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: INTEGRATING MICRORNA EXPRESSION, MIRNA-MRNA REGULATION NETWORK AND SIGNAL PATHWAY: A NOVEL STRATEGY FOR LUNG CANCER BIOMARKER DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is a manuscript by Nie et al that elucidates a new strategy for lung cancer marker screening by integrating microRNA expression, regulation networks and signal pathways.   The authors find miR-708-5p as a biomarker. This manuscript is a step forward in the framing of policies for lung cancer diagnosis.  It is written in a very simple and easy to follow manner. The conclusions are supported by the analysis. This manuscript can be accepted as is at PeerJ- a few minor comments

1)	Please include study limitations in the discussion
2)	The figure legends should be expanded
3)	Please check for grammar


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: INTEGRATING MICRORNA EXPRESSION, MIRNA-MRNA REGULATION NETWORK AND SIGNAL PATHWAY: A NOVEL STRATEGY FOR LUNG CANCER BIOMARKER DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have constructed a human miRNA-mRNA regulatory network and have found that miR-708-5p independently regulates the hub gene GTF2F2 in non-small cell lung cancer. Gene Ontology analysis and KEGG pathway analysis were used to identify genes involved in cancer-related pathways.
TCGA database, GEO database, volcano plot and signal-to-noise ratio methods were used to obtain significant differentially expressed (SDE) miRNAs. Interestingly, they have found that GTF2F2 binds to polymerase II, which in turn regulates the transcription promoting tumor growth.
The authors have claimed that miR-708-5p could be used as a potential biomarker and its oncogenic role has already been proved experimentally in the previous literature studies. The mechanism of action reported by them is quite novel
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Although, the mRNA expression of miR-708-5p and GTF2F2 are upregulated in NSCLC, can authors show a correlation plot between miR-708-5p and GTFF2 using the TCGA database.


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: INTEGRATING MICRORNA EXPRESSION, MIRNA-MRNA REGULATION NETWORK AND SIGNAL PATHWAY: A NOVEL STRATEGY FOR LUNG CANCER BIOMARKER DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The language of the manuscript is clear and concise. Images presented are good quality and the manuscript is well-structured.
Experimental design: The hypothesis laid down by the authors for the identification of miRNA to be used a lung cancer marker based on downstream targets and pathways is reasonable. The datasets identified are rigorous and methods have been described well.
Validity of the findings: The conclusion derived from the findings does not take into account all the findings.
Additional comments: A documents with figure legends should have been provided with the 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: INTEGRATING MICRORNA EXPRESSION, MIRNA-MRNA REGULATION NETWORK AND SIGNAL PATHWAY: A NOVEL STRATEGY FOR LUNG CANCER BIOMARKER DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Just as a minor comment, it would have been nice if the authors could add a schematic diagram of the mechanism through which miR-708-5p plays role in lung carcinogenesis.


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: INTEGRATING MICRORNA EXPRESSION, MIRNA-MRNA REGULATION NETWORK AND SIGNAL PATHWAY: A NOVEL STRATEGY FOR LUNG CANCER BIOMARKER DISCOVERY
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 incorporated the suggestions, hence the manuscript can now be accepted.


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: DRUG SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY OF ESCHERICHIA COLI IN BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS IN SHANXI, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the research is carried out with scientific rigor, and the objectives set are achieved using the methods that were used.
Experimental design: In general, the methods used, as well as their description, are acceptable. However, I will make some suggestions in order to improve the work.

Line 112. What do the ESBL genes refer to, for example, blatTEM, etc? for better understanding I suggest defining what those genes are or placing a table that defines them

Line 120. E. coli italic font.

Line 121. What do the chuA and yjaA genes code for?

Line 157. What are those 71 drug-resistant genes? Mention if it is in the supplementary material.

Line 206-207. The method with which you isolate genomic DNA, also allows the maintenance of plasmid DNA for later analysis?

In the Bacterial Isolates section, I recommend describing the process of isolating the pathogen and not only the identification process or reference to this method.

In Table 3, for ease of use, I suggest placing the abbreviations of each of the antibiotics at the bottom of the table.

In figure 2, what do the colors mean?
What are those housekeeping genes of E.coli?
Or mention them in the phylogenetic group analysis and multilocus sequence typing section.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions of the research are well supported by the results obtained. And I believe that the contributions of this study will help in the correct medication to treat the BSIs caused by this pathogen.

235-237. Is there any hypothesis why this difference between genders?
Additional comments: In general, the research is carried out in a good way and the results are medically important. Consider the above suggestions.


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: DRUG SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY OF ESCHERICHIA COLI IN BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS IN SHANXI, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Zhang and colleagues describes the molecular epidemiology of Escherichia coli in bloodstream infection. The manuscript lacks the description of phylogenetic background (the details of genetic relationship by phylo-groups and the goeburts analysis will be different to the real mean of phylogenetic background as the study of evolutionary relationships of species or genes). Minor re-organization of the manuscript is required, together with inclusion of additional details to fully validate the conclusions drawn. I have a few comments related to the manuscript that I would like to pass on to the authors for consideration and revision.

Scientific Points
Will be include the province of china hospitals in the title – Drug susceptibility and molecular epidemiology of Escherichia coli in bloodstream infections in Shanxi China.
1. Line 2. Correct the word susceptiblity.
2. Line 20-22. This sentences is a brief introduction, the objective is describe in line 22-24, modify the order.
3. Line 23. Phylogenetic background will be refer as genetic relationship.
4. Line 30-32. The antimicrobial susceptibility in the raw-data, do not show high rates to the ampicillin, ciprofloxacin, cefazolin, levofloxacin, ceftriaxone and cefotaxime. Explain what’s the mean of (>56%)?
5. Line 38. Our results indicated that the antimicrobial resistance rates were high. The conclusion will be modified with deep comparison and additional details, explain why you affirm the existence of “high rates of antimicrobial resistance”.

6. Line 54. Delete year by year.

7. Line 57-58. The most frequently organism identified from blood samples, was E. coli (23.1%) according to the statistical results from the China antimicrobial surveillance network in 2018.

8. Line 62. …resistance mechanism identified in E.coli…

9. Line 63. Lei Tian et al, found…

10. Line 72. Phylogeny will be change by genetic relationship.

11. Line 103. Cefotaidime?

12. Line 105. Isolate resistant to any of the antibiotics ertapenem, meropenem or imipenem was considered as carbapenemase-producer.

13. Line 114. The primers sequences is different from the reference Du et al. 2014.

14. Line 116. Change gene subtype for allelic variant.

15. Line 126. This is a copy-page from the (https://www.phyloviz.net/goeburst/) “using a graphic matroid approach that ensures an optimal solution for the placement of links between Sequence Types”

16. Line 129.  Use the original reference of Feil et al. 2004.

17. Line 138. From the total of 76 E. coli causing BSIs they were isolates from females (42/76) and (34/76) from males.

18. Line 148. The non-ESBLs-producing E. coli showed higher susceptibility to cefazolin, ceftriaxone, cefepime, cefotaxime, aztreonam (P<0.05) (Table 2).

19. Line 152-155. Rephrase the sentences to avoid misunderstandings.

20. Line 157. A total of 71 drug-resistant genes were identified among the 43 ESBLs-producing isolates, where they have one, two and three ESBLs genes in 19 isolate 20 and 4 isolates respectively.

21. Line 164. The phylogenetic lineages were determined in the 76 isolates:

22. Line 169. The percentage of phylo-groups identified were the same regardless of the ESBL producing.

23. Line 172. …and group B1 (5.0%) (Figure 1).

24. Line 175. …were identified in this study (Table 3)

25. Line 175. The ST131 was the most frequently ST identified (19.7%, 15/76), followed…

26. Line 180. Change “dominated” by predominant

27. Line 181. As shown in Table 3, all ST131 assigned to phylogenetic group B2, harbored the TEM-1 (6/20),

28. Line 196. The asseveration of “highly resistant to penicillins, cefazolin, etc” need to be supported with examples and values.

31. Line 225. This sentence will be changed, the phylo-group and goeBurst analysis only shows the genetic relationship between the isolates and does not give any clue about their evolution. ”E. coli causing BSIs did not evolve from a unique ancestral background”

32. Line 243. Need to rephrase the sentence according to the analysis.
Experimental design: 29. Line 205. From the 33 non-ESBLs-producing, 28 were resistance to Ampicillin how do you explain it if you didn’t identify any of the principals Beta-lactamase?

30. Line 205. At less 48 of the isolates were resistant to Lev and 53 resistant to Cip.  Why you didn’t explore the mechanisms to quinolone resistance in order to explain in part the MDR in the non-ESBLs-producing.

33. Figure 2. The goeBurst analysis show the allelic relationship between the different ST. The analysis with the option of TLV, show that ST44 and ST167 are at DLV from the ST10. The rest of the ST did not have real genetic relationship between each other’s. I suggest eliminating figure 2 or doing the analysis with the complete ST database of E. coli. In order to give a complete picture of the ST found in Shanxi China with respect to the main CC identified in the world.
ST: 10
Profile:  10 11 4 8 8 8 2 10
ST: 44
Profile:  10 11 4 8 8 8 7 44
ST: 167
Profile:  10 11 4 8 8 13 2 167
ST: 1284
Profile:  10 4 4 8 8 13 73 1284
Validity of the findings: No comments
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: DRUG SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY OF ESCHERICHIA COLI IN BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS IN SHANXI, CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thank you very much for taking into account my comments and suggestions, which have been with the aim of improving 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: DRUG SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY OF ESCHERICHIA COLI IN BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS IN SHANXI, CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the report is consistent with the objectives, methodology and conclusion. The authors' modifications based on the suggestions have improved the understanding of the document.
Experimental design: The methods are acceptable and were improved.
Validity of the findings: Line 128. "the algorithm was set to group strains together if 6 of 7 alleles were homologous as most studies"
I do not agree with the aseveration that the relationship between isolates can be made in a study, using 6 of the 7 alleles of the MLST of E.coli. In most research studies, the authors use at least 4 identical alleles to consider that they have a genetic relationship.

Line 173. "(group 1: ST45, ST4503;" modified the ST45 for the ST405

In figure 2 modified the ST405 in the text

In figure 2, I don't understand how the ST10 is related to the rest of the STs. Goeburts Full MLST analysis, with level 6 option, does not show ST10.
Additional comments: It is necessary to explain the relevance of figure 2; otherwise it should be removed from the report.


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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN IL-1B (-511)/IL-1RN (VNTR) POLYMORPHISMS AND TYPE 2 DIABETES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Commentaries to the Authors
	This is an interesting, clear and direct study which focused on a relevant issue. The methods are appropriate, and the discussion is adequate, mainly regarding the limitations of the study, which are very important to be honestly exposed and discussed. The reading was very fluent without missing the necessary information.

Minor Changes
1 -Line 125: “In case of disagreement, it will be settled through negotiation.”. This Reviewer think this sentence sounds not much “scientific”. I suggest that authors change to terms like those used in the line 139 “…a third reviewer’s evaluation and discussed until a consistent conclusion was reached.”

2- In the legend of Figure 2, there is the necessity to explain what means: SA, SEA, EA, NA.

3- Despite there were presented in the Table 1 que QA of each study, the detailed results of the NOS of each 12 included study should be included as a Supplementary file. It is interesting to be accessed in order to see the obtained scores for each part of NOS.

4- In the Figure 1, there is the term “irrelevance”. I think it is more adequate “irrelevant”.


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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN IL-1B (-511)/IL-1RN (VNTR) POLYMORPHISMS AND TYPE 2 DIABETES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear, unambiguous language
•	The first sentence of the abstract states that “Interleukin-1 (IL-1) plays an essential role in the immune pro-inflammatory process, inducing the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).” In this form, the statement appears to suggest that IL-1 levels are causal for T2D. However, T2D is a complex disease influenced by multiple environmental, ethnic and genetic factors. This sentence needs to be rephrased so that it is clear that immune inflammation is one factor among many in T2D development.
•	The variant identifiers used throughout the manuscript are acceptable, however, it would be helpful for readers if a dbSNP identifier or chromosome:position coordinates were provided for the first mention of the variant, particularly in the abstract. In addition, for missense variants please indicate where in the amino acid sequence the substitution takes place, and which amino acid is substituted and what it is replaced with. E.g. Arg358Pro.
•	Line 66 change “sensitive” to “sensitivity”
•	Line 87: the word “epidemic” does not make sense here. Consider changing this to “prevalent”
•	Line 94: add the word “pancreatic” before “β-cells”
•	I disagree with the following statement (line 95): “The most typical characteristic of T2DM is chronic and low-grade inflammation”. The most typical characteristic of T2D, insulin resistance, is mentioned in the previous sentence. I do agree that inflammation is widely observed in T2D, however, it is not the most typical characteristic.
•	The statement: “Many genetic association studies have been performed to estimate the relationship of the IL-1B (-511) and IL-1RN (VNTR) polymorphisms with T2DM risk” needs to reference the association studies that have investigated this relationship.

Literature references, sufficient field background/context
•	Currently, the introduction outlines why inflammation is involved in T2D and what the role of IL- β in T2D may be. However, greater emphasis on findings from previous observational studies such as Spranger 2003 and genetic studies needs to be highlighted. In addition, the findings from previous genetic studies need to be discussed in more detail. i.e. Provide estimates of the association between IL-1 levels and T2D risk from several studies. Critically evaluate why previous analyses showed such contrasting results etc.
•	Related to the point above, currently, there is no discussion of clinical trial data in this context. Several large clinical trials have evaluated the role of IL-1 antagonism in preventing CAD, with T2D as a secondary endpoint. E.g. CANTOS and TRACK trials. The findings from these studies need to be discussed as they are highly relevant.
•	The reference provided for the following statement: “Moreover, the increased level of IL-1β in human pancreatic cells due to the elevated glucose concentrations and decreased level of IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra) in islets of T2DM patients result in impaired insulin secretion, decreased cell proliferation, and apoptosis of β-cells.” Does not mention any of the following: impaired insulin secretion, decreased cell proliferation, and apoptosis of β-cells. Either a more suitable reference needs to be found that demonstrates these effects, or this statement needs to be amended with demonstrable findings from the literature.
•	The following statement in the discussion (lines 257-260): “Eventually, it was suggested that IL-1β can induce the inflammatory microenvironment of islets, leading to impaired insulin secretion, decreased cell proliferation and apoptosis of β-cells, ultimately contributing to the development of T2DM.” references an article about IDDM which is type 1 diabetes. Therefore, this statement is factually incorrect as the reference does not concern T2D.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared
•	When assessing the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, the final scores for each study are included in Table 1, however, it would be helpful to include a full breakdown of the scoring for each study in a supplemental table as well.
•	Table 1: T2D ascertainment in each study needs to be captured in more detail and where an explanation provided in cases where the diagnostic criteria were NA. In addition, the covariates used in each study need to be summarised.

Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses
•	The results presented are self-contained and relevant to the hypotheses, however, serious methodological issues are present (as outlined in the experimental design section) that cast doubt on the validity of the results.
Experimental design: Original primary research within scope of journal
•	This study does represent original research within the scope of this journal.

Research question well defined, relevant and meaningful
•	The original research question was well defined, meaningful and relevant but was not convincingly assessed due to issues with the statistical methodology.

Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard
•	Most genetic association studies are performed using an additive model, with dominant or recessive models considered as sensitivity analyses. It is concerning that no additive model has been considered for this analysis. This needs to be added to provide estimates that are comparable with the rest of the literature. In addition, the various models used need to be substantiated in the methods.
•	It is unclear whether between study heterogeneity was only considered significant when both the Cochran’s Q test and the I2 test statistics were significant. I would argue that if either were significant, one should perform a sub-group analysis.
•	I disagree with using different association test methods in the presence of significant heterogeneity vs without significant heterogeneity. The authors should use a single test for association and in the case of heterogeneity, perform sub-group analyses.
•	Genetic associations are known to vary widely by ancestry due to differing allele frequencies. As cohorts from East Asia, South-East Asia and North Africa have been included in this analysis, results should be stratified by ethnicity. Table 3 shows the results for “total” vs “EA” while Figure 2 shows the results within each ancestry subgroup. The association estimates for each ancestry are robust to confounding by ancestry but the total meta-analysis estimate is likely to be confounded and should therefore not be presented in Table 3. Related to this, the heterogeneity estimates for the total meta-analysis show significant heterogeneity, which is contributing to the non-significant effect of IL-1 levels in the total meta-analysis. The methods also do not mention whether stratifying by ancestry was considered. In order to accurately ascertain the association between genetically mediated IL-1 levels and T2D risk, the authors need to present their findings in Table 3 stratified by ancestry.
•	It is unclear how the significance thresholds for statistically significant heterogeneity between studies were ascertained. The authors should provide an indication of whether this was determined by the number of included studies or another method.
•	The sensitivity analyses described in the discussion are not mentioned in the methods section. These should be fully explained for a thorough understanding of the analyses conducted.
•	The raw data from each of the publications was used in each case, without controlling for established confounders such as age, sex, lifestyle etc. While the authors acknowledge this in the discussion, it does emphasise that the estimates from this study are likely to be highly confounded and potentially invalid.

Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate
•	The following basic reporting guidelines are followed: the authors who performed the systematic search are identified, PRISMA flow diagram is figure 1, PRISMA checklist is present. However, the authors have not provided a completed checklist outlining information about the genetic meta-analysis (genetics checklist). In addition, it is not clear where the systematic review has been registered (registration number: 268494). It is not registered at PROSPERO or CAMARADES
•	It is unclear how the significance thresholds for statistically significant heterogeneity between studies were ascertained. The authors should provide an indication of whether this was determined by the number of included studies or another method.
•	It is unclear from the methods section whether inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis was used to estimate the effect of IL-1 levels on T2D risk. This needs to be clarified in the methods.
Validity of the findings: As outlined in previous sections, the authors used the raw data from each of the publications to conduct their analysis. As they outline in the discussion, they did not correct for any study level covariates, leading to serious methodological questions about the validity of the results which are likely confounded. In addition, some of the statistical methodology concerning stratification by ancestry and between study heterogeneity needs to be reconsidered. All details of my suggestions are outlined above.
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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN IL-1B (-511)/IL-1RN (VNTR) POLYMORPHISMS AND TYPE 2 DIABETES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written and easy to read. The background and references provided are exhaustive, I found only one reference missing when commenting on the VNTRs frequency (line 107).
Figures and tables are well detailed.
Experimental design: The aim of the study is clearly stated, as well as the strategy (e.g. inclusion criteria) used to perform the analysis.
The statistical approach used seems appropriate and all the analyses performed are well described.
Validity of the findings: The results are well presented, discussion and conclusions are exhaustive. The meta-analysis performed in the present study is comprehensive, well performed from a statistical point of view, and provides new evidences in favor of the association of IL-1B and IL-1RN variants with T2DM risk.
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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN IL-1B (-511)/IL-1RN (VNTR) POLYMORPHISMS AND TYPE 2 DIABETES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this revised version, the authors had answered the questions and had corrected the mistakes. I recommend this study for publication.
Experimental design: In this revised version, the authors had answered the questions and had corrected the mistakes. I recommend this study for publication.
Validity of the findings: In this revised version, the authors had answered the questions and had corrected the mistakes. I recommend this study for publication.
Additional comments: In this revised version, the authors had answered the questions and had corrected the mistakes. I recommend this study 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: THE EFFECT OF POSTOPERATIVE ORAL ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY ON THE INCIDENCE OF POSTOPERATIVE ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER PHACOEMULSIFICATION SURGERY IN DOGS: 368 EYES (1997–2010)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well-written and clear.
Experimental design: This is an important subject matter. Clear and thoroughly described design.
Validity of the findings: Many of the authors conclusions are questionable as described in detail in the “General comments" section.

Limitation of this study are numerous and insufficiently acknowledged, including the lack of randomization, small sample size, and failure to confirm the diagnosis of endophthalmitis in 2 of 3 cases.
Additional comments: 1.	Lines 45 – 48: “The only strategy proven to decrease the rate of endophthalmitis is the preoperative use of 5% povidone-iodine on the periocular and ocular surfaces” is an oversimplification.  For example, there are numerous publications describing statistically significant decreases in the rates of endophthalmitis with intracameral antibiotics given following phacoemulsification in humans (this is why it is considered the standard of care in many regions of the world).

2.	 Line 11-112: The lack of group randomization is a major limitation that is not fully acknowledged. A related critical issue is the statement “Oral post-operative antibiotics were used in some cases but not in others based upon surgeon’s preference” that is not well explained. What influenced this preference? Were there potentially patient, surgical, environmental, client, or other variables that might have influenced this decision in one direction or another, thus adding bias to the composition of your study groups?

3.	Line 114: Similar to the statement above, what influenced surgeon preference for antibiotic selection? Since these are all lumped together in one group, what assurance can you provide a reader that each of these drugs would provide a similar degree of protection against endophthalmitis or at least a similar spectrum of action?

4.	Is should be more clearly explained in the study that for most your cases you don’t know if these were bacterial, fungal, or sterile cases of endophthalmitis. It is also never clearly stated what you think you were trying to prevent with the antibiotic? Presumably, this would be bacterial endophthalmitis, but the lack of diagnostic confirmation in your endophthalmitis cases is problematic. While your discussion about PCR is understood and not disputed (although one can question the clinical significance of bacteria in some cases that are culture negative and PCR positive), you did neither for 66% of your endophthalmitis cases. If these were both sterile endophthalmitis cases, why would post-op antibiotics be expected to prevent them?

5.	The single case with culture confirmation only included an aqueous sample which is inferior to vitreous for the diagnosis of post-op endophthalmitis and may actually have different organisms present. The other cases do not fit the “usual’ described pattern of infectious endophthalmitis in dogs, so to this review it seems like you are more accurately just comparing cases of unexplained hypopyon (vs true, confirmed endophthalmitis cases.)

6.	While 0.82% might be in “general agreement” with the rate of endophthalmitis in some prior canine studies, it is notably (over 3x) higher than the largest study evaluating this occurrence in dogs (the Ledbetter et al. study from 2018) where they reported approximately 0.27% of eyes. Any thoughts on why this might be?

7.	The study is under-powered and reports negative results. Thus, the statement that “postoperative administration of systemic antibiotics was not protective against endophthalmitis in our study as 1 case occurred in each the antibiotic-treated group and 2 in the non-antibiotic-treated group”  and “systemic antibiotics should not be administered after phacoemulsification in dogs “ are over-reaching and, in this reviewer’s opinion, not supported by the data. While the reviewer may agree with these author conclusions, this study does not prove them.

8.	Line 330: “while 329 operated eyes would appear to be a relatively large sample size”…I would ask to whom would this seem like a large sample size? This would appear much too small to any cataract surgeon if one is attempting to meaningfully answer the question the study was designed to address.

9.	Line 337. You mention the limits of culture, but only cultured a single case (and not even the ideal ocular sample). Lack of diagnostic confirmation is a major study limitation. Culture at a minimum, and combined with PCR ideally, should be what is stated here as what would have improved this and future studies on the topic.

10.	Can one conclusively (or at least convincingly) state that the dog that presented with endophthalmitis on post-op day 87 was a situation associated with the prior surgery? There are rather unusual situations in humans that can lead to post-op infection this far after surgery, but there are other potential explanation that having nothing to do with surgery as well. As you have no culture, PCR, or histologic confirmation, this uncertainty should be acknowledged.


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: THE EFFECT OF POSTOPERATIVE ORAL ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY ON THE INCIDENCE OF POSTOPERATIVE ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER PHACOEMULSIFICATION SURGERY IN DOGS: 368 EYES (1997–2010)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see below 'General comments for the author'.
Experimental design: Please see below 'General comments for the author'.
Validity of the findings: Please see below 'General comments for the author'.
Additional comments: General comments:
It is a well written manuscript and an interesting topic that is important to discuss. You have a lot of cases over a 10 year period but unfortunately (or lucky enough) you only have three cases with septic endophthalmitis – and I’m not convinced that one of these cases had septic endophthalmitis (see below). Why exclude other topical antibiotics that NeoPolyBac(Gram) and would that include more septic endophthalmitis cases?
I would like more discussion on oral and topical antibiotic and what would you as a research team recommend in phaco cases. I would like to see your discussion have more information and discussion regarding antibiotics used in phaco dogs – the other veterinary endophthalmitis studies you are referring to – what topical antibiotics did they use? Topical NeoPolyGram will not penetrate the cornea and if you are reviewing newer phaco studies, a lot of institutions are using topical ciprofloxacin or ofloxacin these days due to studies showing that topical fluoroquinolones will penetrate the cornea and will be found in AC – and therefore treat potential septic endophthalmitis. I would like a discussion on what human phaco patients are being treated with regarding topical antibiotics, and what we are using in veterinary ophthalmology. A discussion regarding using oral antibiotic in diabetic cases versus non-diabetic would be recommended to add as well – see below for suggestion for urinalysis/culture results of your cases.

Specific comments/suggestions.
Abstract
1.	112 patients (197 eyes) were treated with oral antibiotics postoperatively. 103 patients (171 eyes) were not treated with oral antibiotics postoperatively.
Comment: You should not start a sentence with a number unless you write it: One-hundred twelve patients (197 eyes) …
2.	Three cases of endophthalmitis were identified, with 1 in the antibiotic treated group and 2 in the non-antibiotic treated group (P>0.05, Fisher’s exact test).
Comment: All numbers under ten should be written: …, with one in the antibiotic treated group and two in the …

Introduction
Line 31: Instead of saying “large studies”, could you please indicate how many patients were involved in each study.
Line 36-37: You have not told the reader what ‘the presumed sources’ for endophthalmitis are for humans, please add this to the introduction.
General: It would make the introduction stronger if you added a section about topical antibiotic. You do not mention this treatment option at all and it make the inexperienced reader believe that no antibiotic is used at all (humans and veterinary) which is not true.

Materials and Methods
Line 72-73: What was the reasoning for excluding other topical antibiotics that NeoPolyBac?
Line 72-73: The use of ointment can cause phacoclastic uveitis if entering the anterior chamber (therefore, some would say that it is contraindicated to use ointment pre-and post-phaco) – has this been taken into consideration for the cases that was diagnosed with endophthalmitis.
Line 87: Eight and not 8.
Line 88: Two ACVO dipl., six residents.
Line 88-90: Which phaco machines were used and which type of pumps are they (peristaltic vs. venturi) throughout the study?
Line 92: Seven and not 7 … this a general recommendation for all numbers below ten, throughout the manuscript!
Line 93-94: I am confused – were you including NeoPolyGram or NeoPolyBac?? (see line 72-73).
Line 105-119: This is a section that should be added to the result section! Materials and Methods should also reveal WHAT cases you are including (or excluding), not how many (n), or which antibiotics you found in their records.
Line 126: You should add that eyes that was diagnosed with endophthalmitis was enucleated (if they were), and then start talking about histopathology on these enucleated eyes.
Line 128-133: You also need to add your descriptive data like mean and range for some of your data such as follow-up time, age etc.
General: I would like the inclusion criteria for a diagnosis of ‘endophthalmitis’ being explained better – clinical findings, culture, cytology, histopathology (due to enucleated) … be very specific since this is the purpose of your study!!
What about urinalysis and culture – especially on your diabetic cases! This goes back to your introduction where you said that the causes for endophthalmitis is the same for dogs as for humans, but you never told the causes for endophthalmitis for humans!

Results
Line 139: Table ?? Please give table a number (even if it is the only table you have).
Line 143-151: It is important to add diabetic versus non-diabetic dogs into this section since diabetic dogs have a higher risk for infection generally.
Line 163: Triple antibiotic solution = NeoPolyGram or NeoPolyBac … you can’t just use a new word for antibiotics – please be consistent throughout your manuscript.
Line 184: Aqueous humor aspirate = aqueous paracentesis.
Line 194-220. I am not convinced this case had endophthalmitis!!! It is going to be very hard to convince me since you do not have an aqueous culture result – I would take it out of the positive endophthalmitis group unless you can convince me WHY you think this dog had endophthalmitis!!
Line 221-248: Still not an aqueous culture result to back up your suspicion of endophthalmitis – the clinical findings are more consistent with endophthalmitis than your Case 2 but it is still a weak point that no culture is present!

Discussion
Line 263: Try not to use we and our in a scientific manuscript!
Line 270: What does this mean? (i.e., POD 2-7)
Line 288-289: An explanation is needed for each underlaying cause = Choice of surgical technique, corneal incision and intraocular lens type have also been shown to influence the rate of post-cataract surgery endophthalmitis in humans.
Line 290-291: This is not a correct way for a ref: ESCRS 291 Endophthalmitis Study Group, 2007.
Line 317-318: Use another word than ‘culture proven’.
Line 324-326: You need to go a little deeper into your discussion regarding septic endophthalmitis versus TASS.
Line 328: What limitations are you talking about when you are saying ‘Despite the study limitations …’. That is not a good way of starting a conclusion since it make the reader not believe what you have been documenting in your 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: THE EFFECT OF POSTOPERATIVE ORAL ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY ON THE INCIDENCE OF POSTOPERATIVE ENDOPHTHALMITIS AFTER PHACOEMULSIFICATION SURGERY IN DOGS: 368 EYES (1997–2010)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Very nice written manuscript that gives important information to the veterinary ophthalmology profession. You have addressed my concerns well and I have no other comments - except 'good job'.


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: MATE-GUARDING DURATION IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE RISK OF SPERM COMPETITION AND NOT BY FEMALE QUALITY IN A GOLDEN ORB-WEAVER SPIDER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The female quality dataset, "nephila-female-morpho.csv", which is required to run the provided R code is not available on figshare, so this needs to be uploaded before publication.
Experimental design: Good! Nice field data.
Validity of the findings: Good.
Additional comments: This is a very interesting study investigating how the spatial distribution of females, female body condition, and risk of sperm competition affect male mate guarding effort in a nephilid spider. This kind of field study is very valuable for understanding male mate choice and how ecological context shapes mating systems. The paper is well written and the framing is appropriate, and I have only minor suggestions for improvement in terms of interpreting and displaying the results, and clarifying the predictions and choice of parameters included in the statistical model.

Is female body condition correlated with fecundity or fertility or other fitness-related variables in T. clavipes? In the abstract (lines 25-27) the authors hypothesize that mate guarding will be related to female quality, and the second paragraph of the introduction is related to this idea, so it would be helpful to indicate whether there is data showing that condition is a good measure of female quality for this species (or relatives).

In the final paragraph of the introduction the authors make predictions about how three variables (female spatial distribution, number of competitors on the female’s web, and female body condition) will affect the duration of male mate guarding (a measure of mating effort). Interactions (lines 165-159) between spatial distribution and number of males, and between spatial distribution and female condition are explicitly included in the models considered in the analysis, but not female condition and number of males. Why not include all 2-way interactions (or why expect any interactions)? If the authors have specific predictions about how these predictor variables should interact to affect male guarding effort, these should be spelled out in the introduction. Although the expected effects of each variable alone are very clear, it is not obvious to me whether or how they should be expected to interact.

Do you have any data on the actual distances between webs? Like a nearest neighbour distance? If so, it would be useful to report an average nearest neighbour distance for isolated vs. clustered webs. It seems like this population is quite dense and since the criterion for isolation is only that webs do not share silk threads, it may be that the actual distances involved tend to be fairly similar whether or not the web is classified as isolated. If so, this could be driving the apparent lack of importance of female spatial distribution in the model reported here.

Line 197/line 226: Males spent on average 2.5 days guarding females, and guarding duration increased by 0.71 days for each additional competitor on a web. What is the biological significance of this? Do the authors have any data on how guarding effort affects male fitness outcomes in terms of the difference an additional day or two of guarding makes? Are females less likely to be visited/detected by males within days after mating, for instance because they cease pheromone production? Or are females more likely to use the sperm of males that guard them for longer, or to reject subsequent males after being guarded? Some discussion of what is (or is not) known about this would help the reader understand the potential significance of mate guarding in this system.

As a reader I would appreciate graphs or tables with summary statistics for the actual number of days males spent guarding isolated vs. clustered females and the relationship between female quality and guarding duration in addition to the existing graph (fig 1) showing the relationship between number of competitors and guarding duration. This would be particularly relevant for the web type variable since it does end up in the final model, but all of the data should be reported whether or not it has a significant effect on guarding effort. It would also be preferable to show the raw data rather than scaled and centred data in figure 1, if possible, so the reader can see the actual range of male competitors in the field.

(line 243) “Assuming that guarding males in aggregated webs are more exposed to competitors” are they? Does the data from this study indicate that the number of competitors is related to web type? Later (line 247-248) the authors state that males arrive at aggregated and solitary webs at equal rates, so its not clear where this assumption comes from or whether it is justified.

(line 246) “the interaction between these factors seems to explain variation in male mate guarding behaviour” this is a bit confusing to me, because based on the results, there was no statistical interaction between web type and number of males.

Line 251: “surprisingly, the effect of web connectivity alone is moderate to nonexistent” could this be because all webs are relatively close together, whether or not they are connected by silk threads?

Line 270 “males prefer large females” can the authors expand on how preference was measured here? Are males more likely to visit large females when offered a (simultaneous) choice between females? Can you elaborate on how mate guarding fits in to mate choice more generally in this species. For instance, do males choose who to visit based on female quality, when given a choice, but once they are on a web the effort they put into mate guarding may depend more on risk of sperm competition? This could be discussed in a framework of episodes of selection.

Specific comments

Line 71: replace “various” with “more”

Line 186: should be “type of web sums to 36”

Line 267: should be “recent papers show”

Line 294: should be “systems to study”

Line 34: instead of “considerably” state the actual increase (0.71 days of guarding per competitor)


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: MATE-GUARDING DURATION IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE RISK OF SPERM COMPETITION AND NOT BY FEMALE QUALITY IN A GOLDEN ORB-WEAVER SPIDER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing is good, but the relevant literature is not sufficiently considered
Experimental design: The data are observational and the analyses correlational. As such it does not fill a knowledge gap. However, the dataset is of very high value and field studies over such a long time period are highly desired.
Validity of the findings: As I state in my comments to the authors, the analyses stays far below the potential that the data may provide. As it is, the conclusion are not well justified and do not add significantly to existing knowledge
Additional comments: The authors report results of a field study on Trichonephila clavipes where individually marked males and females were closely observed over a period of almost 4 months. Goal of the study was to explain causes of variation in male mate guarding duration and the main predictors chosen were the number of males on the same web, the size of the female and whether the web was isolated or aggregated.
Data were analysed using generalised mixed models that contained the above predictors plus random factors that account for the repeated measures design. They revealed that the number of males on the web explained a significant part of the variation in male web tenure. The authors conclude that sperm competition is the main factor that drives mate guarding decisions in males.
While field studies on spiders are still rare and highly welcome, I fear that the present study failed to utilize its potential. Twice daily observations across a very long period of a spider`s life are extremely rare and promise very interesting insights into the mating dynamics of a local population. As it is, analyses and results remain rather superficial and do unfortunately not provide novel insights into the context of male decisions making and strategic investment in mate guarding.
T. clavipes is among the best studied orb-web spiders but the authors chose to ignore much of the knowledge concerning T. clavipes and the other species from the same genus. This is a pity because this knowledge would have been very useful to guide the study design and the selection of variables for analysis.
To make my point clearer, I will briefly sketch a few examples:
Firstly, female body size was selected to estimate female quality but this variable did not explain much of the variation in guarding time. I would argue that it is not surprising that female size did not predict male behaviour well, since it is known that it is rather female age since maturity and her mating status that are relevant factors in this respect (see Rittschof papers). Unfortunately, there is no mention of female adult age and it is not even reported whether all females were mature or moulted during the observation period, which something that is rather easy to score. The observation period covered many weeks and next to differences in maturation and mating status, most females probably produced egg-sacs during that time. The abdomen measurements should show this since Nephilid eggsacs are very large and the abdomen shrinks considerably. Hence, condition as measured can mean different things, a female may have not eaten enough or produced eggs.
Secondly, the authors report In the methods that males were captured, marked and measured before they were released back. This is nice because males exercise size dependent mating strategies.  However, male size is for unknown reasons not included in the analyses.
Thirdly, it is well established that males are sperm limited and it appears that they use up all their sperm when they mate with a virgin. However, they do not do that but retain some sperm if they mate with a mated female. Mating status strongly affects the value of the female for a given male. A male that mates with a virgin female should invest maximally in defending her against rivals since he can only increase his reproductive success by reducing the risk of sperm competition. In contrast, a male that mated with an already mated female retains potential for different options. Virgin females attract more males than mated females which could explain the correlation between male numbers and guarding duration of the hub male.
Surely, the number of males on the web might be a highly relevant parameter for male decision making but whether the best strategy is to stay or to leave is influenced by numerous other factors that have already been shown to be important. The data in this paper are all left and right censored, since nothing is known about the past of the females and males that were observed.
In conclusion, I regret to say that no reliable conclusion on the causes of male guarding behaviour can be drawn from the analyses. I very much hope that more data were collected and are available for being added, perhaps even moults were noted. Changes in female states could be better interpreted if moults were known. The dataset is great, and I would like to encourage the authors to dig a bitter deeper.


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: MATE-GUARDING DURATION IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE RISK OF SPERM COMPETITION AND NOT BY FEMALE QUALITY IN A GOLDEN ORB-WEAVER SPIDER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article has a standard structure consisting of Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. It also includes two tables and one figure. The figure might be more informative with unscaled and uncentered x axis. The dataset with the raw data and the R code is provided but the names of the variables in the dataset are in Portuguese. The authors should translate it into English. The article is written in clear English, however, as a non-native speaker I cannot properly asses the standard of the language.
The background is concise with sufficient references provided. The only thing which may not be sufficiently introduced is the mate guarding in the study species – authors mention that males may guard females before maturity but it is not totally clear whether they guard only juvenile females or whether they continue guarding them also after the final moult. If yes, do the males guard females also after mating? Are the authors able to distinguish the pre- or the post- maturity/copulatory guarding? Do they focus on a particular type or on mate guarding in general? It could be mentioned briefly in the Introduction and more detailed information on that matter could be provided also in the Methods. If it is impossible to determine, potential consequences of different mate guarding should be discussed in the Discussion.
Experimental design: The authors define several hypotheses which they experimentally test in natural conditions. They provide data relevant for these hypotheses; nonetheless, they could provide more information to better understand the lifestyle and mating tactics of the study species as mentioned above and below. Also, they ask ‘why some males spend more time with the female instead of searching for more females’ (Line 98 - 100). Since they focus on time spend on mate guarding, not really on male searching behaviour or on male individual differences, I would recommend to rephrase this question.
The authors collected the males to mark them (Line 130 – 140). Do they put them in the same position on females web after the handling? Did males stay in the original position?
The type of mate guarding (before or after mating? of juvenile or adult females?) observed within this study should be clarified in Methods (or Introduction). Authors should provide information whether all observed females were adult or not and how did they determine it. Was there any way to know female status (virgin/mated)?
 Also, an additional information on web connectivity (Line 116 - 129) should be added to clarify how isolated an isolated web could be – what is the minimum/maximum or average distance from other webs of webs marked as isolated? Could it be that, although not directly connected, ‘isolated’ web can be very close to other web(s) and therefore easily reachable by males?
I wonder whether the change in web connectivity could bias the data (Line 185 – 186). If connectivity is relevant, how quickly would males react to such change? Have you tried to analyse only the data including females whose web connectivity did not change?

The sentence in Line 160 – 161 is not entirely clear, please, clarify.
Why was the third possible interaction (no. of males and female condition; Line 165 - 167) not included in the model?
Can you add information on how many males visited (range; Line 188-190) and whether they remained in the same ‘role’ (satellites or guardians) if they changed the web?
Validity of the findings: The results of the study are clearly summarized and further discussed in the Discussion. You can improve it by citing more studies on mate guarding (not only on spiders) and comparing your findings with findings from these studies. Otherwise, I find the Discussion clear, the authors avoid unjustified speculations and they comment also on the negative results.
Additional comments: In general, the study is well designed and I appreciate that the authors conducted it in the field and tried to minimaze the disturbance of the spiders. Specific comments and suggestion for improvement can be found above.


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: MATE-GUARDING DURATION IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE RISK OF SPERM COMPETITION AND NOT BY FEMALE QUALITY IN A GOLDEN ORB-WEAVER SPIDER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Good, but a final edit for English grammar and clarity should be done on the final text.

Raw data and code shared but see comments about checking these below.
Experimental design: Good.
Validity of the findings: Good, except please see comment below about the calculation of the body condition index.
Additional comments: As before, I think that this is an interesting and valuable contribution. I thank the authors for their efforts to address my comments and those of the other reviewers. I think that the paper has improved, but I have some additional comments that I hope the authors will address.

Results:
The interaction between female condition and number of males needs to be interpreted and spelled out in the results. In the discussion, the authors state that this interaction reveals that “guardian males reduce the guarding time when higher quality females have more satellite males on their webs.” A visualization of this would be very helpful to include in the results, e.g. a plot of the type shown in Figure 1, but with female condition on the x-axis and separate points/curves for the different numbers of satellite male (0, 1, and 2).

Similarly please explain what the interaction between male size and female quality actually means. I think it is that guarding time increases with female quality, but only for small males, but this needs to be explicitly stated.

Discussion

Line 242: I am not sure it is appropriate to conclude that the main effect of the number of males cohabiting in the web is driving mate-guarding behaviour given that there is apparently an interaction between this variable and female condition. Indeed, in lines 251-253 the authors state “We also showed that the intrinsic quality of the female interacts with the number of males on a web in a negative way, which indicates that guardian males reduce the guarding time when higher quality females have more satellite males on their webs.” I think that the involvement of male number in this interaction needs to be spelled out earlier.

Lines 279-297: Thank you for adding information about nearest neighbour distances. Please include in the discussion section some discussion of the fact that the actual distances between isolated and aggregated webs do not really differ (as reported in the results, ~9 m vs. ~10 m from the nearest neighbour)—surely this also helps to explain why there does not seem to be an effect of web type. Male spiders can locomote using rapelling in addition to traversing existing silk lines between webs, so it is not obvious to me that the difference between isolated and aggregated webs in this study is really meaningful in terms of the risk of leaving to search for another female.

Analyses:
The regression model used to calculate the residuals for the female body condition index may not be appropriate, since there is not really linear relationship between abdomen volume and cephalothorax width (spider mass and weight are often log-linearly related). Using the log of the abdomen volume in the regression seems to help alleviate this problem. Re-calculating the residuals using the log volume and including this updated index in the global model does not seem to change the estimates for the fixed effects much, but I suggest re-running the analyses with updated residuals.

Please include a pdf of the code output (created using eg knitr) so that the reader can look at the analyses without having to run the code themselves (or can see how the code output should look if they are trying to run it and having trouble)

There are some issues with running the code as provided, please double check that it runs correctly with all the uploaded files on figshare. Some details:

Need to add “sep = ;” in the read.csv commands

Merging the male size data requires editing the code to account for the name of the male ID column being named “MaleID” in one dataset and male.id in the other

This issue with male.id vs MaleID comes up again in the code for resighted males and the global model etc

Minor comments:

In the abstract and Intro the authors use “golden-web spider”. Please change to the “official” common name, which (according the American Arachnological Society) is “golden silk orbweaver. ”

Line 25: change to “large males are most successful at guarding mates”

Line 33: suggest changing “mating decisions” to “guarding decisions” or “movement decisions” since the authors don’t actually measure mating decisions

 Line 35-37: not clear to me that the data here indicate that males benefit from guarding, just that there is a cost…

Lines 110-11: revise to “Our hypothesis is …when the risk of sperm competition is higher and when the guarding male is larger.”

Line 154-55: delete sentence, it is a repetition of the same information already given in lines 148-49

Line 165: change to “proxy for female quality”

Please also double check grammar throughout.


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: MATE-GUARDING DURATION IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE RISK OF SPERM COMPETITION AND NOT BY FEMALE QUALITY IN A GOLDEN ORB-WEAVER SPIDER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written throughout. General and species specific references have been added.
Experimental design: Data collection was thorough and analyses appropriate. Methods are well described
Validity of the findings: the authors carefully considered my critisism. They added male size to the analyses and explained how field work posed constrains on how well - for example - female mating status could be assessed. I understand the decision to minimise disturbance of the animals at the cost of detailed assessment of potentially relevant factors. The limitations of field work are clear to most of us but they have to be admitted and addressed. Generally, descriptive data and correlational analyses do not allow distinguishing cause and effect. Therefore, the danger of drawing incorrect conclusions from observational data alone needs to be discussed in my view (an additional problem is that many observational studies have been published including some on T. clavipes which might then get cited as providing causal evidence).
I appreciate that arguments for the use of female body size as proxy have been added and that the discussion was revised.
I also acknowledge the careful wording throughout the discussion and the frequent use of "may". While I am still not fully convinced that one can confidently conclude that the "perceived risk of sperm competition" explains male decisions to mate guard or not, I am happy with the careful discussion.
As stated before, I like the study and the data set very much.
Additional comments: there are several small grammatical errors in the revised parts and I suggest minor revision to correct them.


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: MATE-GUARDING DURATION IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE RISK OF SPERM COMPETITION AND NOT BY FEMALE QUALITY IN A GOLDEN ORB-WEAVER SPIDER
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I thank the authors for their careful revisions and responses to my comments and those of the other reviewers!


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: TRAUMATIC SURFING INJURIES IN NEW ZEALAND: A DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Professional English language was used throughout the manuscript. The introduction an background lead nicely to the research aim of the study. Structure conforms to PeerJ standards. Figures are all relevant. Table 1 contains two times: Time surfing summer, h, mean etc. making it therefore impossible to understand what was meant by this. Please change accordingly.
Experimental design: The primary research is within the Scope of the journal. The research question is well defined, however, the relevance/justification is lacking on why surfing injuries need to be specifically investigated in NZ. In the manuscript it is only referred to that people within NZ were investigated. Where travellers, who have been in NZ at the time included? Please complete this information. The investigation was performed at a high technical & ethical standard and methods described with sufficient detail.
Validity of the findings: As mentioned above, the justification which specific knowledge gap this study will fill is missing some detail, as it is not quite clear what the novelty of the NZ specific data will add to the literature. The data set including more than n=1400 subjects is really strong, however, not quite clear in the introduction and later in the discussion what the data adds to the existing literature from other countries. Especially with regard to the systematic review from McArthur et al. (2020). A dataset of more than n=1400 participants has the potential to inform here very specifically and this strength should be used.

A meaningful discussion of the data and the outcomes could be extended with regards to older adults. The authors showed a mean age of 34.6±11.9 years. What was the age range included in the investigation? This might have an impact on the interpretation of the data as well, as the severity of injuries might increase with age as well as the recovery time. Also there was no detailed analysis comparing between men and women. A short outline of prevention strategies is missing and would strengthen the manuscript in the discussion.

Overall the underlying data are robust, statistically sound and controlled. The conclusions are well stated and linked to the original research question, but could be improved if the above-mentioned points would be added.
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: TRAUMATIC SURFING INJURIES IN NEW ZEALAND: A DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript that sought to determine traumatic injury detail for surfers in New Zealand during 2015 - 2016.

Whilst I found this a very interesting manuscript containing novel findings on which authors are to be congratulated, I have suggestions to improve clarity, context, grammatical precision etc.  Please see below for details:
•	Line 70- 71 – 1st usage of abbreviation for New Zealand come before first full term and defined abbreviation. Also some countries are abbreviated and some used in full – consistency please.
•	Line 74 'combing' or 'combining'?
•	Line 74 – ‘large proportion of NZers who participate in adventure sports’ – this is referenced - can you be more specific, than the vague statement of ‘large’?
•	Line 82 – Within? versus ‘on’ or ‘at’?
•	Line 83 ‘limits’ instead of ‘limiting’
•	Line 119 – ‘completed’ rather than ‘completing’
•	Line 269 – why was eye or ear injuries listed as nervous system only? For example, ‘surfers ear’ is a common surfing complaint, but is not neurological.
•	Table 1 – ‘Time surfing summer’ repeated – error? Winter instead?
•	Line 314 – ‘recreational’ rather than ‘recreation’
•	Line 321 – ‘research’ not necessary
•	Line 343 – what is the difference between physiological and physical demands?
•	A point for authors to consider: Recreational surfing sessions are longer than competitive events – more time = more load? Additionally, all competitive suffers also free surf aka are recreational.
•	Line 347 – comma after ‘do’
•	Line 353 – comma after ‘head’
•	Line 357 – 359 – doesn’t make sense as written – common injuries between competitive and recreational surfers, ‘locations’ instead of ‘location’?
•	Line 362 – remove ‘the’ and replace ‘a’ with ‘an’
•	Line 363 – remove double space after ‘The’.
•	Line 378 – baseball and handball comparison – did authors come across any other swimming or paddling sport evidence, as those results would be more transferable / valid due to muscle patterning, usage, functional anatomy etc.
•	Line 380 – should it be ‘inadequate’ instead of ‘adequate’. Also, full stop after ‘recovery’.
•	Line 394-395 – no need for ‘type overall’
•	Line 399 – remove ‘all together’
•	407 – How is higher risk taking judged? In relation to aerials? Needs to be clearer please.
•	Line 426 – remove ‘the’
•	Line 435 -437   rephrase sentence please for better understanding / grammar.
•	Lines 448 – 462: Based on previous comments by the reviewer, the reviewer believes there are more limitations to acknowledge. If so, please rephrase the first sentence of this paragraph to include limitations other than external validity aspects.
•	Line 461 – comma after ‘duration ‘
•	Line 483 – comma after ‘step’
•	Line 482 – 485 – cumbersome. Rephrase for efficiency and understanding.
•	Line 496 – 498 – suggest separate sentences for shoulder and knee to improve understanding by reader.
•	More crowded line ups lead to more injuries – perhaps reference the 44 surfers struck by other surfer’s boards to make this point resonate with reader.
•	In table 4 – Under ‘Other’ category, there is an ‘other’ subcategory which resulted in more injuries than aerials etc – what did this consist of? More detail would be appreciated and may suggest further avenues of research.
•	Figure 3 and line 369 - 371: Whilst shoulder is the most common chronic location – other locations do not lag far behind – could this also be an important finding and potentially be the focus of future research as well?
Experimental design: •	What was the rational for setting a minimum age of 8 for inclusion into the study? Given there were 100 participants under the age of 18, do authors believe this may have influenced findings related to injury mechanism and length of healing time etc. given the coordination, musculoskeletal, physiological differences and other considerations when comparing children to adolescents to adults and older adults? Additionally, was increasing age itself looked at as a predictor of injury?
•	Line 134 – how did researchers determine the estimated proportion of injuries to be 50%? As this is integral to determine the number of participants / sample size needed, please provide more detail.
•	Lines 141 – 156: Section detailing how someone is classified as competitive vs recreational vs level of experience is confusing and seems to include multiple different methods that is not expanded on later, but level of experience is mentioned as a major finding. Please clarify. As a example, was an international contest simply classified as overseas or meant to represent WQS/WCT (elite) level competition? Please elaborate.
•	The competitive status definition encompasses a broad range of event levels and therefore intensity / skill sets / formats (local contest to national to international) as well as a long timeframe (previously competing in a local event many years ago could conceivably qualify the surfer into this category even if since this single event they had been recreational). This would have affected IP, IR and RR calculations and findings. Seeing as this was an important finding in relation to injury location etc., do the authors think this definition of competitive was too broad? This also relates to lines 342 – 347 of the discussion where competitive scoring and competition heat intensity etc is used to justify findings, whilst that is conceivably not a major factor for people identifying as competitive given my comments above. Please revise / acknowledge as necessary.
•	If I understand the raw data file correctly, over 500 of the responders were long boarders. In the vast majority of cases, long boarders cannot perform aerials – therefore more than a third of responders would be classed as non-aerialists ‘automatically’ and not due to ‘capacity / ability’ per se. As only 206 surfers of the remaining pool identified as aerialists, do the authors think the inclusion of various board types influenced the sub analysis of aerialists being more prone to injury (RR etc) or should this issue be listed as a limitation?
Validity of the findings: •	Line 179 – 182: Head/face region includes eye, ear, brain, skin etc. Other regions do not contain as many organs / subcategories. Does this perhaps contribute to the finding of this region being the most common traumatic injury location? Does this issue warrant sub analysis?
•	Lines 309-315 – aerialists are made up of both competitive and recreational surfers. This makes the direct comparison statement seem problematic as written in lines 309-311. Please revise. Additionally, IR for recreational surfers mention in text (2.5) is different from table 2 (2.33). Please correct.
•	Whilst in Table 2 99 aerialists report 151 injuries, In table 4, aerials themselves account for only 12 injuries (1.7% of total). In absolute terms, this is the second lowest in category, whilst take-off and floaters are much higher. Of interest to the reviewer, duck diving seems to result in greater injuries as well. How does this data line up with your statement of potential to do aerials as a risk factor / major finding whilst these other factors are not mentioned in the discussion?
•	A related point: in lines 331 – 341 the initial discussion in this paragraph seems to support the argument that aerials themselves are likely to cause injury though higher forces etc. Whilst this seems reasonable, this line of argument does not seem to be supported by the data of this study, as mentioned in the previous point which suggests that aerialists are at an increased risk of injury, but not necessarily whilst doing airs. Please revise accordingly to make this clearer (the second half of this paragraph does this to some extent).
•	Line 328 – 330 - here authors point out a limitation of their methods as a possible explanation. Given the professional nature of most of the referenced previous research, did the authors of those papers point to any intensity or physiological load variables for example that may have partly explained their higher IR’s? Suggested that alternative explanations, other than data collection method limitations would improve the current 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: TRAUMATIC SURFING INJURIES IN NEW ZEALAND: A DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed all comments to my fullest satisfaction.
Experimental design: The authors have addressed all comments to my fullest satisfaction.
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed all comments to my fullest satisfaction.
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: TRAUMATIC SURFING INJURIES IN NEW ZEALAND: A DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors are to be commended on their responses to reviewers and editors previous comments and for the associated changes and additions they have made to the revised manuscript. No further comments from this reviewer.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
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: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EPIGALLOCATECHIN-3-GALLATE AND IONIC STRENGTH DURING AMYLOID AGGREGATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written and with a clear language making the main results easy to understand.
In the introduction the literature seems to be a little poor. There are several studies involving the interactions of natural molecules with amyloid fibrils, I suggest to include some more generic regarding this topic (lines 29-30) such as:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001080
https://doi.org/10.1039/C0NP00027B

Lines 42-45: the effect of EGCG on amyloid have been demonstrated recently also by computer studies such as:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2017.06.018
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21155462

When talking about the ionic strength, authors should include what is the range of ionic strength in the human body to have a comparison with values in the paper.

Figures in the main text are clear and easy to understand. Figure S2, S3 and S4 are clear, but the x axis starts from a negative value of time and it should be better to start from 0. Moreover, the maximum timescale reached seems to be in only one case 1800 min, while all other graphs stop earlier. Is it possible to have an x scale going from 0 to 2500 min?
Experimental design: The methods employed to obtain the results are well described. About the amyloid-beta (lines 134-136), why the quality is not enough? What is the main problem and why authors did not solved it?
However, methods are correctly described and results are reproducible.

The study of the effect of the ionic strength on the interaction of EGCG with amyloid fibrils is of great interest to understand the effect of drugs on the protein aggregation. Moreover, the competition between ThT, EGCG and ionic strength is of fundamental importance to design new and more effective drugs. In this paper, authors employed a high variety of values for the ionic strength.
Validity of the findings: The novelty of this paper rely on the study of the effect of the ionic strength on the binding of EGCG with amyloid fibrils. Conclusions are supported by results and the high number of replicas, data and controls make the results robust.
Additional comments: The conformational changes of insulin is very interesting, but I did not found something similar in literature. Please, check if there are other papers showing that the increase in the ionic strength could alter and in which manner the secondary structure of insulin. Naturally, results regarding the interaction of EGCG with insulin at high ionic strengths should be carefully explained.

The competition of ThT and EGCG is interesting, but a brief discussion at the molecular level based on previous studies should be included.

In the conclusion (line 261), authors should give the value of the optimal ionic strength for the three proteins studied.


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: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EPIGALLOCATECHIN-3-GALLATE AND IONIC STRENGTH DURING AMYLOID AGGREGATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Minor comments

Line 21: change ‘several’ to ‘many’
Line 26: It is poor grammar to start a sentence with ‘Which …’
Line 37: ‘course of aggregation’ should include the rate of aggregation
Line 118: change ‘protein’ to ‘peptide’

Lines 59-62: The use of inherently fluorescent compounds as potential inhibitors of amyloid fibril formation can also give rise to false positives in assays when using dyes such as thioflavin T (Hudson et al. (2009) FEBS J. 276, 5960).
The figure captions need to include the concentration of the peptide/ protein used, not just the concentration of EGCG.
Experimental design: This manuscript describes an experimental investigation of the effect of ionic strength (via NaCl concentration variation) on amyloid fibril formation of three common fibril-forming species peptide (amyloid beta) and two proteins (insulin and a-synuclein) in the presence of the well-known polyphenol fibril inhibitor, EGCG. Teasing out an accurate understanding of what is occurring at the molecular level for each of the fibril-forming species, with many variables present, is not easy. Below are suggestions on how to improve the manuscript:

Line 92: At what pH were the aggregation experiments conducted with insulin? Presumably, it was acidic, i.e. a pH around 2 as insulin readily forms amyloid fibrils under these conditions.
Line 111: Was amyloid beta 1-40 or amyloid beta 1-42 used for the experiments? The latter aggregates much faster because of the additional two hydrophobic residues. From the relatively short t50 values in the data presented in Figure 3, it would seem to be amyloid beta 1-42.
Line 122: Why were the FTIR spectra acquired in D2O?
Why were the data for t50 selected for analysis? How about also analyzing the data for ThT fluorescence intensity at the end of the experiment, the time for onset of aggregation (the lag phase) and the initial rate of aggregation (i.e. kinetics of aggregation), which are all standard parameters to investigate inhibition efficiency? The supplementary data show a large amount of variation in the onset of aggregation (i.e. the lag phase) for the three target species in the presence of low concentrations of NaCl (up to ~ 300 mM) but greater consistency above this concentration. What is the explanation for this? Significant variation also occurs in Supplementary Figures 2-4 in the fluorescence intensity at the end of the experiment for all NaCl concentrations.
For all three fibril-forming species interacting with EGCG, why were the particular ratios chosen, e.g. 25 uM EGCG : 200 uM insulin, i.e. a 1:8 molar ratio? For a-synuclein and amyloid beta, the ratios were very different (1:1 and 1:0.08). How much does EGCG inhibit insulin, a-synuclein and amyloid beta fibril formation at these ratios? The data in the Supplementary Figures 2-4 imply that intermediate levels of inhibition of aggregation by EGCG are present for all three species. This needs to be accurately quantified and compared for all three species in order to interpret the data accurately.
From the data presented in all three figures (and the supplementary figures) in the absence of EGCG, amyloid beta aggregates much faster than insulin and a-synuclein, which is most likely a contributing factor to the inefficiency of the EGCG to affect amyloid beta aggregation, unless it is present in large excess. In general, small (e.g. EGCG) and large molecule inhibitors are much more efficient at preventing fibril formation of slowly aggregating species.
In Figure 3 (amyloid beta + EGCG), why are the data for 0 mM NaCl presented, but they are not reported for insulin and a-synuclein interacting with EGCG? There is little variation in t50 in Figure 3 for all concentrations of NaCl.
Lines 195-197: If a-synuclein did not aggregate in the presence of EGCG and no salt, then this implies that EGCG totally inhibited a-synuclein aggregation under these conditions. Importantly for such a conclusion, did a-synuclein aggregate on its own, i.e. in the absence of EGCG and salt?
Lines 181-186: In general, EGCG, like other fibril inhibitors, stabilizes an intermediately folded form of insulin (one early on its unfolding, fibril-forming pathway), which is composed of some beta-sheet. It does not have as much beta-sheet as the amyloid fibrillar form which adopts a cross beta-sheet conformation.
Validity of the findings: Consideration should be given in the Discussion of the effect of charge on the three fibril-forming species, i.e. their pI values. Clearly these, along with pH of the experiments, will have a major effect on interaction with Na and Cl ions, particularly for a-synuclein and amyloid beta as they are unstructured entities and therefore their calculated pI values are unaffected by secondary and tertiary structural considerations. Insulin is mainly alpha-helical in its native state but partially unfolds and dissociates from its hexameric form at low pH to facilitate its fibril formation.
Lines 281-283 in the Discussion: In general, higher concentrations of NaCl (i.e. higher ionic strength) lead to greater screening of electrostatic interactions between the peptide/ proteins concerned and a consequent shortening of the t50, i.e. promotion of aggregation. At low ionic strength and less consequent screening, repulsion between the peptide/ proteins leads to reduced aggregation, and longer t50 times.
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: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EPIGALLOCATECHIN-3-GALLATE AND IONIC STRENGTH DURING AMYLOID AGGREGATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors do a good job in general of reporting their work which is communicated in good English and with a sensible and logical flow.
One practical point: please mention both protein and EGCG concentrations (both in mM) in the legends to all figures to allow comparison.
Experimental design: 1.	The work is critically dependent on the use of plate reader data. I commend the authors for considering positional effects in their plate setup (Fig. S1). Strictly speaking one could randomize it even further but that becomes complicated to administrate. For good measure the authors should describe the design of the plate content (the first and second halves of the plate are identical).
2.	Why do the authors use 100 µM EGCG with aSN and only 25 µM with insulin and Abeta? This makes it difficult to compare the three proteins. It also raises the thorny issue of concentration dependence in general, i.e. can the effect of salt be overridden by higher [EGCG]?
Validity of the findings: I have some issues with the authors’ interpretations of their results as elaborated in the next section.
Additional comments: 1.	My main issues relate to the statistical significance of the conclusions drawn from the data.
a.	Fig. 2B: I am somewhat skeptical of the conclusions drawn from this figure in view of the relatively large errors (which are inevitable in view of the stochasticity of EGCG effects, cfr. above). At the very least, the authors should subject their values to a more thorough statistical analysis. Currently I would conclude that there is no significant change between values at 100-400 mM NaCl.
b.	Similarly, the values in Fig. 3B in my view show similar values at 200-700 mM NaCl; the value at 100 mM is lower but the associated errors make the significance questionable. I disagree with the conclusion that “The relative t50 values (Figure 3B) followed a similar trend as in the case of alpha-synuclein.” – unless that trend is revised to say that that there is no trend (which is perhaps a little harsh).
c.	The authors state that “The decreasing t50 values also greatly reduced the stochasticity of spontaneous aggregation, which was quite large at lower ionic strength conditions (Supplementary Figure S2).” This is only the case for EGCG; in the absence of EGCG, the data are (enviably) reproducible at all [NaCl] and this should be clarified. Similar observations are seen in Fig. S3 for alpha-synuclein. It is intriguing that EGCG makes the aggregation process more random at low [NaCl] and the authors are encouraged to speculate on this in the Discussion.
2.	In general I am also puzzled by the weak effect of EGCG on aggregation of these proteins. In my experience (admittedly using EGCG that had not been pre-oxidized), 1:1 molar ratios of EGCG are sufficient to suppress aggregation completely. The authors are requested to comment on this. Also, the oxidation change will affect the types of interactions between EGCG and protein. It would have been good to compare with unoxidized EGCG which most researchers use anyway.
3.	Overall I think it is an important message that EGCG has the greatest effect at low [NaCl] and this is the safest conclusion that can be drawn. The high quality of the ThT time profiles obtained by the authors makes it possible to make more detailed quantitative conclusions. E.g. they should plot t(lag) versus the square root of [NaCl] to check for screening effects and make the appropriate conclusions.
Minor issues:
4.	The EGCG oxidation step seems sensible enough, but do the authors have a way to validate the completeness of the oxidation (e.g. by spectroscopy)?
5.	Fig. 1B and 2B: Define the relative t(lag) (ratio between t(lag) with and without EGCG).
6.	Fig. 1CF and 2CF: describe the positions of the two stippled lines representing beta-sheet structures and carbonyl groups (and label them on the graphs).


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: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EPIGALLOCATECHIN-3-GALLATE AND IONIC STRENGTH DURING AMYLOID AGGREGATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors replied to all my concerns and I think that the paper has improved inn quality
Experimental design: All experiments are well described and they can be easily reproducible.
Validity of the findings: In the new version of the manuscript, all data are available and results are correctly described. Conclusions are supported by results and they clearly indicate the most important findings of this work.
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: INTERPLAY BETWEEN EPIGALLOCATECHIN-3-GALLATE AND IONIC STRENGTH DURING AMYLOID AGGREGATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Pass
Experimental design: Pass
Validity of the findings: Pass
Additional comments: The authors have satisfactorily addressed the issues I originally raised.


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: EFFECTS OF GRAZING INTENSITY ON FORAGE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF DOMINANT GRASS SPECIES IN BORANA RANGELANDS OF SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is interesting, researching the changes observed in the nutritional value of semi-arid grasslands in the rainy and the dry season. However, the manuscript needs a thorough revision of English usage, as there are many grammar shortcomings in terms of verb tenses and syntax errors that make reading the paper difficult.
Line 110-111: There is a mistake on describing the stocking rates since it states that moderate grazing intensity was 6 ha/AU. In comparison, the overgrazing intensity was 12 ha/AU when this figure means less severe grazing intensity.
Authors must revise these concepts and figures
Line 130:  Should be College, not collage.
Line 245 – 275: Very long paragraph difficult to read and follow. Must divide into shorter paragraphs addressing just one topic per paragraph and not more than five sentences per paragraph.
Line 277-305: Same comment, one very long paragraph. It has to be divided into shorter paragraphs.
Experimental design: Authors followed accepted methods for the evaluation of rangelands and the analyses of results.
Validity of the findings: Findings are valid, but writing has to be thoroughly improved to make the paper fluent and clear.
Authors must address the implications of their study beyond the local importance to the study region so that the manuscript is of interest and useful for an international readership.
Additional comments: It is an interesting paper on the changes observed in the nutritional value of semi-arid grasslands in the rainy and the dry season. However, the manuscript needs a thorough revision of English usage, as there are many grammar shortcomings in terms of verb tenses and syntax errors that make reading the paper difficult.
Authors use very long continuous paragraphs. The paper must be thoroughly revised before it can be accepted for publication.