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: OUTCOMES OF HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS WITH COVID-19 ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF FRAILTY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Minor comments:
1. Abstract:
-a sample of 254 patients”: specify in the abstract the main features of your patients (Age, if they are affected from COVID-19 or not)patients aged … with COVID-19.
-“after clinical”: add “features”.
-The word prognosis is non-specific and redundant to describe the outcome, as it already includes  the outcomes previously reported(length of stay and ICU admission).
-The last part of the abstract can be implemented with data about: mean CFS score of frail and pre-frail patients, and HR of mortality among them, with p value to support your conclusive statements.
2. Main text:
-Line 54: change the acronym ICU with ICUs.
-Line 61: change systemic function with “systemic functional capacity”.
-Line 63: the message is unclear. I suggest you to write: “… and since it may affect both physical, physiological and cognitive functions, frailty itself demands implementation of a holistic approach to patient care”.
-Line 88: change “takes” with “take”.
-Line 110: specify how the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection was made.
- Line 133-137: enhance description of statistical methodology (see next  section).
-Line 157: I suggest you to report once again CFS values used to identify robust, pre-frail and frail patients, in order to improve readability.
-Line 161-162: I suggest you to report summary statistics in support to your statements. You could say “The individuals classified as frail (CFS>=5) were mostly women (56.82%), and of older age (median[IQR]: 81.5 [72-87.75]), compared with the other groups”.
-Line 163: define the criterion used for diagnosing a nosocomial infection from SARS-CoV-2.
-Line 165: change “In” with “It”.
-Line 168: change chronic lung disease with “chronic bronchitis”, since also COPD would be included among chronic lung diseases, but it has not shown a similar linear increase in prevalence among groups.
-Line 169-170: the message of the statement “renal disease was remarkable..:” is not clearly expressed. You could say “. With the same pattern as heart disease, renal disease was less prevalent among robust patients (7.95%) compared to pre-frail and frail groups (20.95 % and 20.45%, respectively; p = 0.017).
-Line 174: I suggest you to improve the description of this part as “Differences in clinical presentation of the disease among the 3 groups were mostly not statistically significant; however, as shown in table 2, frail patients have shown the highest incidence of altered behaviour and level of consciousness (table 2).
-Line 182-184: report the incidence of major complications as percentage related to the overall population of patients included in the study.
-Minor punctuation mistakes: add periods at the end of the sentence at lines 59, 68, 78, 87.
Experimental design: Methodology of the study must be extensively revised, as it often not clearly reported.
1) Study variables: I suggest the authors to improve description of study variables included in  the present study and to categorize them as follows:
-exposure variable: frailty as measured by CFS
-covariates: age, gender and other variables included in the study and known to potentially affect prognosis which are reported in table 2. Briefly describe which disease classification system have you referred to for diagnoses included in the study (e.g. ICD-9, 10)
-Outcome variables.

2) Statistical analysis: must be improved.
-Quantitative variables included in the study were mainly expressed in terms of median (and not mean) and IQR.
-Which statistical analysis have you performed to investigate the ability of frailty to predict length of stay and ICU admission, within the prospective design of your study? Have you used a logistic/linear regression model analysis?
-Which software for statistical analysis have you used for performing statistical analyses?
-Line 258: change hearth with heart.
-Line 279: briefly report data supporting the high mortality associated with delirium in frail people in this study (report HR or ‘data not shown’ within brackets).
-Line 287: add appropriate reference within brackets.
Validity of the findings: Study findings confirmed the role of frailty in guiding prognosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and underlined the importance of using frailty assessment as a screening method for tailoring targeted interventions aimed at improving prognostic outcomes.
Discussion and conclusions are well stated and appropriately referenced; however, I suggest to describe the main limitations and points of strength of the present study in the final part of the discussion. Additionally, since multimorbidity and frailty may be bidirectionally related, you could discuss the role of a multidimensional approach integrating multimorbidity and frailty in the management of hospitalized patients.
Additional comments: This study investigated the interesting role of frailty in influencing outcomes of older patients hospitalized because of COVID-19. The descriptive part of the study is well written, with only minor revisions regarding English form, punctuation, and minor mistakes. However, the section about methods is too short and must be improved. Here above you find a point-by-point list of minor and major revisions that may be helpful to enhance the quality of 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: OUTCOMES OF HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS WITH COVID-19 ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF FRAILTY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all my concerns and made the necessary changes to the manuscript; all parts of the manuscript are now much more clearly presented and I think that results may help raise the importance of a multidimensional approach (including both frailty and multimorbidity) in the care of patients with COVID-19. I suggest some other minor revisions before final publication.
Experimental design: The methods were carefully described as well as presentation of study results.
Validity of the findings: In this retrospective cohort study, frailty was found to be an independent predictor of mortality among patients with COVID-19, as well as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Using a multidimensional approach can improve care of complex elderly patients with COVID-19 and tailor targeted approach to counteract negative consequences according to disease severity, multimorbidity, and frailty.
Additional comments: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all my concerns and made the necessary changes to the manuscript; all parts of the manuscript are now much more clearly presented and I think that results may help raise the importance of a multidimensional approach (including both frailty and multimorbidity) in the care of patients with COVID-19. I suggest some other minor revisions before final publication.

Line 41: the hospital stay was similar between the 2 groups, thus I suggest removing the sentence “a shorter hospital stay (p=0.296) from the abstract.
 Line 56: change “can be” with was.
Line 64: add 95 % CI after RR (1.24 to 2.09).
Line 90: add a comma after primary care setting.
Line 98: change period after “COVID-19 patients” with comma.
Line 118: change “does not take account” with “does not take into account”.
Line 124: change “worse prognosis; but pre-frail subjects, who have” with “worse prognosis, but pre-frail subjects as well, who have”.
Line 131: use periods instead of commas to separate the whole number from decimals.
Line 136: change “scores 1-3” with “Patients scoring 1-3”.
Discussion: introduce the important prognostic results in the first part of the discussion (e.g, “in this retrospective cohort study, we found that frailty was a major predictor of mortality among hospitalized elderly patients with COVID-19; cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension were also shown to predict decreased survival in the fully-adjusted model; frailty”.
Line 231: change “elderly, being a women, dependent” with “old age, female sex, dependency”.
After line 260: the terms “comorbidities” and “multimorbidity” should not be used interchangeably. I suggest you introduce the concept of “multimorbidity” which differs from simply comorbidity, since it does not give priority to any disease, but considers the whole number of multiple conditions and their interaction with functional status to finally determine patients’ outcomes”.

Table 4: I suggest reporting under the table which variables you included in the multivariable model.

Additionally: change all “pvalue” with “p value”.


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: OUTCOMES OF HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS WITH COVID-19 ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF FRAILTY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors carefully addressed all my concerns. The paper is now suitable for publication in Peer J.
Experimental design: The methods were carefully described as well as the presentation of study results.
Validity of the findings: In this retrospective cohort study, frailty was found to be an independent predictor of mortality among patients with COVID-19, as well as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Using a multidimensional approach can improve care of complex elderly patients with COVID-19 and tailor targeted approach to counteract negative consequences according to disease severity, multimorbidity, and frailty.
Additional comments: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all my concerns and made the necessary changes to the manuscript; all parts of the manuscript are now much more clearly presented and I think that results may help raise the importance of a multidimensional approach (including both frailty and multimorbidity) in the care of patients with COVID-19


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: IDENTIFICATION OF A NOVEL INHIBITOR OF SARS-COV-2 3CL-PRO THROUGH VIRTUAL SCREENING AND MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article has some limitations in terms of language that would need to be improved. The overall structure organization is adequate, but the contents are not fully adjusted to this organization.  For example, some studies are not described in the methodology section, but appear only described in the results or in the discussion section (MDs with the complexes).

In general, figures are very clear and informative.
Experimental design: The experimental design involves 100 ns molecular dynamics simulations, from which 10 structures were taken. These were later used for docking with of a collection of 286 small molecules from the MyraScreen Diversity Library II, following an initial virtual screening of the 10,000 molecules of this library against the three X-ray structures of the protein. In silico AMDE/TOX profiling was performed with Swiss ADME and OSIRIS.

Protein-ligand interaction analysis based on 50-ns MD simulations was performed on the top 4 compounds and with the 11a reference compound (this part is not described in the methodology).

No free energy calculations were performed to validate the docking results. No experimental validation was performed.

Details are missing concerning the docking calculations and the MD simulations.

No validation of the docking protocol or of the VS protocol seem to have been done.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings is difficult to evaluate as no experimental evaluation of the activity of the top compounds was performed.

It is not clear if only autodock vina was used, or if the top results were re-evaluated with Autodock 4.2. Nevertheless binding affinity or scoring values obtained with different independent methods should be presented. No free energy calculations on the top complexes was performed, not even through MM-pbsda/MM-gbsa protocols.

Given the variability of docking scores it is unclear how strong the predictions of one single docking program can be, even when performed on multiple structures

No validation of the docking conditions through re-docking of the co-crystallized ligand seems to have been done.

No validation of the descrimination ability of the VS protocol seems to have been done through actives/decoys comparison
Additional comments: Minor Points:

Line 115 - indicate how many were this selected ligands for which docking with AutoDock4.2 was done.

Line 129 - please justify the use of a 300 K tempeature instead of 310K

Initial docking of the 10,000 small molecules was done with Vina. The following docking stage, on the MD conformations, was done with Autodock 4.2 (as suggested on line 115) or with Autodock vina (as suggested on line  181)

Docking - indicate box size and conditions employed

MD simulations - please indicate thermostat, barostat, size of water radius around protein, non-bonded interaction cut-off, use of LINCS/SHAKE, specific set of parameters used to model the protein.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF A NOVEL INHIBITOR OF SARS-COV-2 3CL-PRO THROUGH VIRTUAL SCREENING AND MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is generally clear, professional, and all other criteria for basic report have been met to a sufficient standard.
Experimental design: The computational methodology follows well-established protocols, but further details in the Methods are required. These are detailed, together with other closely-related comments, in my general comments to the authors below.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid, but should be treated as hypotheses, given the limitations in the computational methods employed in predictions of enzyme-complex binding affinity and stability.
Additional comments: This study involved the use of an automated docking method to identify the top binding ligands from a small-molecule database, MyrisScreen Diversity Library II, to the papain-like protease of SARS-CoV-2. This was subsequently followed by ADMET filtering of the top candidate compounds and MD simulation studies to elucidate the stability of the enzyme-ligand complexes.
The methodology appears to follow well-established protocols (but much more details are required- see below), and the predictions are potentially valuable. With the caveat that the results should be viewed in light of the limitations in the computational methods employed (such as whether Autodock Vina is capable of reliably predicting binding affinity values for novel compounds), the work described in this manuscript is sound, and I recommend publication after minor revisions.

My main critique is that the modelling and simulation sections lack key details:
Further details in the molecular dynamics Materials & Methods section are required to ensure reproducibility of the simulations. Standard details include the temperature and pressure coupling algorithms employed; treatment of electrostatic interactions; van der Waals and electrostatics cut-off ranges; integration time steps (which is mentioned in Results, line 153, but should be placed in Methods); and whether bond constraints were employed, and if so, which algorithms were used.
The system set-up also require further details. In particular, what were the PBC box dimensions? And how many TIP3P water molecules, sodiums, and chlorides were included to solvate the protein-ligand complexes?

For the Autodock Vina section, what was the value of the exhaustiveness parameter used? What were the dimensions of the docking sampling box defined around the protein?

Finally, in terms of the methodology, it is stated that, after Autodock Vina calculations, a further Autodock4.2 rigid docking was performed on the selected ligands. It is not clear why this additional docking step was required, and the authors should explain the rationale behind this approach. Additionally, docking parameters and algorithms (such as genetic algorithm parameters) for this subsequent Autodock4.2 step should be provided.

For each of the receptor-ligand complexes, only a single 50 ns trajectory was obtained. Ideally, multiple independent simulations should be performed to improve the reliability of the predicted stability of the binding poses. While computational resources may not be sufficient to enable multiple simulations to be performed for all receptor-ligand complexes in a timely manner, some comment should be made to address the potential uncertainties of the predictions due to the use and analyses of single trajectories.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF A NOVEL INHIBITOR OF SARS-COV-2 3CL-PRO THROUGH VIRTUAL SCREENING AND MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well-written, well-organized paper describing the virtual screening of a small chemical library against SARS-CoV-2 Mpro protease, one of the most important COVID-19 drug targets. The VS results were primarily validated by molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and were also subjected to computational ADMET screens.
Experimental design: The experimental design follows a "common" virtual screening workflow. However, the manuscript does not sufficiently justify the rationale of this workflow, nor does it express sufficient criticism. Even in the best situations, virtual screening has a relatively low success rate, but this is not mentioned by the authors. The authors do not sufficiently describe how their MD simulations are likely to improve the validity of their hits. They should cite more literature that assesses the quantitative effectiveness and limitations of their methods. The authors do not critically assess the validity of their ADMET predictions.

To aid replication, the authors should deposit sdf files of their top hits as well as the PDB files for their protein MD docking templates.
Validity of the findings: The authors should be aware of the controversy surrounding purely computational VS studies, especially for COVID. Many researchers are skeptical of the value of such work. In light of the PeerJ publication philosophy, I believe such studies are publishable. The authors need to be more critical of the methods and their own results. The authors need to more explicitly state the limitations of their work and that without experimental validation, many results should be considered speculative.

The paper lacks deeper analysis of the results and the molecules identified. How does this study fit into the context of the many other Mpro VS papers that have been published this year? Are the identified molecules useful as drug hits or for further drug design? Are they similar to other molecules that have been identified by VS or experimental screening? Is the authors' docking against multiple MD structures have a precedent in the literature? The authors need to describe validation of this approach and that it actually improves VS performance.

Specific points:

1. S51765 is a macrocycle that is poorly handled by Autodock Vina and most docking softwares due to its many degrees of freedom. This issue is not addressed in the paper.

2. What is the rationale for use of the MyriaScreen Library? What makes it particularly interesting or useful especially compared to the many other vendor libraries available? Has it been previously screened in other studies?

3. The Autodock Vina predicted binding affinities are well-known to poorly correlate with experimental values. They should be supplemented by more effective computational methods for predicting binding affinities, such as MM-GB/PB-SA or more sophisticated rescoring functions.

4. The authors should demonstrate their approach works by performing the same analysis with positive controls, ligands known to bind Mpro.
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: IDENTIFICATION OF A NOVEL INHIBITOR OF SARS-COV-2 3CL-PRO THROUGH VIRTUAL SCREENING AND MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have improved the  manuscript significantly.
Experimental design: With the addition of the missing information and the clarification of points raised in the previous revision, the experimental design is now quite clear and can be properly assessed as adequate.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings is now justified with the new calculations presented and with the details given.
Additional comments: The authors have made all the changes requested and have included all the methodological information that was missing. The protocol now becomes more clear and reproducible.

Appropriate justifications were presented to all the points raised.

I recommend acceptance of the present version.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF A NOVEL INHIBITOR OF SARS-COV-2 3CL-PRO THROUGH VIRTUAL SCREENING AND MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have greatly improved the quality of the manuscript by addressing the concerns of the editor and reviewers.
Experimental design: I am still concerned about the MD simulations with ST074801. One run showed instability while an additional run did not. What can we conclude from that? The authors should do more runs (total of 5 at least) and report on the stability.
Validity of the findings: The authors have added statements about the limitations of virtual screening and predicting drug-binding and drug affinity. This is very important so that non-specialists recognize the proper scope of the 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: INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE ON GREENHOUSE GAS FLUXES AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN SPRING-WHEAT AGROECOSYSTEMS ON THE LOESS PLATEAU OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - The English language needs to be improved throughout the manuscript. The literature is referenced properly but I suggested to use information based citation instead of the author (for e.g., There is an improved in Carbon sequestration (Smith et al., 2008)).
-	The knowledge gap was not explained well.
-	There are lots of figures so the author should emphasis on main figures that explained the story well.
Experimental design: The research article aligns with the scope of the journal. As a reader, I felt that the research question was not defined well although the gap is mentioned but not explained well. The methodology section needs to be revised thoroughly. A lot of detail was presented in the methodology section which is not needed. So, I would urge the author to trim this section. A special section for the equations is also needed.
Validity of the findings: The way the result is presented, the author had provided detailed fieldwork with an extensive dataset over the year 2017-2018.  The author also provides an extensive literature review on the discussion. I would recommend to make a list of the important take-home messages from the Result as well as the Discussion section and then described that. Because the sections are too long and I am lost as I read through the paragraph. Please revised the section as the edits provided in the attachment.
Additional comments: This paper needs to highlight the why conservation tillage no-till had influence on the gas fluxes and crop productivity. Every section is lengthy so need to trim it. The author should pick up the main point and explained on it. All underlying data have been provided they are robust, statistically sound, &controlled.

Author needs to present a more comprehensive view of the literature surrounding the use of no-till on the gas fluxes and crop productivity. I recommend that the author works on each feedback the reviewer provided to make this paper better. Major revisions are necessary before publication.

Major comments:

Each section is long. The author makes sure to work on the grammar and concise the paper. It is very long. Some of the sections from the material and methodology can be combined together for e.g., Experimental design and this section can be combined together. Even for the result section, some of the paragraphs can be combined together. The discussion section is too long and I would suggest the author get the main take-home message in the section. The author should pick up the important figures and tables in the manuscript. Please look at the edits on the attachment.
The attachment contains specific comments and edits.
Line 42: What is the difference between food systems and Agriculture?
Line 43: You can put these lines on your introductory sentence is why agriculture accounts for the global warming effects?
Line 48-54: The author can list the advantages of cropping systems on carbon sequestration as the value (cite).
Line 58-61: soil physical properties (cite), chemical properties (cite) and biological properties (cite)
Line 61-63: This can be added after line 61 to show the pieces of evidence from the past studies of why conservation no-till is important. I would recommend the author to rewrite this paragraph especially from lines 64-74.
Line 75: What is radiative foraging?
Line 83: Thus the objectives of this study are:
Line 94-97: For this study, we have contentious data of 42 years (Put the weather parameter inside).
Line 198-200: Please revised this sentence.
A separate supplemental file including the equations should be useful for both the authors and the readers.
Line 254: Especially on the result section, the author need to rewrite this section. I am lost as I read through each section. Bring the most notable result on these sections. Please organize your result section by the importance of the issues.


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: INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE ON GREENHOUSE GAS FLUXES AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN SPRING-WHEAT AGROECOSYSTEMS ON THE LOESS PLATEAU OF CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, it was a nice scientific article which was meaningful for developing sustaintable and climate-smart agriculture. Besides, this article had clear structure and rich content with excellent writing. However, some parts of this article need to be improved:

1.Why most of your reference was Font Bold in author’s name and published year, but some didn’t, please make sure the demands of journal and unify it.

2.More detail about your research object (Loess Plateau and spring-wheat) need to be introduced in the introduction, e.g. why you focus on this, what is the characters of this.

3.Your abstract needs more detail about the meaning of the research, especially in the first sentence, while also make the results more concise.

4.Why the majority of your figure and table were black and white, while the Fig. 6&7&8 were colorful, using uniform color might be better.

5.It would be easier to read if you could arrange the soil properties measurements together (e.g. SOC, TN, Soil water content).
Experimental design: 1.Your experimental design and writting about materials and method were nice. However,it would be better if you could provide more data about soil properties in line 97(not only SOC and TN), and in line 114, what kind of weight of wheat straw, wet or dry? And it would be better if you could provide the chemical properties of straw (C%, N%...).

2. If you could give the local factor(chinese) in line194&195 instead of Canadian, the results would be more convincing.
Validity of the findings: This paper verified the hypothesis well and explained the scientific problem adequately. 1.However,explaining the GHGs emission trends with more detail about weather data (rain fall and tempetatures) would be better for your discussion to illustrate how it change.

2.For Fig.7, have you tried to regress the data with all observations, not only the average value of 4 treatments.

3.Could you please explain that why large error bar was existed in CT treatment of CH4 in Fig.4, while others was small.
Additional comments: The experimental design, writing ability and innovation level of this article are all excellent, but some details need to be improved. Overall, it was a very good scientific paper.


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

Input:
Title: INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE ON GREENHOUSE GAS FLUXES AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN SPRING-WHEAT AGROECOSYSTEMS ON THE LOESS PLATEAU OF CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Abstract still needs to be improved. The introduction is improved a lot from the last version. Delete the line 41 first sentence.
Experimental design: No Comment.
Validity of the findings: Some of the discussion section as line 280-282; 303-305 and 335-337 should be moved to result section.
Additional comments: Its improved but I still felt the result , discussion and the conclusion can be made better.


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: INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE ON GREENHOUSE GAS FLUXES AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN SPRING-WHEAT AGROECOSYSTEMS ON THE LOESS PLATEAU OF CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The problem about reference has been solved. Good.
2. The relevant information has been supplemented. Good.
3. The graphic and table were tidy.Good.
4. The expression of soil properties has been optimized. Good
Experimental design: In this part, my problems has been solved and the suggestions were also adopted. Good.
Validity of the findings: All problems I mentioned last time has been solved. Only one suggestion is that I hope the author could add more discussion about the uncertainties about GHGs emission in the article.
Additional comments: The design of the experiment and writing of this article are pretty good. Overall, it was a nice scientific paper.And it would be good if more suggestion about mitigating GHGs for the local situation.


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: INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE ON GREENHOUSE GAS FLUXES AND CROP PRODUCTIVITY IN SPRING-WHEAT AGROECOSYSTEMS ON THE LOESS PLATEAU OF CHINA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clearly written
Experimental design: Research questions well defined.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: There was only one place where I suggested the author add some literature review. Otherwise, the manuscript has significantly improved over time.


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: SCANT—AN OPEN-SOURCE PLATFORM FOR THE CREATION OF 3D MODELS OF ARTHROPODS (AND OTHER SMALL OBJECTS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: A well written and concise paper with good literature review and supported materials.
Minor improvements could be done:
- Line 190: remove well in "Note well that..."
- Line 525: "...blender..." should be capitalised.
- Add reference to recent relevant publications such as "Perspective-Consistent Multifocus Multiview 3D Reconstruction of Small Objects" https://doi.org/10.1109/DICTA47822.2019.8946006
Experimental design: The paper identifies a gap in 3D reconstruction of insects and present an open source design/solution that uses low-cost off the shelf components and open source software.

The design is well thought and well tested. It proposes a few improvements including using 3D printing for low-cost and streamline design, removing completely out of focus images, using known camera poses from pan-tilt position, automatic background removal, and 3D model rigging.

There are few things the authors could clarify:
- Sentence starting from line 150 "While an angular range of 100° may appear limiting, steeper viewing angles are not required to generate high quality models...". This is not strictly true. The actual problem is that it is difficult to take images at these extreme angles due to the pan motor getting close to the camera. A problem with the current camera capture setting in the paper is that pan-tilt angle steps are kept constant, causing image positions near the north and south poles of the sphere too close to each other. Changing pan angular step to maintain roughly uniform angular distance between two nearest camera positions (look at a soccer ball) will increase the unique information captured in each image and reduce the total number of images for the same spherical coverage.
- Strobel et al 2018 shows that calibrated image alignment for focus stacking is crucial to the success of 3D reconstruction. However the authors use Hugin software which seems not taking account of calibration for image alignment.
- Automatic background removal has always been challenging as it is quite unreliable due to the complex imaging and geometric properties of specimens. Often this requires additional manual corrections which could be quite time-consuming and defeating the automating purpose. Some validations of the proposed automatic background removal technique (probably versus background lighting as proposed by Strobel et al 2018) will be useful.
Validity of the findings: The design and the results presented in the paper are wonderful. Particularly the authors take great effort to share and document the codes, and the components to be purchased or printed. This is one of the best example how to share research effort and help others to reproduce the work.
Additional comments: Great work!


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: SCANT—AN OPEN-SOURCE PLATFORM FOR THE CREATION OF 3D MODELS OF ARTHROPODS (AND OTHER SMALL OBJECTS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well-structured and written in professional language. However, I feel that the text can be further improved, since it contains some typos, incorrect punctuation and inconsistent formatting. I have annotated the text in the PDF up to my abilities, but, since this is not my area of expertise, I recommend it to be corrected by an expert. Please note that pages 1-10 of the PDF were annotated more thoroughly, and correct the same issues on the rest of the pages accordingly.
References seem adequate, the differences with the previously created photogrammetry devices are highlighted. Figures are well-done, they clearly illustrate the process of photogrammetry. The only exception is Figure 3, which, I think, should follow the description of the process in the text more strictly, and be provided with a more concise explanation in the figure captions. The 3D models provided in the Supplementary materials are excellent.
Experimental design: scAnt software seems useful and user-friendly. The design with one linear and two rotary axes is compact and reliable. However, there are some comments and questions concerning the construction:

1)	It is not very clear what the other end of the z-axis rests on. Considering the plastic base, the long arm, and the fact that the weight of the shafts and the leadscrew hangs on the stepper motor mount frame, without additional support at the end of the z-axis, it will sag and shake when the stepper motor is running. Even a small support at the end of the z-axis will increase the rigidity significantly.
2)	The choice of the shaft system as linear guides along the z-axis is questionable. Wouldn’t it be easier to use profile rail guides, to avoid the bother of calibration of the alignment of the shafts?
3)	The rigidity of the frame of the pivoting axis x, as well as the base of the structure, also raises concerns, since it is proposed to be made by laser cutting from plexiglass. The rigidity can be significantly increased if it is milled from ISO 2024 aluminum, it will not come out much more expensive. Wear resistance will also increase - acrylic will crack and chip, especially at the edges and in the places of screw fastenings, and more so when it is laser cut, not milled.
4)	It would be nice if the authors specified the models of LED illuminators that fit the form factor to their design and have a decent CRI.
Validity of the findings: The proposed photogrammetry pipeline should be of great help to the scientific community and enthusiasts.
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: SCANT—AN OPEN-SOURCE PLATFORM FOR THE CREATION OF 3D MODELS OF ARTHROPODS (AND OTHER SMALL OBJECTS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a wonderfully written, and thoughtfully put together article, on a topic of extreme importance. I can't thank the authors enough for this excellent work, and hope that their work will lead to a renaissance in the use and accessibility of 3D-rendered specimens.
Experimental design: I am not an expert in the computer software components of this project, but the methods are clear and straightforward, the application novel, and the utility unquestionable.
Validity of the findings: The results are clearly presented, and supported by the methods chosen.
Additional comments: This is an excellent article, and I am extremely grateful that the authors have put together this package and hope that it is widely adopted by natural history collections across the globe.  I know that I will be sharing this article after its publication with the manager of our insect collection in the hope that we will start digitizing our specimens and making them more available to the public.


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: DO GABAPENTIN OR PREGABALIN DIRECTLY MODULATE THE Μ RECEPTOR?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall I think this is an important study despite the largely negative data presented as it in a solid way show that pregabalin and gabapentin does not have direct activation/modulation on the µ receptor. This is important knowledge given the increasing co-misuse of the drugs with opiates. The data and discussion is largely very well performed and described but I do have some suggestions on how to improve the study below.

Line 86-89: the reference for alternative drug targets is quite old (2006) and somewhat outdated as it has e.g. been shown that gabapentin does not act on GABA-B receptors. As the least, these two GABA-B publications (PMID: 11747901 & PMID: 12021399) should be added or better yet a never reference with updated information should be used instead.

Line 119: There are a number of different HEK293 cell lines available. Please specify which one you used.

Line 119-127: Please provide more details on how the stably transfected cell lines were generated. Which vectors/plasmids were used, which resistance gene did they contain, were the cell lines polyclones or single cell expansions and how was the stable expression confirmed?

E.g. line 196. In general, it would be more correct to term the graphs concentration-response curves as dose refer to a quantity of compound and not a concentration as depicted on the graphs.

Line 203-204: In most cases more than two conditions are compared in the statistical tests where it would then be more appropriate to use ANOVA test.

Line 221-231: To show specificity of the cell line and assay used please make a control experiment of morphine in non-transfected or mock-transfected HEK-293 and AtT20 cells.

Line 245: The abbreviation CRC is not explained. I assume it refers to concentration-response curve which would be fine. Please use the same nomenclature for these graphs througout the manuscript as previously noted for line 196.

Line 258-262: It is somewhat difficult to interpret Figure 4d as the increase in inverse BRET ratio is not put in perspective with the other graphs shown in the Figure 4a-c which have been normalized. I suggest to add the response of 10 µM morphine to Figure 4d which would make it possible to see of the increase in inverse BRET ratio caused by 100 µM pregabalin is a small or big effect compored to the morphine effects.

Line 267-268. The Figure 4e and 4f have been switched in the text compared to the figure.

Line 270-278: It would be appropriate to also test gabapentin and pregabalin alone (in absence of morphine) as has been done it the two other assays. This would also support the claim made in line 285.

Figure 5: It looks weird that -6.5 and -5.5 morphine was not tested as one would usually include more - not less - data points on the dynamic part of a CRC.

Line 317-329: I think that the finding of pregabalin potentiating forskoline (Figure 4f) is an interesting observation. But as mentioned in line 326-329 it is likely not mediated by the µ receptor or even Gs and the mechanism remains unknown. As the system used to test this effect is rather artificial compared to human therapeutic use I think line 317-329 is too speculative and I would rather note the observation and call for more studies to delineate the mechanism (as done in the conclusion) and determine if it has any human translation.

Otherwise, I think the discussion is sound but could elaborate on potential indirect mechanisms of pregabalin and gabapentin not explored in the present study such as changing cell surface µ receptor expression, synergistic action of pregabalin/gabapentin activity on voltage-gated ion-channels and downstream µ receptor signaling or activity of pregabalin/gabapentin on some of the heterodimeric receptors which the µ receptor has been reported to form with e.g. Kappa and delta receptors and recently also GPR139.
Experimental design: See above.
Validity of the findings: See above.
Additional comments: See 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: DO GABAPENTIN OR PREGABALIN DIRECTLY MODULATE THE Μ RECEPTOR?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic is an important one. This manuscript by investigates potential interactions between the gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) with the mu-opioid receptor (MOR). This is an important area of investigation as it has clinical as well as drug overdose death implications. Gabapentinoids have become drugs of abuse and while they are not normally lethal in overdose by themselves they have become associated with heroin overdose deaths. The manuscript is well written and the citing of the relevant scientific literature is appropriate.
Experimental design: In this manuscript the authors report that the gabapentinoids in low and high doses do not themselves activate MOR nor do they potentiate the signalling events induced by morphine i.e. they do not act as positive allosteric modulators. These experiments have been carefully performed using the human MOR expressed in two cell line, HEK293 and AtT20 cells, the later being pituitary cells with some neuronal phenotype. Both cell types have been extensively used in previous studies of MOR function by the authors and other researchers. The assays used are well established for studies of MOR function
Validity of the findings: The authors also investigate whether the gabapentinoids can modulate MOR desensitization on prolonged agonist activation. As referenced by the authors there is a previous publication by another research group which suggests that pregabalin reverses tolerance to the respiratory depressant effect of morphine. Receptor desensitization may be a component of tolerance. Unfortunately the information provided in the present manuscript is not sufficient to support the claim that gabapentinoids do not modify MOR desensitization.
A number of kinases (e.g. GRKs/arrestins, PKC isoforms, ERKs and others as described in Williams et al 2012 Pharmacol Rev . 2013 Jan 15;65(1):223-54) have been implicated in MOR desensitization in different cell types and under different experimental conditions. The authors provide no information on the mechanism(s) underlying the desensitization they observe in AtT20 cells under their experimental conditions. Whilst they do show that the desensitization they observe is not altered by gabapentinoids they have not excluded the possibility that the mechanism responsible in their experiments is not the one that gabapentinoids interact with in vivo. For example, if the  desensitization they observe is largely GRK/arrestin dependent then if the gabapentinoids inhibit PKC activity then no effect would have been observed (and vice versa). Thus, while the observation made by the authors is entirely valid, by not defining the mechanism(s) involved in the desensitization occurring under their experimental conditions it is difficult to interpret the observation.
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: DO GABAPENTIN OR PREGABALIN DIRECTLY MODULATE THE Μ RECEPTOR?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed my comments in my review of the first submission in an adequate way and I thus have no further comments.


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

Input:
Title: DO GABAPENTIN OR PREGABALIN DIRECTLY MODULATE THE Μ RECEPTOR?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Fine
Experimental design: Fine
Validity of the findings: fine
Additional comments: The revisions made bt the authors are adequate to meet my original reservations.


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

Input:
Title: CLINICAL VALIDATION OF THE SHORT AND LONG UNESP-BOTUCATU SCALES FOR FELINE PAIN ASSESSMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear team, I would like to commend you on this research. Firstly, it's quite an ambitious comparison of multiple behavioural assessment scales, and must have taken a lot of thought to plan and execute. Secondly, the manuscript flows, is clear and easy to read.

One minor comment is that in the results section, for 'concurrent criterion validity' it would be good to define 'moderate', 'strong' and 'very strong' as you have done in other sections of the results.
Experimental design: 1. I was slightly confused on the behavioural observation procedure, could you clarify against the following please:
As I read it, there were three observers, all in the room with the cat. one observer physically handled and manipulated the cat, while the other two looked on.
Is this correct?
Why then the reference to video recording in 147? Was this used at all in the current study, or is it stored for a future evaluation, as suggested in line 299.

2. You do correctly identify the challenges of bias in observers and the difficulty in blinding these observers when they are in the same room as the cat at the time of examination.
Another challenge is that the scores given in each 'test' could be influenced by the assessments made in the previous 'tests' carried out by they observer. You have randomised the order of UFAPS, UFAPS-SF and CMPS-Feline, but they all follow the unidimensional assessments (not randomised) - how would we correct for the potential for the unidirectional assessment scores to influence the scores given in the subsequent assessments?

3. It would be interesting to list the clinical conditions suffered by the ClinG cats.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Just a couple of very minor text edit suggestions:
Line 250, add 'pain' after 'postoperative'
Line 290, do you mean 'that study' rather than 'the UFAPS'?
line 291, suggest 'the current study' in place of 'this study'
Line 304, do you mean 'painful' instead of 'positive'?


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

Input:
Title: CLINICAL VALIDATION OF THE SHORT AND LONG UNESP-BOTUCATU SCALES FOR FELINE PAIN ASSESSMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The current study titled “Clinical validation of the short and long UNESP-Botucatu scales for feline acute pain assessment (UFAPS) (#53086) is observational and comparing different pain assessment scales for cats with different medical conditions. The study adding more information about the validation of currently used feline pain assessment scales with the inclusion of a control group and cats with different surgical and medical cases. The authors evaluated the validity and reliability of the UFAPS and UFAPS-SF for feline acute pain assessment in comparison to the other four pain scales that have been used in cats. However, there are some issues that need to be revised:
1.	It is not clear how the authors assessed the effect of time on all scales used. The repeated measure design was used in this study because the same animals were assessed over different times (moments). Each group was evaluated at different time points. For example, the clinical group evaluated at 2-time points, control at 5-time points, and the surgical group at 6-time points. However, the authors conducted concurrent validity based on data obtained from all time points. The difference between groups should be interpreted at each time point to obtain accurate validation.
2.	The study was not blinded, and observers were aware of treatment groups which could have affected the obtained results. Also, the study was not randomized when unidimensional scales were used. Authors acknowledge that in the discussion section; however, authors should be cautious in their conclusion.
3.	Different drugs with different pharmacological properties were used for anesthesia which could be a confounder that influences the obtained data of pain assessment. Authors should acknowledge that in their limitations.
4.	It is not mentioned how the sample size was calculated, and what were inclusion and exclusion criteria in the study.

Specific comments:
Title: Using abbreviations in the title is not recommended. Please fix it.
Introduction:
Is well written and has enough information about the studied topic however the objective of the study needs rephrasing to make it more clear. What was the gold standard or reference used?
L89: Please provide a reference
L95: Please provide a website for this form as you did for the previous one
L99-100: Validated in comparison to what? Please clarify
Materials and Methods:
MMs need to be more organized with a logical flow of ideas. The rewriting of MMs could make it easier to read
L101: What do you mean by medical pain. Please explain
L111: Was approval/consent obtained from the owners of acts? You have it in L122, please move it to the first paragraph of MMs
L114: Please provide more information on how the sample size calculated? Did the authors perform power analysis before the start of the study?
L123-124: Please provide inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the study
L138: Please provide a reference and a brief description of each scale used in the study
L139: Change to CMPS-Feline to "Glasgow CMPS-Feline"
L142: Please explain why physiological variables were excluded from UFAPS during your evaluation?
L147: Which data was used for validation, the real-time assessment or video recorded data? Please clarify
L153: Throughout the whole manuscript whenever you mention drug please provide the source of drugs used in the study
L157: What do you mean by “the observers' discretion” please clarify
L159: Please state how many cases received analgesia with score of less than 4
L166: Please explain how the maintenance of anesthesia was achieved?
L168: Was the data from these animals included in statistical analysis?
L173: What do you mean by “clinician's discretion” please clarify
L180: What do you mean by last one. Please fix this sentence. What zero refers to in the control group?
Statistical analyses
Detailed information should be provided about the packages and functions used in R software. The authors should specify which tests were used in each software (R and Prism). Why did the authors use two different software for statistical analysis? Was the power analysis performed before the study? Was data checked for normality before analysis? It is not mentioned in table 2 which tests were used to calculate sensitivity and specificity.
The authors conducted concurrent criterion validity using all time points. However, each scale was evaluated at different time points. This is should be fixed in data analysis.
It will be helpful for R users and others to see a script of R commands and functions used in all different analyses, so results could be derived from the raw data provided in supplementary materials.

Results:
L188:  It would be good to have a descriptive table for enrolled animals
L229&L239: Please provide a table for estimated sensitivity and specificity with (posterior median and 95% CI) of the conducted analysis
Tables: Please provide the sample sizes in the title of each table or as footnotes below tables as you have multiple cases of cat exclusion from data analysis
Discussion:
L259: You stated that “the scale is not cumbersome and time-consuming”. There was no data reported about the time required for conducting each scale. The authors should consider providing the time required for completing each assessment to be able to compare the reliability of each scale
L252: You stated that “pain scores were significantly higher in painful versus pain-free cats” Where is this data? The pain score data of each group was not presented in the results. Authors should include a table or figure showing the range of pain score in each group
L334: This the first time that author mentions the difference between real-time and video assessment. Where is this data? And how did you evaluate the difference? Please clarify
In the discussion section, authors should present the pros and cons of each scale, and based on their obtained results they can recommend one or more scales for clinics
Experimental design: There is a lot of limitations in the methodology that should be addressed.
Validity of the findings: Results are based on statistical analyses. However, some analyses can be done in a better way especially the effect of time.
Additional comments: The study is good work and obviously required plenty of effort and coordination for data collection. The verbiage needs to be more concise and better organized in some areas, especially in materials and methods.


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

Input:
Title: CLINICAL VALIDATION OF THE SHORT AND LONG UNESP-BOTUCATU SCALES FOR FELINE PAIN ASSESSMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment - the manuscript has been satisfactorily revised
Experimental design: No comment - the manuscript has been satisfactorily revised
Validity of the findings: No comment - the manuscript has been satisfactorily revised
Additional comments: Thank you so much for your revisions, and your clear presentation of your approach to revisions.


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

Input:
Title: CLINICAL VALIDATION OF THE SHORT AND LONG UNESP-BOTUCATU SCALES FOR FELINE PAIN ASSESSMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is quite improved, and the authors have addressed all comments. The authors provided figure 2 that has detailed information about the methodology.
The manuscript looks good to me and I think it is ready for publication. Just minor changes to be addressed:
The authors abbreviated some words and did not use the abbreviations throughout the paper. Please check the paper for any abbreviations that are not used.
There are some grammatical errors, and extra spaces throughout the paper, so I am advising the authors to proofread the paper before final submission. Some references in the text are italic and others are not. Please fix throughout the paper.
L144 in word file, please change “any” with “different”.
L188 in word file, please delete the extra period.
L299-300 in word file: please provide the unit of time spent for assessment of each scale that was included in the results section.
L568 in word file, please change “patients” with “cats”.
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: See 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: THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL POWER ON NEURAL RESPONSES TO EMOTIONAL CONFLICT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: Dear Xueling and Entao

Here are my comments as to your submission “the influence of social power on neural responses to emotional conflict”:
•	The English level of the entire manuscripts needs professional editing. As it stands now, there are many English grammar errors and spelling (e.g. ‘colloege’ instead of ‘college’ and lines 363-364; but there are more).
•	Lines 135-139: add to each of the 2 hypothesis that the effect is expected across all channels for each of the three waveforms. So for example ‘(1)’ would read ‘N170 amplitude in response to congruent emotion expressions would be 136 larger in low power group than in high one across the two channels’
•	Power analyses: the design for the power was a 2 x 2; but the ERP analyses used a 2 x 2 x C; where ‘C’ stands for the number of channels used in each of the three waveforms. It seems the power analysis was designed thinking of RTs and accuracy rates as the response. But given than ‘channel’ is an extra factor for the microvoltage data, then another power analysis is needed. So for example, for the cases of N170 and P1 the design needed is 2 x 2 x 2 (as there are 2 channels) whereas for N450, it’d be 2 x 2 x 8 (as there were 8 channels). These new power analyses will dictate a new number of participants needed and will therefore impact the ERP analyses.
•	Line 154: “There were nineteen participants in each group: high-power, low-power” what percentage of males in each?
•	Line 156: “All participants were right-handed, did not have color vision deficiency or color blindness and had normal or corrected to normal vision” how was this determined? Self-report?
•	Line 158: “In the end study, all participants were paid for this time.” How long did the study go for? And how much was each participant paid?
•	Somewhere in the ‘methods’ state that SPSS was used for the analyses. On this matter, please also upload the SPSS syntax used in the analyses.
•	Lines 268-276: while in the previous sections it was reported if ‘channel’ had an effect, this isn’t clear in this section.
More specific methodological comments:
Besides the issue about power analysis above, some other aspects need to be addressed:
•	I’m aware the authors used SPSS for the analyses. SPSS is fine and it’s a common tool for statistical analyses. However, it’s limited. For example, I assume the authors estimated mean micro-voltage per participant per condition (as it can be seen in the supplementary file). Would the results hold if a robust estimator, e.g. the median, were used?
•	The authors used traditional ANOVAs for RT, ERP and error rates. However, it’s known RTs tend to have a non-normal shape (see 1) so parametric ANOVAs become biased in their estimations. Microvolts also have such shapes. So, such dependent measures call for robust techniques or non-parametric methods (see 2). Would the results hold if these analyses are done?
•	Error/accuracy rates are bounded between 0 and 1 so they are akin to a Beta distribution; not a normal distribution. ANOVAS assume a normal distribution; so then again, biased results are obtained. The ideal model is a Beta regression. Would the results hold if a Beta regression were applied? (see ‘betareg’ package in R)
If the authors are in capacity to bring in the expertise of a statistician who uses R, these analyses could be easily done. In case this isn’t possible, the authors should explicitly acknowledge these limitations and warnings.
I recommend future studies include what’s called ‘multiverse analysis’ (see 3); that is, at least 3 statistical analyses should be performed on the data in order to come up with a pattern of results. I recommend a brief mention in the discussion section to this and other methodological matters stated herein.

References
1.	Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Cousineau, D., Benites, L., & Maehara, R. (2015). On the efficacy of procedures to normalise Ex-Gaussian distributions. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (1548): DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01548
2.	Mair, P., Wilcox, R. Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package. Behav Res 52, 464–488 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01246-w
3.	Steegen, S., Tuerlinckx, F., Gelman, A., & Vanpaemel, W. (2016). Increasing Transparency Through a Multiverse Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616658637


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 INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL POWER ON NEURAL RESPONSES TO EMOTIONAL CONFLICT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: -	The manuscript requires a comprehensive revision in English, as some sentences do not make sense grammatically and especially in the discussion some of the sentence structure does not make sense
-	Figure 1 requires more information in the caption than just "stimuli". I would also recommend a legend describing what can be seen on the stimuli and which of them are congruent and incongruent.
-	On page 6, beginning with line 84 "Conversely,..." to line 89 requires references.
-	Page 6, line 92 "therefore, low-power...". This information is central to the question. I would consider more information on this topic. Last sentence of this paragraph: cannot see the association to the paragraph. Please elaborate this
-	Page 6, line 94 “The previous studies..”. Please cite these studies.
-	As for the emotional Stroop task, I would add some background information, i.e. what its purpose is classically (this can also be in the methods section and does not have to be in the introduction). In particular, give a better overview of the behavioral interference caused by the semantic incompatibility and that the habitual/automatic reaction (reading) should be inhibited in favor of slower voluntary reactions (emotion recognition). I also recommend citing further literature that has often used the emotional Stroop (such as: Stickel et al., 2019 doi:10.1016/J.BIOPSYCHO.2019.02.008; Chechko et al. 2012 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038155, Chechko et al., 2013 doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.01.013)
-	Discussion: The explanation why power has no effect on selective attention refers to the task "reading the word". However, the Stroop task is to ignore the word and recognize the emotion. Therefore I do not understand this explanation. It would also be more helpful to know if the different power conditions react differently to the emotions.
-	The discussion of the results refers repeatedly to literature on emotion recognition. Here I wonder again why the authors decided to ignore the different emotions in the task in the analyses.
-	I'm not quite sure what is meant by the limitations regarding the power of the targets and the power control condition. This should be described in more detail.
Experimental design: -	Please specify in the Stroop task which of the ISIs contained a fixation cross and which contained a blank screen.
-	Were there direct repetitions of the same face-word combinations, given this could lead to priming effects?
-	I would add more information about power manipulation. Were the participants instructed which experiences count here and how long back in the past. Did only positive experiences count? Was this instructed in a standardized way?
Validity of the findings: -	Information on statistical analyses for the behavioral analysis is completely missing. Which programs were used? What calculations were made? It is not enough to simply write in the results that an ANOVA was calculated, because basic information about the calculation process is missing.
-	In the abstract it is mentioned that the emotional valence of the faces was not considered. But I wonder why? Is there any reason why the reaction times for the different emotions were not calculated and why no interactions with the social power and EEG components were calculated? Numerous studies (eg. Stickel et al., 2019, Chechko et al., 2013, 2013) describe, for example, that the emotion fear, regardless of whether it is presented congruently or incongruently, has longer reaction times than happy.
-	I cannot find the results for the main effect of power and interaction with the interferences.
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: THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL POWER ON NEURAL RESPONSES TO EMOTIONAL CONFLICT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: although the authors state the manuscript has been proofread, i spotted the institutional affiliation of author 1 is spelled incorrectly... it could be the case there are other typos in the document
Experimental design: seems fine
Validity of the findings: seems fine
Additional comments: comments here

= ensure the english level is acceptable
= the authors state 'non-parametric tests' were used'; please specify the name of those tests
= state where appropriate that data were checked for normality
= along with the SPSS data files (already provided), authors should upload the SPSS's output files. Such files also show the SPSS syntax. This way anyone can easily reproduce the analyses in SPSS


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: USING CITIZEN SCIENCE IN THE PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF AN AMPHIBIAN BASED ON TWO FACIAL SKIN FEATURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The quality of writing is very high. The introduction provides a very readable introduction to the topic for both general and specialist readers, and is well-supported by relevant literature. The paper is well-structured, the figures are all very crisp and clear. I enjoyed reading this paper.
Experimental design: The work falls within the scope of the journal and has clear and well-defined questions. The design and analysis is neat, tidy and straightforward. The methods and results are clearly and concisely presented and the work fills a knowledge gap (if a rather narrow and specialist one).
Validity of the findings: The results are compelling and supported by the data presented. I did wonder about some of the very large standard deviations and units of measurement (see below - do these need checking?), but even if they stand they do not change any of the overall message.
Additional comments: My one minor niggle with the paper is how the work is framed within the role of citizen scientists. Conventionally, citizen scientists are used to collect data at a scale that might be intractable for a small team of professional researchers, i.e. there is some engagement and investment with the project outcomes. In this study, the citizen scientists are used as an anonymous group of helpers to match images, i.e. they are just volunteer helpers without any personal investment in the project outcomes apart (presumably) from a warm feeling that they have helped some scientists. Indeed, I did wonder about what the motivation for the participants might have been here. As this appears to be a rather unusual role for citizen scientists, perhaps this needs unpacking a little more within the narrative and within the framework of the growing citizen science literature.
Minor queries:
Line 223: should this be 15.57 +/- 17.9 seconds? Variation is bigger than the mean – is this correct?
Line 226: Likewise, SD is nearly double the mean – is this correct?
Line 227: 51 min rather than 51 h?
Lines 269-273: Perhaps mention that some programmes allow such distortion to be corrected prior to pattern-matching.
Lines 274-278: Relating to my comment about the citizen science aspect here, are there any advantages to recruiting members of the public over, say, asking a group of students to do the matching? Is the purpose here just to utilize some willing people to do what would otherwise be a routine and mundane task?
Lines 302-307: These are all good points, but the reality here is that if a computer programme was used to narrow down the suite of likely matches, the final identification would be done by an experienced researcher rather than a member of the public. So again, strengthening the rationale for using members of the public might be helpful.
Line 314-315: Indeed, widening the participation of the study so that members of the public can both take the photos and then identify the frogs could increase their investment in the work. Perhaps this needs more emphasis given that they were only involved with the identification phase here.


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: USING CITIZEN SCIENCE IN THE PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF AN AMPHIBIAN BASED ON TWO FACIAL SKIN FEATURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was clear, well written and well presented. The introduction flows well and sets the scene for the research. Figures provided were very helpful in visualising the process.
Experimental design: Line 123 – A sentence on whether these two facial features are the only possibilities, or if there were other features that had been considered and discounted for id purposes, would be really useful to anyone wishing to replicate the research, especially in other anurans. You mention stability of these features in line 220, but this is for your dataset rather than the species. The stability is based around a year, but your images are over three seasons – does this mean that they may change over longer periods, or do the species not live that long? You touch on this in the discussion, but clarification of time scales might help those unfamiliar with the species.
An aside: I ask as I know someone that used photo ID on reptile head markings without considering a paper that showed that scale shapes were stable with age, but not necessarily colour. Is the choice of two to mitigate one or the other changing?

Line 173 – this is a large unsubstantiated assumption. I don’t think that it hinders the research, but it needs clarification. My work with species ID was influenced by face recognition work, and the following may help:
“Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching” (White et al., 2014) doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103510, & ‘Super-recognisers’ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/11/super-recognisers-police-the-people-who-never-forget-a-face
Validity of the findings: The findings are timely and insightful. By concentrating on one species with a concise task, the findings reveal aspects of species ID that are transferrable, can be replicated & built upon.
The simplicity is refreshing and important for taking to the wider public.
Additional comments: Line 43 - Full stop missing after females
Line 95 – Very glad that you raised the point of survival. These practices, from mutilation to adhesives, are widely applied yet understudied across taxa.
Line 124 – are these features identifiable in different colour morphs (e.g. melanistic, leucistic)?

Line 319 – Can you verifying that these species are not protected in any way. You’ve previously noted that the individuals need to be hand captured – are you expecting the public to do the same when taking photos?

I enjoyed reading the paper and I think that it considers the practical issues surrounding conservation on the ground. Well done.


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: USING CITIZEN SCIENCE IN THE PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF AN AMPHIBIAN BASED ON TWO FACIAL SKIN FEATURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The title reads like a methods section and does not frame the question.

The abstract is long but fails to report the results (accuracy in matching the correct photograph (26 + 5 / 30 average ~ 86% + 16%), which is annoying as they do not support the interpretation in the abstract ("Survey participants were consistently able to match individuals from small image pools of potential candidate matches with a low matching error rate,").
I would consider an error rate of !4% = 16 % as too high, especially considering the low number of photos to choose from.
Regardless, a brief summary of the numerical results should be in the abstract so the reader can evaluate the evidence.

The rest of the paper is reasonably well written, however the wording is long considering the small results section, based on a relatively small sample size. Much of the introduction and discussion is irrelevant - need to focus on your data / results and papers that have done similar types of analyses.

Perhaps publishable as a short note
Experimental design: Experimental design is flawed due to low number of photographs provided in the study (6 photos / case).  I am unaware of any mark and recapture study with a sample size of 6.
This study should have presented a range of photographs that were realistic.

Results difficult to interpret due to low number of volunteers (~ 87 replicates) resulting in high variance.

This type of study should present a range of photographs that were realistic.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are not supported by the evidence.

The lowest rate of successful matching for individual frogs was 65% of participants while the highest was 100%, with a mean ± SD of 86.02 ± 9.52%.
Combined with:
The poor accuracy in matching the correct photograph (26 + 5 / 30 average ~ 86% + 16%),  clearly demonstrates that the error is too high to be reliable or useful in a mark and recapture project.

Furthermore, despite the fact that volunteer labour if free, volunteers took an extraordinary amount of time to match each photo (14.37 ± 25.03 min). How long will volunteers last without quickly falling into volunteer fatigue. Nobody in the 21st century has 20 minutes spare one a regular and repeatable basis.

These results are also weakened by low number of volunteers (~ 87 replicates) resulting in high variance.

In summary, tis lack of support for the conclusions is greatly exacerbated by the poor experimental design - by the experiment only offering 6 choices. In any mark and recapture study there are likely to be at least one order of magnitude greater than this (60 individuals), if not more.
Additional comments: This paper has a fundamental flaw in experimental design that severely limits the interpretation of the results, and the results / evidence does not support the conclusions:

Poor experimental design due to low number of photographs provided in the study (6 photos / case).   I am unaware of any mark and recapture study with a sample size of 6. This study should have presented a range of photographs that were realistic.

and a flaw in the interpretation of the results that do not support the conclusions:

The results provide convincing evidence that volunteers show:
•	high variability and low accuracy in identifying individual frogs from photographs (26 + 5 / 30 average ~ 86% + 16%),
•	a poor individual frog matching rate (86.02 ± 9.52%)
•	volunteers took an inordinate amount time / photo (14.37 ± 25.03 min) - and is likely to lead to volunteer fatigue.

These all indicate that using volunteers for this kind of study results in inaccurate results,
despite using unrealistically low numbers of photo options (unrealistic experimental design).
The authors appear to ignore these results and suggest volunteers would be useful (even in this unrealistic scenario).
If we ignore the poor experimental design, these outcomes strongly suggest that volunteers should NOT be used for this kind of study.


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: USING CITIZEN SCIENCE IN THE PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF AN AMPHIBIAN BASED ON TWO FACIAL SKIN FEATURES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting is clear, concise and unambiguous.
Experimental design: This is fine and described clearly.
Validity of the findings: This is fine.
Additional comments: The authors have explained the rationale underpinning the relevance of their work to citizen science more clearly. The relevant sections have been tightened up in the text, and constructive responses have been made to the comments of the 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: USING CITIZEN SCIENCE IN THE PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION OF ADULT INDIVIDUALS OF AN AMPHIBIAN BASED ON TWO FACIAL SKIN FEATURES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I'm happy with the revisions.

Just a couple of typos I noticed:

Line 41 – error rate (mean ± SD of 26 ± 5) is there a % missing?

Line 56 – should read colour
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thanks for answering the comments in such detail. I look forward to telling my herpy friends about it!


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: DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF HEAT STRESS ON GRAIN WEIGHT AND QUALITY IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.) ARE AGGRAVATED BY DECREASED RELATIVE HUMIDITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Yan et al.’s manuscript tested the effect of heat-relative humidity coupling in 6 cultivars of rice and found that low RH and long duration of stress after anthesis generally led to reduced grain weight, head rice rate and chalkiness. Yan et al. also identified that some cultivars appeared to be more heat tolerant than the others. Yan et al. argued that this body of knowledge will prepare for better agricultural practice in the changing climate.

Abstract

The abstract contains too many results (especially those values, e.g. 0.65 g, 1.68 g), which compromise its readability. More context should be given at the beginning to describe the hypotheses and objectives of the study. Also, abstract should contain a few sentences on the implications of the results at the end.

Introduction

l. 45: As a non-specialist of agricultural crops, I propose that a little explanation of ‘grain filling period’ could provide a better context for the study. Is this a significant period in rice’s life history? Why does high temperature impact the grain filling period in particular? What mechanism?

l. 83: Throughout the entire introduction you did not mention anything about the varietal differences, but they are put as one key objective of the study. I suggest the authors to discuss how varietal differences arise, and hypothesise why they may respond to heat-RH differently.

For the introduction part, now lots of focus have been put on the results and values from different previous experiments, which are very niche. Little insight has been provided on the mechanisms, ecology, physiology of these heat responses. Heat-RH coupling seems an interesting focus but again I would suggest the authors to provider a broader context to discuss how heat and RH interact physiologically in rice or any related crops.
Experimental design: Methods

l. 88: Could you please cite the previous studies?

l. 115 – 117: Please describe in details how milling quality and chalkiness were measured to ensure reproducibility of this study. The measurement framework (National Standard of China for high quality paddy) is not available in the bibliography.

l. 120: Please specify the statistical analyses and the formula in your methods section (multiple linear regression analysis?). Also see below my comments on pairwise comparison test shown in your Figures 2 - 5.
Validity of the findings: Result

l. 126: The durations “of” treatments…

l. 135: “exacerbating”?

l. 137 – 141, 155 – 160, 173 – 176: Why is cultivar not assigned as a fixed factor in the multiple regression analysis? What statistical test has been done to show the variation of heat tolerance among cultivars?

l. 149: which “were” higher

l. 181: missing “.”

l. 181 – 183: This sentence is not clear to me. You meant although some studies have already shown that “hot wind with lower RH …”, the “sole effect” of RH remains unknown?

l. 184 – 185: This temperature-RH coupling effect can be region-specific. Please cite a relevant reference.

l. 191: “grain”

l. 205: “severe grain weight” is unclear to me. You meant “severely decreased grain weight”?

l. 206: “scenario” may be a better word choice than “mechanism”.

l. 235 – l. 238: Quite redundant with the results section with not many new insights. What are the genetic differences among these cultivars? Are they associated with a particular ecoregion? Do they have potential differential adaptation?

l. 242 – l. 245: I feel like this part is important as the authors try to link the results in this study (heat tolerance among cultivars) to agricultural implications under climate change, however it is not fully elaborated. For example, what screening methods can be done? Any agricultural systems have already adopted similar screening methods?
Conclusion

l. 253: “less prominent” may be a better word choice than “finite”.

Figures & Tables

Figures 2 – 5: The figures look to me quite confusing as trends are not clear. I would suggest using line graphs instead of bar graphs: x-axis as temperature, one line for each duration * RH combination (4 lines). Or any other format that may help improve the readability (e.g. split panels between durations / RH).

Figures 2 – 5: You haven’t mentioned any pairwise comparison in the statistical methods, yet these figures showed such. Please describe all statistical procedures you used in the methods section.

Figure 3: The y-axis labels are not clear. The x-axis labels are also missing some characters. Also, why can the grain weight be negative? Does this graph present the absolute difference between control and treatment groups? The figure legend needs more clarification.

Table 2 legend: The formula lacks a mean (intercept) term μ. Also, this formula should be described in the methods section. Also, for X4, I am not sure what you meant by the “value” of each cultivars.
Additional comments: Summary

The study and experimental design are generally robust and valid.

Some parts in the discussion are redundant with the results section. Some parts in the discussion are only comparing the results in this study with those in other similar studies without discussing more on the stress response in rice. For example, how do these results fit in the current understanding of rice physiology and response to heat / RH stresses? Also, although genotype/cultivar was included as a factor in this study, little insight is provided on why genotypes respond differently. How are these genotypes selected and cultivated? Are they ecotypes from different regions and potentially show different adaptative potentials? Finally, the implication of this study is not fully elaborated. How can we use this understanding to transform the agricultural practice?

There are some minor grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript, I may have missed some and not mentioned above. Also, the authors tend to use long sentences which sometimes compromise the conciseness.


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: DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF HEAT STRESS ON GRAIN WEIGHT AND QUALITY IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.) ARE AGGRAVATED BY DECREASED RELATIVE HUMIDITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The language used was difficult to understand. The manuscript was littered with grammatical errors and misuse of punctuation. Sentences were unclear. Even the title was not grammatically correct. It requires “is” to be inserted before the word “aggravated” to make sense. The very first paragraph was incomprehensible with commas used instead of full stops in a number of occasions.

There were a number of occasions where references were not appropriately cited. Two such examples in the introduction are in Ln 41-43 (which cites a review by Jagadish et al 2015 for yield loses of 10% per degree increase in whole season minimum temperature) and Ln 73-77 (that cites Matsui et al 2020 for study conducted in China).

There was no clear hypothesis. In Ln 80 the authors state “To verify this hypothesis, experiments were conducted in a controlled environment with six rice cultivars varying in their heat stress tolerance using 12 treatments.” I could not quite make out what the hypothesis of the study is.
Experimental design: The were fundamental issues with the experimental design which I think the authors should consider in future. First of all is the lack of replication – neither the treatments nor the experiment was replicated. Six chambers were used to impose two treatments. The effects recorded might have been due to differences between the chambers. Comparisons between plants treated to the any of temperature, RH or duration combinations cannot really be compared with a control considering the control plants were in a different growth condition. Control plants were kept under natural conditions while treated plants were in growth chambers. The difference in light, temperature, RH, VPD or any variety of environmental factor between the natural condition and the chambers could have been the reason for the responses reported.

Ln 97-98 the authors report that tillers were cut off. I am surprised by this. Why was this done? How would the authors account for the wounding effect of tiller removal on plant responses?

Ln 101-105 and Fig 5 the authors present some data on the growth chamber temperature and RH. I would have expected some measure of error around those means to be also provided. We know most growth chambers are not that fine-tuned to always give the exact settings they are programmed to. This information is especially important for the RH which is even harder to control to within 10%. I wonder how the 75 and 85% RH treatments were achieved.

The authors provided no actual information on how the data was statistically analyzed. Ln 120-121 covers packages used but nothing else. How was the data analyzed? In the absence of true replicates how were differences between treatments tested?

On another point it would be good if the authors provided some supporting evidence for their claim that the six genotypes were of varying heat tolerance (Ln 87-89). Please cite article(s) with such proof or provide additional data from your lab to support this claim.
Validity of the findings: It is difficult to establish if the results reported here are valid considering the many issues with the experimental design. Responses reported could have been due to many other factors other than the treatments imposed.
Additional comments: I have reviewed your manuscript and appreciate the effort you have put into conducting this work. I must admit that I found it difficult to understand as it was poorly written. Of what I could understand I would say the subject you aimed to tackle is of interest to the scientific community.


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: DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF HEAT STRESS ON GRAIN WEIGHT AND QUALITY IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.) ARE AGGRAVATED BY DECREASED RELATIVE HUMIDITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting study and the authors have collected a unique dataset with applying various treatment. The paper is not well written and designed. However, in my opinion the paper needs to have major revision, after that only it can think for reconsider for publication.
Experimental design: 1. Please provide upland variety for the deficit heat stress capacity of these varieties that are than the mechanism.

2. At that stage the grain was harvested what was the moisture content at harvest.
3. The storage life and contribute to the HR. what’s the base of 3 month storage.

4. What statistical design was followed?
RH level =2
Duration=2
Temp=3
Total =12 treatment calibration
Variety=6
Total number of halvet calibration 12x6=72, what is the number of replication?

5. How many replication was there for calibration?

6. How these treatments were fitted to factorial design in order to extract the interaction effect.

7. These experiments seem to have 3 way interaction. What about Temp x humidity x duration x variety?
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dear Authors,

This is an interesting study and the authors have collected a unique dataset with applying various treatment. The paper is not well written and designed. However, in my opinion the paper needs to have major revision, after that only it can think for reconsider for publication.

Comments can be looked into it.
Introduction:
Line 57: Lower humidity causes transpiration cooling during flowering.
Line 73-76: Daily mean temp 300C (with RH decreasing from 85% appropriately 70%) lasting for more than 3 days during the flowering period, led to significant seed-set losses in rice plants.
This statement of line 73-76 and the statement at line 57 is misleading & conflict to each other. Clarify the above both statement and justify to the findings.
Materials & Methods
1. Please provide upland variety for the deficit heat stress capacity of these varieties that are than the mechanism.

2. At that stage the grain was harvested what was the moisture content at harvest.
3. The storage life and contribute to the HR. what’s the base of 3 month storage.

4. What statistical design was followed?
RH level =2
Duration=2
Temp=3
Total =12 treatment calibration
Variety=6
Total number of halvet calibration 12x6=72, what is the number of replication?

5. How many replication was there for calibration?

6. How these treatments were fitted to factorial design in order to extract the interaction effect.

7. These experiments seem to have 3 way interaction. What about Temp x humidity x duration x variety?


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: DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF HEAT STRESS ON GRAIN WEIGHT AND QUALITY IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.) ARE AGGRAVATED BY DECREASED RELATIVE HUMIDITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Abstract

The abstract sees improvement in the structure and clarity after the revision.

l. 29: “Interaction effect” is the correct statistical term.

Introduction

The flow is now clear: rice is important > climate is changing > temperature and RH can affect rice productivity > we need to study temperature-RH coupling and varietal difference.

However, I still have some difficulties in following the structure of this section. In many paragraphs the topical sentence is not relevant to the paragraph body. Concluding sentences are lacking in some paragraphs. I would encourage the authors to work around how the paragraphs break.
Experimental design: Methods

l. 108: Since this is unpublished data, it would be worth to explain and elaborate a bit how they show different heat tolerance?

l. 180: “respectively”?

l. 181: You probably meant “days since start of treatment”.

l. 182: I don’t fully follow what X4 is. What is the difference between X4 and Y?

Can you please link clearer how the statistical methods are testing the two objectives in l.102 – 104?

I see that some other reviewers have serious concerns on the experimental design. I wonder if a conceptual diagram of the experimental design may help.
Validity of the findings: Discussion

I recommend the authors to consider using subheadings to break down the discussion.

I see how the authors discussed temp-RH coupling affected the plant's physiology. But since the study measures grain weight, head rice rate, and chalkiness in particular. I would be particularly expecting the authors to discuss how temp-RH led to variation in these physiological responses. I realise the authors may have discussed these in different parts of the discussion but it lacks some coherence.

l. 331: Wrt QTL and candidate genes, it seems a bit far-fetched. Please elaborate clearly the route how this paper may encourage future studies on genetic screening.
Additional comments: I feel the manuscript has significantly improved and does address the reviewers' comments from the first round of peer review. I do not have any significant concern on the methodology or the validity of the experiment and findings. However, I believe the manuscript could still use some work in the story-telling and presentation as it is still not easily readable. I encourage the authors to think first what each section serves and its flow, then work around the paragraphs to structure your ideas. In particular, the discussion lacks coherence with the objectives of the study.


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: DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF HEAT STRESS ON GRAIN WEIGHT AND QUALITY IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.) ARE AGGRAVATED BY DECREASED RELATIVE HUMIDITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment