscalculia are missing; this part should be expanded in the introduction.
2)	Language
-	Language is appropriate, although in some parts it could be improved. For example, inline 81 and 83, the author should report directly reference and findings and avoid “various studies have claimed that”, “have shown that”
3)	Introduction
-	I would like to suggest to the author to rewrite the definition of dyscalculia and to refer to the latest research on the subject by underlying the complexity and the heterogeneity of the disorder.
-	Lines 81-82. The connection to IPS if not contextualized adds nothing to the text. The author should add some references to the role of the IPS, which can be relevant for explaining their explanation of a deficit in working memory.
-	Lines 89-91. They are not clear and they need to be rephrased and expanded.
-	Lines 114-115, 118. The author is repeating the same concepts mentioned before.
-	The sentences 138-139 and 155-156 are in opposition and confuse the reader.
4)	Figures
-	I would suggest adding a plot with the difference wave (incongruent minus congruent). For the reader, it would be easier to see the difference between the N400. Further, it is more clear to have a 2D scalp topography, not a 3D.
Experimental design: Design
-	The design and the method used are clearly explained in detail.
Some minor comments:
How many children did the author discarded from the analysis for a noisy signal?
Rereference of the EEG signal is missing.
Lines 244-245. Not clear
Validity of the findings: Validity of findings
1)	Statistical analysis is computed correctly and are clearly explained. They are in line with recent publications.
Minor comment
-	in the results section, it is not clear on which electrodes the statistics are reported.
-	Finger counting should have been assessed or observed systematically in order to be reported
2)	Discussion
-	the author should try to explain why there is no difference between the two groups in RT.
-	Lines 353-359: I would suggest the author to try to find other references in support of the proposed explanation of a WM deficit. In the dyscalculia literature, few authors highlights the deficit of WM (Szucs et al., 2013 2014). The common deficit hypothesis seems too general.
Lines 731-734: I find this part too general, without references and a clear explanation about the link between N400 and working memory.
-	Lines 375-377: not clear
Additional comments: The research question is interesting and the current study can contribute to the existing literature. Overall, the article is well written and most of the relevant literature is covered. However, the introduction and the discussion could be improved. Importantly, the authors try to explain the difference between the two groups in this task as a difference in the ability to maintain information. I mainly ask them to contextualize it, explain it better and highlight the link between the N400 component and the working memory.


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: ARITHMETIC PROCESSING IN CHILDREN WITH DYSCALCULIA: AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the introduction section contains a solid background for the proposed study grounded in the literature. However, there are quite some errors in the use of the English language, not only in the introduction, but throughout the manuscript.

Tables and Figures are high quality and well described.

Raw data are not supplied. Only averages per subject per condition are supplied. What is missing is the raw EEG data. Also, the behavioral data are missing.

Some parts of the introduction can be clarified:
- Line 112-113: what ages are included in the middle-ages and young people in this research? I’m asking since I think there is an ‘optimal’ age, and whether you see better or worse performance in the older age-group depends on the ages included.
- Line 138: ‘the topographical distribution was different’. As an explanation, the authors write that the amplitude of the component differs between groups. This is something different than the topographical distribution.
- At the end of the introduction, the authors state the hypotheses. However, these hypotheses (especially hypothesis b) are not linked with the rest of the introduction. Can the authors make explicit why they expect a lower amplitude/ higher latency in the children with dyscalculia?
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and relevant. However, the knowledge gap could be made more explicit in the introduction.
I have some comments and questions on the methods and results sections:
1.	I miss a justification of the number of participants that were included in the study. Although the authors mention in the discussion that the sample size was small, I doubt whether the sample is sufficient. Although there are no clear cut rules on the minimum number of participants, I think it is generally acknowledged that one needs at least 20 participants per group. Are the authors able to show either a power analysis or a justification for the sample sizes? I know there are studies with less participants than 20 (including my own), but in the light of the recent developments in the area of  reproducibility, I think it is crucial to have a justification for the small sample.
2.	How many children were excluded from the study? The participants were selected from a sample of 152 children, but it is not clear how they were selected. I’m concerned about this especially given the last paragraph of the discussion, in which the authors write that many students with dyscalculia did not meet the criteria, including the criterion of enough correctly answered trials. As such, I am wondering as to whether the sample of children with dyscalculia is representative of the population (or the larger sample) of children with dyscalculia.
3.	In line 224 the authors write that the participants were instructed to answer as fast as possible. However, they could only respond after 3000 ms, when the answers became visible. Once the participants knew that they had 3000 ms to respond, how could the authors check whether the children indeed tried to come to a solution as soon as possible? The observed use of finger counting suggests that the children did not answer as fast as possible
4.	The authors write in line 247-248 that the average number of segments per condition was approximately equal. How many segments were included? And more importantly, how many segments were included in the GAP group and in the DYS group? In the results section, the authors report a larger N400 effect in the GAP group. However, this could be due to the inclusion of more trials, and thus less noisy data leading to larger amplitudes. Therefore, it is important that a similar amount of trials are used to generate the ERPs in both groups and both conditions.
5.	In line 267 and 268, the authors write that they used separate analyses for each group. Can the authors explain why they did this instead of looking at an interaction between Condition and Group?
6.	In Figure 2, the correct answers in the DYS group are around 60%. Did the authors test whether this performance was above chance? Otherwise, they might not be measuring what they intend to measure in the ERPs.
7.	The authors write about a difference in OMs between the groups. However, no descriptives on the OMs are provided.
Minor comments in the methods sections:
a.	Line 182: numeric management is not a common term. Can the authors explain what they mean with this term?
b.	Par 2.3 ‘procedure’ actually contains specifics about the task. I think that should be a separate header
c.	Line 230: children were instructed to avoid blinking. Were there moments in between the trials in which the participants were allowed to blink?
d.	Line 309-310: which window was chosen to test this difference in N400 effect?
Validity of the findings: With regard to the standards of the journal, not all underlying data have been provided. As stated before, the raw EEG data as well as the behavioral data are missing. Moreover, an analysis script and the results of the permutation test would be helpful, especially since permutation tests will always return slightly different results when being re-run.
In the discussion, I have difficulty following the authors’ line of thought. The subdivision in paragraphs is not clear:
1. The authors write that poor performance of children with dyscalculia can be explained by the use of procedures instead of retrieval (line 334 and further). Whereas this might be the case, the use of finger counting in children in the GAP group suggests that these children do not use retrieval strategies either. The authors also acknowledge this, but this undermines the likelihood of their explanation.
2. From line 353 the authors write that there are 2 main hypotheses to explain learning disorders, however, they only mention one of them. Then they continue with ‘on the other hand’, however, it is not clear what ‘on the one hand’ is here? This makes the text difficult to follow between line 353 and 364.
3. I don’t understand what is meant in line 370 until 374.
4. In line 387 the authors write that they don’t find differences. I think they mean that they do not find differences in amplitude.
5. Line 392-394 needs to be elaborated. What does this mean (functionally) that the LPC does not (yet) have a parietal distribution?
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors study arithmetic processing in children with and without dyscalculia using ERPs. This is an interesting topic given the problems children with dyscalculia face in basic arithmetic. However, I do have some concerns about the manuscript. The most crucial point is the sample. Can the authors justify their small sample? And can they justify the selection of their sample (see 'Experimental design', point 2)


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: ARITHMETIC PROCESSING IN CHILDREN WITH DYSCALCULIA: AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Firstly, I would like to thank the authors for the excellent work they did for the revision. Improvements are clearly visible and the great effort is evident. Particularly, following the reviews, they deepened the link between WM and mathematical skills, reporting very relevant references. This allowed them to clarify their hypothesis and their method of investigating this relationship with the current study in DD. Additionally, in the methodological section, relevant details regarding the ERP analysis have been reported. Here are some minor comments.
Experimental design: -To improve the section regarding the stimuli, I suggest explaining additions are generated. Digits used from 1-9. How much the incorrect probe differs from the correct one? Was it constant? What about carry-nocarry (eg. 9+4 or 5+3)? Was the same number of carry or no carry trials in the two groups?
- It is good that nonparametric analysis on ERPs was computed. However, these findings need to be shown that they are compatible with the previous literature in terms of regions.
- which are the tests of WM in the WISC the authors correlating with the ERP measures? In the WISC there are 3 WM subtests. The average?
Validity of the findings: - It is important to link ERP finding with the previous findings and compare them to show reliability.
- The differentiation between low and high WM in DD children requires additional attention.  Making assumptions regarding low and high WM in DD group without statistical results can be risky. It can be certainly commented on and emphasized for future studies. Unfortunately, the number of DD children does not allow further analysis.
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: ARITHMETIC PROCESSING IN CHILDREN WITH DYSCALCULIA: AN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIAL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Although the language has improved in general, I still have difficulty understanding some parts of the text:
-	The introductory part of the abstract is not clearly structured, i.e. sentences do not follow each other logically.
-	Also, the last sentence of the discussion part of the abstract is unclear without having read the full manuscript.
-	Line 95 starts with ‘therefore’, but it is not clear what this term refers to
-	Line 100-102 does not make sense. It states that individuals with good ability perform better than those with poorer performance, which is circular reasoning
-	In line 115-116, the authors claim that a child need to maintain a result in WM. The result actually needs to be maintained in verbal short term memory. Earlier in the introduction, the authors mention that children with dyscalculia mainly have difficulty in visuo-spatial STM and the central executive. This doesn’t align with each other
-	Line 145: ….but no significant differences……. Should be: but not significant amplitude differences
-	In line 171-172, the authors refer to ‘the ERP components’. I assume that this refers to the N400 and LPC, but this should be mentioned.
-	In the paragraph starting at line 170, the authors talk about the relation of verbal WM with math achievement. They argue that children with dyscalculia will have different ERP patterns based on the relation between verbal wm and math achievement. However, earlier (line 86-94) they claim that it is mainly visuo-spatial wm and central executive that children with dyscalculia have problems with. As such, this does not align with each other. Children with dyscalculia have also shown to display problems in verbal wm, but that should then be added in the paragraph starting at line 86.
-	Line 176 – 179 would benefit from re-phrasing: 1st aim and second aim

Tables and Figures are generally clear. However, Figure 4 and 8 are thresholded. As such, they only show the locations of the significant t-values. In the original manuscript, there was no thresholding, which I like better, because it gives more insight into the underlying data.
I don’t see much added value of Figure 9. I think scatterplots of the correlations at T6 and O2 would give better insight into the data.

For the previous version, I made the remark that the raw data are not supplied. I had misunderstood the data provided by the authors and missed the behavioral data-file which was included. The data that are provided do meet the criteria for reproducibility.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and relevant. It is very beneficial that the authors included more participants. I still have some comments and questions on the methods and results sections:
In the reply to my 2nd and remark, the authors write how many children were excluded and why. However, this should also be included in the manuscript. The same holds for my comment on ‘participants were not allowed to blink’.

The results-section has become much clearer. However, I think it would be better to re-order a part of this section. I think line 356-366 should be placed directly after line 344.
In line 3356-357, the authors talk about ‘two statistical analyses for independent samples’. Were permutation tests used here as well?
Another question about this analysis is why the authors did not test differences between the groups in the time window in which they found the LPC for the dys-group?
In line 371 the authors report a correlation with the LPC-effect. They should mention that this is the LPC-window for the GAP-group (or mention a time window), since they have two LPC windows (1 for GAP and one for DYS).
Validity of the findings: The discussion is clearer than in the first version of the manuscript. However, I still have some questions:
In line 390 the authors refer to the use of more procedural strategies instead of retrieval practice in children with dyscalculia. What is missing in their reasoning is that procedural strategies are more prone to errors than fact retrieval.
In line 395 the authors write that there were no differences in response times. However, I think this is a weak argument, because the arithmetic problem had already been displayed 3 seconds ago once the participants could answer.
The authors write that there was much dispersion in the RT data. This might be due to the age range of the participants, since automatization of the arithmetic facts tested here still develops in that age range. One could try to see whether there is a relation between RT and age to elucidate this potential relationship.
Line 414-416 are unclear to me.
In line 428-431 the authors write that there were no significant differences between the groups, whereas I think the results in line 363-364 show a difference in Fp2? If that is the case, than the authors should also be careful with their interpretation, because the difference between the groups is not in the right posterior location, but in the frontal regions.
With regard to line 460-462 I still think it is unlikely that children only start to calculate after the probe is presented, since they were instructed to answer as quickly as possible.
In line 490 and further, the authors write that the a-typical pattern in children with low WM may be consist of an N200 and an N400, the latter of which is due to matching the probe to the result to the equation. However, earlier in the discussion, they explain the absence of the N400-effect in the DYS-group as not processing the congruent result. So, it seems that the finding of an N400-effect in the low WM group is contrary to the expectations? And the explanations seems to contradict each other.
In line 512 the authors mention the lower LPC amplitude. It should be added that this holds for the LPC amplitude in the right temporal regions.
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors study arithmetic processing in children with and without dyscalculia using ERPs. This is an interesting topic given the problems children with dyscalculia face in basic arithmetic.
The manuscript has majorly improved compared to the previous version. I definitely think it is an interesting addition to the existing literature. However, I did still find some missing information and sections that are difficult to follow, so I would like you to incorporate some additional changes.


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: CLINICAL RELEVANCE ASSESSMENT OF ANIMAL PRECLINICAL RESEARCH (RAA) TOOL: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLANATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: The authors of this study used a modified Delphi approach to develop a tool to assess the clinical relevance of a preclinical research study and assess the likelihood that the therapeutic preclinical research methods and findings would be successfully translated into improvement in the management of human diseases.  The process identified eight domains and 28 signaling questions that can provide a framework for researchers, journal editors, grant funders, and regulatory authorities to assess the clinical relevance of preclinical animal research, going beyond reporting standards and minimization of bias in study design.

The authors should be applauded for tackling this challenging yet critical topic. They have done a tremendous amount of work and their product will be helpful for a long list of stakeholders. Please see below for issues/clarifications to address:

1.	Lines 173-205: A flow diagram specifically outlining how many questions were included or excluded at each stage would be helpful to clarify the specifics of each Delphi step.
2.	Please clarify: Were all steps completed electronically? What platform was used?
3.	Lines 221-226: Please provide a table summarizing the demographics of the Delphi panel members.
4.	Did the panel members declare conflicts of interest?
5.	There are distracting font changes throughout (example line 420).
6.	Lines 429-438: This paragraph is very difficult to interpret. Please rewrite.
7.	Line 630: Please clarify, repeated/replicated within the same study?
8.	Please clarify the difference between signaling questions 5.2 and 5.3.
9.	Lines 792-797: As a major point, I request that the authors provide more detail on the piloting process, as well as practical guidance/direction on how the framework can be used for an individual study. How many positive responses would be considered an overall positive assessment? Please complete the manuscript with clearer future steps for the reader.


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: CLINICAL RELEVANCE ASSESSMENT OF ANIMAL PRECLINICAL RESEARCH (RAA) TOOL: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLANATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors present development and explanation of a tool to assess the clinical relevance of preclinical research. Such a tool is very much welcomed as only a small proportion of preclinical research translates into clinical benefit in humans. The proposed tool assesses the likelihood that therapeutic preclinical findings can be translated into improvement of the management of human diseases. The intended users of the tool are researchers conducting first-in-human studies, journal editors, grant funders, and regulatory authorities. The tool is currently being piloted.

The manuscript is long, but reads well. Overall the reporting is clear and unambiguous and professional English language is used throughout the manuscript. The structure of the manuscript is clear and the tables and figures are relevant.

I do have some comments on the structure of the Introduction. The second paragraph of the Introduction (line 97-119) is a description of the Methods and Results and should not be part of the Introduction. What I miss in the Introduction is a thorough analysis and discussion of the reasons and explanations for the lack of translation of the results observed in preclinical research, and a framework or model of how translatability works, or might work. This is mentioned in just one sentence; in my opinion, this should be the backbone of the tool.

Line 120: In ‘Why is this project needed?’ the authors explain the choice for the type of tool (domain-based). In this paragraph I would like to read something about other tools with the same goal, if any, to put development of the proposed RAA tool into context. Please consider moving the choice for the type of tool move to the Methods section.

Line 134: Please explain what first-in-human studies are. This means that not all preclinical research is relevant for this tool.
Experimental design: In general, the method used to develop a tool like this (literature search plus Delphi), and the design of the tool (domain-based) are both well established and state of the art.

I have however some comments and questions on the approach.

The authors followed the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines as general method. Could you please explain why you choose reporting as a starting point? The lack of translatability is about much more than adequate reporting. We know of course that reporting guidelines are often used to assist in designing studies, but guidance to develop a methodological (or conceptual or analytical) framework as starting point would have seemed more logical and appropriate to me. A related point is the search (line 141), please explain why you choose a snowballing technique over a systematic search.

Line 148-149: The topics covered in the previous guidance were recorded. Can the authors please explain how they decided which items from the guidance papers should be recorded? For example, how did they deal with duplicate items or topics? Please provide this list as supplemental information.

Line 153: In Box 1, point 2 is not about signaling questions but domains, and addresses another point, namely how to use the tool. Looking at what is said here, the authors state that certain domains may be more important than the other, depending upon the nature and purpose for the research. It would be very helpful for the tool user to have a list of examples of the different nature and purposes and a suggestion for which domain should receive more weight, given that specific nature or purpose.

Box 2 (line 172) presents an overview of the Delphi-method. What I miss is a connection of the items/topics/questions that are found in the literature and the reasons for, or aspects of the lack of translation of the results of preclinical research. From what the authors describe it seems that the Delphi panel members prioritized and scored all items/topics/questions that were found in the literature. What is for each domain the rationale and evidence that the domain contributes to, or is an aspect of translatability of results of preclinical studies, and should therefore be included in the tool?

Line 173: Box 2, point 1: please provide these questions as supplemental information. It is not clear of the first round only included questions regarding scope and necessity of the tool, or that these questions were early formulations of the signaling questions and domains (that seems so, based on point 3 and 4).
Line 202: Box 2, point 8: what is meant by aspects?
Did the authors already present the domain structure and its topics to the panel, or was this a result from the Delphi rounds? Please add more details of how the tool got his shape and format.
Validity of the findings: The domains and signaling questions are very comprehensive and cover a very broad range of topics. Applying all these signaling questions give in-depth insight in the preclinical study that is assessed. My concern however is that the connection with translatability is often not clear.

Line 247: What is ‘low concerns for the domain’? Concerns for what?
The tool assesses the likelihood that preclinical findings can be translated into improvement in the management of human diseases. How does likelihood relate to concerns for the domain? I would expect an outcome like ‘likely’, ‘probably likely’, ‘probably not likely’, ‘not likely’.
Line 252: I find the statement that the tool is not for assessment of the quality of the study, as the first 4 domains cover construct validity, internal and external validity and bias, all aspects of how well the study was conducted.

Line 275/6: How is clinical relevance in terms of translation defined? Does it mean that the same results can be expected in humans? Or the same direction of the effect? Please define clearly what is meant by ‘clinical relevance’.
For each domain answering the signaling questions gives a low, moderate or high concern outcome. What is the judgement across domains? The authors state that low concerns for all domains means high clinical relevance, but what is the judgment when there are low concerns for some domains and high concerns for others?
What kind of decisions can be based on the end result of the assessment? Please provide explanation and examples of how use of the tool can guide decisions for the users.

Line 284: Scoring: please add user’s guidance for how to use the tool in practice. Should the tool be used by two assessors independently, for example? What level of knowledge and expertise is needed to use the tool?
It is the preclinical study that is assessed. I assume this is done with a clinical question in mind, and this should be made explicit by both the preclinical researcher and the user of the tool. Adding preparatory steps before answering the signaling questions, like for example in the QUADAS-2 tool (flow chart of the study) and ROBINS-I tool (target trial and confounders) would enhance usability of the tool.

Line 294 etc: Rationale and explanation of domains and signaling questions.
Domain 6: Implication of the study findings (study conclusions): why this is important for assessing the clinical relevance? This assessment can be made based on the study design, the choice of the animal model(s), the comparisons etc. How the preclinical researchers draw conclusions about their findings are not relevant, in my opinion.
Domain 7: line 671: ‘If the authors did not adhere … even if the study experimental design and analysis were reliable’ – please provide a rationale and references for this statement.

Please provide detailed information about the pilot (how, and for which users), and add the learning material as supplemental files.
Additional comments: Thank you for developing this much needed tool. I read your manuscript with great interest. My main concern is that I often miss the rationale and evidence for how the domains are related to translatability and that the construction of tool is so comprehensive and complex that it will be very hard to use. I hope the pilot will give insight in this, and I think the results of the pilot will be crucial for how the tool will further develop. I find it hard to make a final judgment about the manuscript without having seen the results of the pilot. Another main concern is the scoring, for me the aim of assessing likelihood that preclinical findings translate into improvement in the management of human disease and scoring concerns with the domains is not logical.


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: CLINICAL RELEVANCE ASSESSMENT OF ANIMAL PRECLINICAL RESEARCH (RAA) TOOL: DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLANATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Appropriate for publication.
Experimental design: Appropriate for publication.
Validity of the findings: Appropriate for publication.
Additional comments: Thank-you for addressing my comments. I look forward to your next publication on the results of piloting the new tool you have developed.


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: EXPLORING A MODEL-BASED ANALYSIS OF PATIENT DERIVED XENOGRAFT STUDIES IN ONCOLOGY DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written with sufficient literature references. It builds upon previous reports of model based approaches to interpreting xenografted mouse cancer model data with the novelty here of the application to patient derived xenografts that are significantly more heterogenous in their response compared to the cell line derived xenografts that have been cultured in vitro. Some small queries/comments:
1. Are "studies" referring to the different treatments tested in Gao et al?
2. I suggest adding references to back up the claims of the applicability of the Mayneord model on line 77
3. Is figure 3 of the control growth only?
4. Please report the treatment effect parameter c where this was found to be significant. This could be added to table 5.
Experimental design: The data are reported in the literature and so the authors had no influence on the design of the in vivo experiments. The analysis approach, including the application of nonlinear mixed-effects, is appropriate. I have no further comments.
Validity of the findings: The findings are supported by the data shown.
Additional comments: The manuscript reports an analysis approach that adds significant value to the interpretation of animal data. The approaches reported can be implemented in software available to the biostatistics community and so provide a practical improvement on current methodology.


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: EXPLORING A MODEL-BASED ANALYSIS OF PATIENT DERIVED XENOGRAFT STUDIES IN ONCOLOGY DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dickinson et al. describe a study designed to provide an analysis of the approaches used to assess the outcome of animal xenograft studies used in preclinical drug discovery.
Critically, the authors find that empirical (end-point) analysis is inferior to the model based analysis and this has conseuqences to the length and size of subsequent in-vivo studies. This finding isn’t entirely new, and the authors acknowledge the work previously by Hather et al, but most critically extends from the Hather study by assessing the applicability to patient-derived xenograft (PDX) as opposed to cell-derived xenograft (CDX). This is important because PDX studies are potentially more translatable to human studies due to the source material for xenografting, and consequently more costly to run and have greater variance in measurements. The consequences for such work are manifold, greater efficiency in the collection of data, reduction in number of animals and greater precision (and confidence) in the study conclusions, that in turn has onward implication to drug progression to clinical phase trials.

The work is well written and approachable, below are some minor comments and questions to be considered:

•	The authors describe using one of many such tumour growth models (Mayneord, 1932). It would be interesting to analyse (or comment) on the expected effects of different tumour growth models on the results.
•	Given the model-based approach considers the entirety of data generated up until the study cut off, i.e. 14, 21 and 28 day effects. Could the approach be used to cut short any future xenograft studies once significance, using model based approaches has been found?
•	The figures appear to be quite low-resolution, can high resolution images be included for final 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: EXPLORING A MODEL-BASED ANALYSIS OF PATIENT DERIVED XENOGRAFT STUDIES IN ONCOLOGY DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written. The authors have answered all of my comments
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thank you for adressing my 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 SPECIES OF SUBTERRANEAN AMPHIPODS (PSEUDOCRANGONYCTIDAE: PSEUDOCRANGONYX) FROM LIMESTONE CAVES IN SOUTH KOREA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very nice taxonomic paper and it had been a pleasure to review it! I wished all taxonomic papers that I reviewed are so well prepared! It has been written very carefully. There a very few language problems. I tried to adress these directly in the text, but the authors must be aware, that I am not a native speaker (despite my name!).

The citation of the literature is well done and the important papers related to the question are listed. The references are well formatted... nothing to complain about.

The structure of the article is very well balanced.

The illustrations are very nice and clear. The taxonomic descriptions are very detailed, the results are well presented and the hypotheses well supported.
Experimental design: The methods used fit the research questions and are standard for modern taxonomy. No complains!
Validity of the findings: The results are novel and very interesting. They form the basis for many future studies in different fields (evolution, ecology ...) on this groundwater taxon.
Additional comments: My comments are in the uploaded pdf. Here are some general comments:
1) At first appearance of a species in the text the genus name should be spelled out and author and year should be added.
2) Suggestion for your next paper: Gum chloral as an embedding medium for microscopic slides is not very long-lasting. From the conservation point of view they are a desaster after some decades. Then they often  crystallize and leaving the slides useless. Better use Canada Balsam or Euparal.
3) Suggestion for your next paper: It appears to me that for the drawing a bitmap drawing program had been used, as some of the details have a higher line-weight. With vector graphics this could be avoided, then all lines can be scaled and keep their weight. Not a big problem, though, but the plates could look a bit better then.
4) In the manuscript you are referring to the "true P. asiaticus" several times. I know what you mean, but could you perhaps use "the orginally described P. asiaticus" or "P. asiaticus sensu stricto" (or s.str.) and explain this in Material and Methods?
Thanks, dear authors! Best regards, Ch. Oliver Coleman (Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Germany)


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 SPECIES OF SUBTERRANEAN AMPHIPODS (PSEUDOCRANGONYCTIDAE: PSEUDOCRANGONYX) FROM LIMESTONE CAVES IN SOUTH KOREA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: “Three new species of subterranean amphipod (Pseudocrangonyctidae: Pseudocrangonyx) from limestone caves in South Korea”

The manuscript described three new species of the subterranean Pseudocrangonyx, and provided a molecular phylogeny to determine the relationship of Korean cave species. The description and illustrations are excellent. The phylogenetic analyses are reasonable. I recommend to publish it with minor revion.

1)	Line 128: urosomite 1–3 should be urosomites 1–3
2)	There are 6 species from Korea in Table 1, however, only 5 species are used for genetic distance in Table 2. Please explain.
3)	For figure legends, “ventral view”, “posterior view”, “medial view” are different？


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: COMPARING IMPACTS OF METAL CONTAMINATION ON MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN A NORTHERN JAPANESE RIVER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was written in a clear, concise style throughout.  The introduction presented well the state of the art regarding metal impacts on freshwater ecosystems and then focussed down on the study objective; which biological groups are best suited to assessment of metal impacts.  My only minor criticism is that the authors give the impression that the study will be focussing on the impact of the treated discharge from an abandoned mine when in fact there are other upstream sources of metal contamination upstream; a point already confirmed in a previous paper by the authors.
The manuscript is well-structured throughout making it easy to understand and follow the steps taken in the research.  While a precise experimental hypothesis is not stated the authors do clearly define the objective of the survey.
Experimental design: The authors describe a simple comparison between two adjacent streams, one in a catchment with an abandoned mine facility and the other in a catchment without.  Multiple discrete sites are sampled on a single occasion down the length of both streams.  There is within-site replication of water samples, macroinvertebrate samples and fish sampling, and replication of sites within each catchment, but there is neither temporal replication at each site nor replication at the level of catchment i.e. sampling of multiple mining-impacted and non-impacted catchments.  The lack of replication at the two latter levels constrains the work to being a case-study of impacts in the Ofuntarumanai River relative to the Tokushibetsu River.  The lack of temporal replication of water chemistry sampling is particularly concerning given that it is well-understood how variable such measurements can be in relation to discharge.  A single measurement can only provide a crude indication of the water quality conditions experienced by the biota over the preceding weeks and months.
It would be good to have more detail on the geology and land-use of the two catchments to confirm that the reference stream is an appropriate comparator for the impacted stream.
The biological sampling and processing, chemical sampling and analysis are well-described with sufficient detail.  The data analysis steps are also clearly detailed, though I do raise a query regarding the use of multiple comparison tests prior to ANOVA.  In my experience it has always been the other way round; you do the ANOVA first and then carry out multiple comparison texts to determine where the significant differences lie.  It would be useful if the authors could provide more information on this point.
Validity of the findings: The authors are careful to limit their statement of results to the constraints of the study design.  They find that the abundance and condition of four fish species did not differ consistently between the two catchments, while some descriptors of macroinvertebrate communities at the more upstream sites did differ from those in the reference catchment and upstream reference sites.  Given the lack of catchment replication they can only suggest that metal concentrations are the limiting factor at play in the upstream sites.
Another minor criticism is that the current manuscript is effectively a repeat of the Iwasaki et al 2020 work based on a similar sampling survey undertaken in 2017 only this time they have included a fish survey at each site.  The authors claim that the comparison of fish and macroinvertebrate responses to metal contamination will contribute to the ‘surprisingly…limited number of studies published in peer-reviewed journals [that] have investigated multiple biological groups in metal-contaminated rivers’.  But in the conclusions they state that ‘these differences in responses to metal contamination have been reported in several studies, and metrics based on fishes are generally less responsive to metal contamination than those based on macroinvertebrates’.  So this manuscript would appear to be effectively an annual update of the findings from Iwasaki et al 2020 with the addition of fish data to confirm what is already known i.e. fish are less responsive as bioindicators of metal pollution than macroinvertebrates.  Furthermore the authors include data for an autumn 2018 survey of the same streams in the discussion but not formally as part of the paper.  One can’t help thinking that perhaps the 2017-2018 datasets would be better analysed as one body of data in a single manuscript.
Additional comments: As stated above I found the manuscript to be very well written and presented.  My main concern is that it is based on a limited dataset with little to no effective replication.  This hampers your ability to draw general conclusions of wider relevance beyond the Tokushibetsu catchment.
I have uploaded an annotated copy of the manuscript pdf with some 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: COMPARING IMPACTS OF METAL CONTAMINATION ON MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN A NORTHERN JAPANESE RIVER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See attachment.
Experimental design: See attachment.
Validity of the findings: See attachment.
Additional comments: This is an important field study that provides an important contribution to our understanding of stream community responses to mining impacts and remediation in streams. Most of my comments request additional information and clarification. However, my most outstanding comment/concern is that field data from Sept-2018 were not part of the manuscript's primary analyses. The central hypothesis of the study was to test for the ecological effects of stream communities to treated mine discharge in the Tokushibetsu River. Therefore, it makes no sense to exclude the Sept-2018 data from the primary statistical analysis and to just briefly refer to these data in the discussion. I strongly suggest modeling both June and September data together. I provide more detail regarding this concern in the attached file.


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: COMPARING IMPACTS OF METAL CONTAMINATION ON MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN A NORTHERN JAPANESE RIVER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript explores the effects of metal contamination on aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish in a stream system receiving treated discharge from a decommissioned mine in northern Japan. The paper is in relatively good shape. One of the proposed unique features of this study is that multiple biological groups (BMIs and fish) are studied together to evaluate whether there are any differences in the sensitivity of metrics calculated for macroinvertebrates and for fish communities.

I commend the authors for writing a clear and concise manuscript to read. However, a number of edits are required and I would like to see certain sections expanded. Please find specific edit requests below. The Raw data is provided and is easy to interpret. The figures are simple and well labelled. The figure captions are clear. A permit has been supplied in the supplementary information.

Specific edits:

Line 30-31. Should this read “At the two most (or furthest) upstream contaminated sites...”? It is unclear what sites you are referring to from the study design because S1a is technically upstream of the discharge area, so this could be either S1A and S1B or S1B and S2? Please clarify.

Line 30 to 33. Restructure this sentence to begin with the result (“We detected a significant (observation) at the two upstream contaminated sites with metal concentrations....”.

Line 35. Include scientific name in brackets within the abstract unless journal guidelines suggest otherwise.

Line 90. Relabel Table 2 as Table 1 and reference it here to guide readers to your m.a.s.l values.

Line 253, 259, 262 and throughout. You switch between O. masou and masu salmon throughout. Please be consistent.
Experimental design: This paper is within the scope of the journal and makes an interesting contribution to the field. In general, the objective is defined concisely, but I would like to see further development regarding the knowledge gap and uniqueness of the study (see specific comments for Line 69 and Line 73 below). The statistical design is simple and effective; however, I would consider further multivariate analyses relating macroinvertebrate communities to water chemistry metrics to help accumulate empirical evidence for the macroinvertebrate indicators

Specific edits:
Line 69-70. I think one additional component that makes your study unique is related to your investigation of legacy effects/long-term effects post-closure of the mine. Please strengthen this component in your introduction. In addition, is the river passively receiving discharge from the artificial wetlands or are periodic discharge events occurring throughout the year to the river system?

Line 73 to 75. I would like to see further justification for the inclusion of fish in this assessment from an ecosystem service perspective given that it is one of the defining features that differentiates this study from the 2017 assessment (Iwasaki et al. 2020) referenced in line 72. Is this a catch and release fishery, is it important food resource for local communities, etc.? Also, is this the only important fish species in the region? Why not just focus on masu salmon instead of other species? Are there any additional taxa that should have been included that are sensitive to metal contamination that are present in this system that were overlooked (e.g. sculpin)? Please develop your reasoning in this paragraph.

Line 84 to 92. Please include 1-2 sentences describing the general characteristics of the catchment. Are other disturbance types an issue here? Is this catchment developed or more rural? These details would be helpful to an international audience

Line 86 to 88. Can you include stream order?

Line 86. Is S1A a true contaminated site while technically being upstream of the output area? I noticed in a previous investigation (Iwasaki et al. 2020 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment), this site was used in an upstream/downstream comparison of the effects of metal contaminated discharge. I think including justification for S1A as a contaminated site would be prudent.

Line 86 to 91. Are the river systems geographically distant enough that you would not expect migration of fish between the contaminated and reference study reach?

Line 139 to 146. Please add a sentence describing average substrate type in your reaches. Are these sites typically rock/cobble-dominated, therefore justifying your method of surber sampler and rock scraping?

Line 170 to 175. Are Masu salmon stocked in both river reaches? Do you know when they are stocked and how many are stocked? This could artificially inflate abundance estimates at one reach, and depending on how long they have been in the river system, may influence condition.

Line 196. The statistics are sufficiently communicated and I do enjoy the simplicity of the analyses, however, were multivariate analyses considered here? Given the data that you have including water chemistry and physical variables, I see potential to investigate whether there are environmental drivers of community structure at your sites using redundancy analysis or similar appropriate ordination technique. This is just a suggestion, but it may provide a deeper understanding than possible with your current metric comparison. In addition, a similarity percentage analysis (SIMPER) may help investigate potential differences between the R and S sites.

Table 1. Relabel as Table 2.

Table 2. Relabel as Table 1 now that it is referenced in Line 90.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data has been provided, analysis are simple and effective, and results are statistically sound. Speculation is kept to a minimum. I would recommend adding a few sentences to emphasize the long-term detectable patterns observed in macroinvertebrate community metrics related to the mining operation. Considering the localized context of this paper, I would like to see some discussion of the importance of these findings to the region and stocked population of masu salmon. Masu salmon stocking appears to be one of the points raised to argue the importance of this study in the introduction (Lines 73-74). I also noticed that a section of the discussion (Lines 308 to 313) mention significant differences between two of the most upstream impacted sites compared to upstream references sites for white spotted char (S. leucomaenis) and a trend is also seen that appears important enough to mention, although it’s not significant, for Lethenteron spp. I would recommend including a sentence in the results section to prepare the reader for this discussion, as it is currently lacking. Relevant references are used throughout the discussion that support the findings in this study.
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: COMPARING IMPACTS OF METAL CONTAMINATION ON MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN A NORTHERN JAPANESE RIVER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript now meets the journal standards for basic reporting
Experimental design: The manuscript now meets the journal standards with regard to its survey design and data analysis.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript now meets the journal standards with regard to the validity of the findings
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: COMPARING IMPACTS OF METAL CONTAMINATION ON MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN A NORTHERN JAPANESE RIVER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: The authors have addressed my overall biggest concern regarding the exclusion of September field sampling data from their primary analyses. Based on the previous reporting of the September sampling I was unaware that different benthic sampling methods were used and without replication at many sites. This is an important detail and now I agree with the decision to not include these data in the primary analyses. However, given these data are publicly available and are summarized in supporting information, I believe it is fine to reference these data in the discussion section of the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The previous comment in the experimental design section links to the validity of the findings. In short, I believe the authors have addressed all of my concerns, the results are valid and the discussion and conclusions are well supported.
Additional comments: The authors did a very good job addressing my suggested revisions. My recommendation is that this manuscript is accepted 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: A NOVEL IMU-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A PROTOCOL VALIDATION STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The structure of the article is correct, and the mathematical analysis is well explained. The supplementary data are abundant and complete, although there is a file with example data of a subject that is empty, and this makes it difficult to repeat the calculations proposed in the source code. English grammar is good.
Experimental design: The study is very interesting and could have its application in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), although the number of subjects is very small. A validation study, as indicated in the title, should incorporate other clinimetric tests: reliability, validity with respect to other indicators, etc.
Validity of the findings: To develop new methods for functional assessment in patients with AS is very important and relevant. The classical evaluation methods, currently used, were defined in the 90s and are based on very basic instruments (tape measure and goniometers). The study proposes the use of advanced technological tools (IMU) for the evaluation of the patient with AS. Although the objective is very interesting, in the present study only a first proof of concept is made on five healthy subjects. We cannot speak of a complete validation study, but rather a pilot study or proof of concept. Even so, the method and the calculations are very interesting, and could be usefull.
Additional comments: The study proposes the use of inertial sensors (IMU) for the evaluation of spinal mobility, taking into account measurements similar to the already used in the mobility assessment of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), although they are indirect measurements and with tools with low precision and reliability. Describes a series of algorithms and formulas to evaluate spinal mobility (cervical, thoracic and lumbar). The results compared with a motion capture system, as Gold Standard, are good.

However, this study cannot be understood as a complete clinimetric validation study (for example according COSMIN guidelines - https://www.cosmin.nl/tools/cosmin-taxonomy-measurement-properties/): content validity (comparing mobility results of IMU versus PRO questionaires), criterion validity (comparing IMU results with conventional metrology results, i.e. cervical rotation using IMU compared with cervical rotation using a goniometer), reliability, responsiveness ...

The study is interesting, but it is a first step. I recommend to change the title of the article to “… : a pilot study”. Within the limitations of the study, it seems clear that a validation process cannot be performed in axSpA, without using patients with axSpA. On the other hand, there is no sample size calculations that allows us to say that the system is reliable compared to motion capture like Gold Standard.
For all these reasons, the object of analysis of the study is interesting. The study methodology is satisfactory, and the paper is well written. However there are some things that need to be improved and others justified or revised.
Abstract:
L15-16: “… the BASMI index lacks sensitivity and specificity of spinal changes, demonstrating poor association with radiographical range of motion (ROM).”. There are few studies that analyze radiographic range of motion in AS. Muchos otros highlight poor reliability, accuracy and responsiveness of BASMI in spinal ROM. Your results are not also compared with radiographic range of motion.
L28-29: “…The protocol has shown to be a 29 valuable tool for the assessment of spinal ROM and kinematics, and is considered validated.” See previous comment about clinimetric validation. “This opens the possibility to further experimentation in a clinical setting to test a novel IMU based mobility index for axial spondyloarthritis.” I agree and for a complete validation for use this IMU sensors in clinical settings.
Introduction:
L47: “ … such as the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI).” Include reference for BASFI.

Material and methods:
L133-134: “The protocol included five functional movements inspired by the BASMI protocol: trunk flexion, trunk extension, trunk lateral flexion, cervical rotation and cervical flexion/extension”. Although you want to replicate outcomes similar to BASMI (although you don’t include BASMI results of your subject to compare/correlate), I don’t understand why you don’t include cervical lateral flexion and trunk rotation to have a more complete assessment of spinal mobility. You must explain in the discussion section, as a limitation of the study or for future studies, why you did it.
L144: “..Delsys Kalman filter to stabilise the orientation”. If Delsys IMU sensors applied a Kalman filter, why did you need to apply another filter (L119 - Both IMU and motion capture data were filtered using a zero-phase low pass 2nd order Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 5 Hz (Charry et al. 2011).” Please explain it.
L307: Could you include somewhere mean ROMS (SD) produced by both systems in each angle?. Other researchers could compare your results of mobility with theirs.
L307: Why did you don’t considerer to calculate ICC between results from both systems?. Please comment.
L311: I think that is not interesting to analyze error as %, because if the angle is near to zero, a little differences suppose a big % of difference. Lower values of the angle will produce bigger % of difference, although in absolute terms the difference could be of the same amount of degrees.
Which values are compared between the two systems?. For each subject, max/min ROM or mean values of each peak, or all the peaks for all the subjects?. Please comment.
For assessing axSpA mobilty, what do you suggest to use? max/min ROM of all the movement, mean values, … if so, perhaps you must to study reliability for these values.

Discussion:
L378:”For this reason, it is advised to use the head segment angle to measure the cervical rotation, assuming that the trunk is still.”. In healthy subject these could be true (the trunk is still) but in AS patients, as they have a strong limitation of mobility, they move the trunk trying to move cervical spine. Please comment this.
L381: “Lastly, the higher limits of agreement registered for lateral flexion can be also attributed to two independent factors: soft tissue artefact (skin stretch and muscle contraction generate rotations out of the frontal plane) and axial rotation components contextual to the lateral flexion”. These could be magnified in AS patients due to mobility restrictions. Please comment this.
L431: “Therefore, by developing a new index that combines this IMU protocol with the BASMI protocol, highly accurate information could be immediately compiled and contrast against previous measures, automatically and in real time.” If BASMI has lack of accuracy, reliability and responsiveness and you mix its measures with IMU results, perhaps it would be better to create a new index based on IMU measures:
[1] Philip V Gardiner, Dawn Small, Karla Muñoz-Esquivel, Joan Condell, Antonio Cuesta-Vargas, Jonathan Williams, Pedro M Machado, Juan L Garrido-Castro, Validity and reliability of a sensor-based electronic spinal mobility index for axial spondyloarthritis, Rheumatology, , keaa122, https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keaa122
[2] Aranda-Valera IC, 2020. UCOASMI.

Table 2 and 3: Include mean values (SD) obtained by each system. Typo it appears Table 1 in the title.
Figure 1: In this figure appears sEMG devices with the markers and IMU sensors. Please use another picture or remove the sEMG sensors in this figure.
Figure 6: In this figure, Error [%] is not very useful, because in small angles this % will be higher.


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: A NOVEL IMU-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A PROTOCOL VALIDATION STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: For a better understandability of the results, the abstract should include the statistical analysis performed.
Figures and tables are sufficient, relevant, and well described
Experimental design: The experimental design is sound and reproducible. However, the clinical applicability is questionable, since no patient was tested. It is well known that psychometric variables are population dependent. It is not possible to assume that the assessment protocol can be applied in the same form to a sample of patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis.
No “a priori” sample size was performed.
Each statistical analysis should answer a specific question. Thus, each study objective can be associated to each analysis to improve the quality and understandability of the results. The results should reflect this analysis sequence.
Why no reliability calculation was performed? IMUs and Qualysis assessment could be assessor dependent. Thus, the consistency of the results should be determined.
Some parametric tools were used, such as Pearson correlation coefficient, but the distribution of data remains unclear, even more when only 5 subjects were assessed.
Validity of the findings: The authors consider that the system is validated, but they only assessed five healthy individuals. More tests are necessary, performed in different types of patients, in terms of clinical stages and sociodemographic/anthropometric features, to affirm that any assessment protocol is valid.
The only clinical comments are in the last paragraph of the Discussion. The absence of an adequate clinical perspective limits the applicability and relevance of the results.
According to this, the conclusions are clearly overestimated. For example: This validation sets the ground to construct a mobility index for axSpA based on automated measures with better metric properties”.
Additional comments: The study looks like a feasibility or even a pilot study, more than a validation study.
The experimental design is sound and reproducible. However, the clinical applicability is questionable, since no patient was tested. It is well known that psychometric variables are population dependent. It is not possible to assume that the assessment protocol can be applied in the same form to a sample of patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis.
An “a priori” sample size and a data distribution evaluation is lacking.
Each study objective should be associated to each analysis to improve the quality and understandability of the results.
The consistency of the results should be determined with a reliability analysis approach.
According to this review, the conclusions are clearly overestimated.