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: MORPHOLOGICAL AND OLFACTORY TREE TRAITS INFLUENCE THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE APPLE SPECIES MALUS DOMESTICA AND M. SYLVESTRIS TO THE FLORIVOROUS WEEVIL ANTHONOMUS POMORUM (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have provided a very clear manuscript on an interesting area of research.  There are no issues with the English.  The literature review is extensive and mostly adequate.  There are some references with issues (see below) and the introduction could benefit from more recent references, if applicable.  Where this is not possible, authors should mention that the references provided are the most up to date. Structure of the article is fine.  Manuscript is self-contained with results relevant to the hypotheses.

Bengtsson – not in text and reference not complete ‘….’ In the author list??
Cornille et al 2012 – ‘….’ In the author list for this reference
Dettner, 1992 – need ‘et al’ in the text and ‘…..’ in the author list?
Hausmann et al. 2005 – not in text
Lyczko et al. 2021 – has ‘….’ In author list
Meier et al. 2009 – has ‘….’ In author list
Mozuaritis et al. 2020 – has ‘…’ in author list
Toepfer et al. 2000 – not in text
Velasco et al. 2010 – has ‘….’ In author list
Experimental design: The research is primary in nature and fits within the research aims and scope of PeerJ.  The research question is well defined and relevant to the tree fruit industry and definitely fills a knowledge gap.  The investigation is multi-faceted involving both field and laboratory components.  The field evaluations are reasonably well described.  Where they fall down is that the authors fail to indicate why they chose the domesticated trees they did.  The various cultivars are, I feel, an issue which the authors are trying to overlook, or assume that this is an irrelevant factor.  If the authors could provide further information on the choice of trees it may help assauge the concern that their results are more than lucky.  Were these trees chosen for their proximity to the only crab apple tree within the botanical garden? proximity to the hedgerows (and source of weevils)?  Their choice of crab apple trees, being in locations other than the botanical garden, may play a role in their results as these could be experiencing a different population than the domesticated trees in the garden. For the lab experiments, the authors fail to mention which cultivars they used in the bioassay: a small set, many or all?  Would be impossible to replicate this experiment with the information provided. The headspace collection (using potted trees) suffers from connectivity to the rest of the work, particularly how the authors have incorporated this data.  Only 2 of the domesticated apple cultivars and 3 of the crabapple genotypes match with those used in the field trials.  This makes the connection between the findings weak at best.  I understand what the authors are trying to accomplish, but the material used provides, at best, an indication of which VOC are of interest and further study is required. A larger issue with the VOC work is that they captured volatiles from stages 56/57 (when oviposition has begun) yet the adults are selecting the trees 3 phenological stages earlier (at bud burst).  It would be more biologically relevant to collect at this earlier stage when the adults are moving to the trees from the hedgerows, rather than at the stage where oviposition begins (or compare these profiles).  The profile which indicates 'come hither' may differ from the profile which says 'commence oviposition'.  The authors have captured the latter but not necessarily the former and this is a definite weakness in this aspect of the work.
Validity of the findings: All of the findings from the work suffer from the weaknesses described in the earlier section.  If the authors can justify their selection of trees for the field study, and provide assurance that the trees were exposed to a roughly similar population pressure, then the results might stand.  If there is no such assurance possible, e.g. the trees were not selected with consideration of distance from the hedgerows, then there are confounding factors (cultivar and distance) which could serve to explain their field results.  For the laboratory trials, the lack of attention to the cultivars used and the failure to better connect the field results with the laboratory trials weakens these results as well.
Additional comments: L46 – not clear.  Is the apple blossom weevil the most important pest? Or is codling moth? Or the two combined?  If the paper is about apple blossom weevil, I don’t see the need to mention codling moth at all.

L47 – ‘It is…’ meaning ABW or CM?  need to clear up the first sentence to make this make sense

L52 – delete ‘has’ and ‘in the past’

L55 – the most recent reference you have here is 2015 and we’re in 2022.  Nothing since then to validate it’s importance?

L58-59 – no recent reports of impact?

L60 – ‘As of today…’ yet the reference is dated 1994.  Need to find more recent information for this section.

L65 – rephrase ‘Besides the inconvenient…’ try ‘There are two main monitoring methods: limb jarring (which is inconvenient, Toepfer et al. 1999) and sheltertraps (Hausam….). Sheltertraps are more preferred as they exploit….’

L73-75 – ‘explain why or how flight traps may be a useful component

L75 – ‘insight’

L76 – ‘into the underlying mechanism(s)…’  there could be more than one, there could be just one

L81 – ‘use’ instead of ‘follow’ and ‘Following colonization from adjacent…’

L90-95 – this presumes that the traits the ABW are interested in are heritable and that a breeder can tease out these genes for selection.  Might be a better route to use these traits as a screening mechanism for newly developed cultivars.  And this depends upon which traits are key to preference.

L140-141 – make sure the connection is made to the timing of selection by ABW

L163 – for host volatiles, the range of these between trees even within a cultivar can be vast. For the 10 trees of 10 different cultivars (L167) how were these chosen? What criteria was used to pick these 10 cultivars?  I have concerns with the age range of the trees (1998 – 2008) as host preference can change over time (see Blatt and Hiltz 2021), presumably the VOC profiles will likewise change with time, although I don’t think anyone has looked at this.  The use of smaller potted trees (Table S2) for the VOCs may not provide a true match-up with the volatile profiles of the trees from the field (Table S1), particularly as only 5 (2 apple and 3 crab apple) cultivars overlap between field and VOC.  I also have concerns that the crab apple trees are significantly larger than the domesticated apple trees and hence the volume of the VOCs would be that much greater – assuming an equivalently larger blossom bud load.

L177-178 – when do they arrive at the trees/blossoms?  How long before Stages 56/57? And then L204 says the post-diapause imagines (wouldn’t these be adults?) are on the tree from mid-March to mid-April.  It would seem that the selection occurs well before bud stage 56/57, more like at 53/54.  Wouldn’t it have made more sense to collect the volatiles from this stage?  Once adults have selected a tree do they move between trees?

L215 – cutting of the branches is known to affect host volatiles, not just from the cut surface but through the leaves.  Why not collect a second set of VOC from the trees, solvent extract and use these?  What confidence do you have that the response is not impacted by any induced volatiles added to the profile?

L223 – sentence is not clear – please rephrase

L235-240 – which cultivars were used in these bioassays?  Did they match those preferred and non-preferred from field trials?

L270 – was the ‘solvent delay’ on the MS still used for this method with a thermal desorption of the PDMS twisters (no solvent)?

L395 – ‘stronger’?  not the best word here, ‘showed significantly higher infestation by…’.  Similar issue on L410, L492, L508

L423-424 – that the M. sylvestris individuals were not located in the botanical garden further impacts this study.  The population pressure may be a causal factor in the results obtained.  Although mentioned by the authors, the selection of domesticated apple in the botanical garden (near the hedgerows?) could have impacted the results.  Need more description of where these cultivars were located within the garden – is distance from the hedgerow a possible factor in the lower levels observed?  Were the domesticated trees near the crab apple that was within the garden?

L444 – with no domesticated trees located outside the garden, this is a weak statement

L568 – ‘we’?  Piskorski and Dorn 2010? Or the authors of this study?  Need to be clear here.

L571-572 – likely because there are overlaps in infestation rates which weren’t examined separately.

L591-592 – again, need to examine crab apples and domesticated apple with different infestation rates.  3/5 cultivars/genotypes had a similar infestation rate.

L616/617 – this is really speculation.  Your VOC data wasn’t collected from enough representatives of each apple or crabapple to connect VOCs with infestation rate.

Table 2 – would be interesting to see the comparison of Jonagold and Topaz volatiles compared against Lochau.  These all experienced a similar field infestation rate (~7%) – do their profiles show differences?  Eimersmuhle and Schlehemuhle both had similar infestation rates (~11%) – were these similar?  Grouping the volatiles as done overrides these subtleties, which could provide useful information towards identifying compounds of interest for future management programs.


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: MORPHOLOGICAL AND OLFACTORY TREE TRAITS INFLUENCE THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE APPLE SPECIES MALUS DOMESTICA AND M. SYLVESTRIS TO THE FLORIVOROUS WEEVIL ANTHONOMUS POMORUM (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript has been written in very well organized way especially the research data material was very much enough and seems to have a good quality of work performed by the authors. The Novelty of this manuscript is that it is among the first and unique study in this research group. Title and abstract is good, while Introduction have required few minor changes. Materials & Methods, Results and discussion is well explained and fully relevant to research question. Whereas, Conclusion needs to little improvement, it must be in one or maximum two paragraphs rather than four.
Few minor changes are recommended below:
Avoid to use old references before 2000. Only use where it seems essential.
Line 45, remove “is”
Line 56, replace “can” with “Have been”
Line 58, replace “can” with “Have been”
Line 89, replace “Since” with “Although”
Line99, remove the word “ovipositing female’, as it seems unfit for this line. Replace this word as “Preference of oviposition in females”
Line 112, remove Comma(,) before and
Experimental design: Experimental design of this research is well described with sufficient replicates. Research question is also relevant to the experiment. Here is need to add few pictures of performing research (insects used in research, performing bioassay etc.) it would enhance the interest and better understanding of the reader toward the novelty of the research.
Line 174, remove “could be” with “and”
Validity of the findings: Results are well described in an appropriate way with all essential tables and figures. statistical analysis also meet the all requirements of the experiment. Overall research data is statistically sound and linked to original research.
Additional comments: It is an interesting study having  enough material to accept and also fulfil all requirements according to the umbrella of PeerJ.


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

Input:
Title: MORPHOLOGICAL AND OLFACTORY TREE TRAITS INFLUENCE THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE APPLE SPECIES MALUS DOMESTICA AND M. SYLVESTRIS TO THE FLORIVOROUS WEEVIL ANTHONOMUS POMORUM (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: It is a great pleasure to review the manuscript entitled “Morphological and olfactory tree traits influence the susceptibility and suitability of the apple species Malus domestica and M. sylvestris to the florivorous weevil Anthonomus pomorum (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)” submitted to PeerJ. The topic is very interesting. I believe the present manuscript successfully meets what it intends, with an adequate dataset, analyzed under an effective methodology. The analyzes are overall well-described with suitable methodology and interesting conclusions. In the introduction, materials and methods and results sentences are well-organized and suitable references are provided.

I have some moderate concerns about figure 4 and discussion, and a few minor comments which I list below:

L57-58: replace “In some instances, the” by “The”

L60: replace “As of today, the” by “The”

L60-62: If possible, look for other more recent references to cite here. I recommend authors verify that the following reference cannot be included: https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12121106

Table 1 – This table contains little information that can simply be presented in the text, so I consider it unnecessary.

L187: remove “)”

L311: remove “analysis of deviance;”; Please put “1,18 as subscript.

L327: Replace the words “Chi²” by “X²”
L327: replace “p < 2*10-16” by p < 0.001”

L328-329: I don't understand the presentation of this value of r = 0.397 here. No Mann-Whitney U test performed? I expected here the value of U

L328-329: replace “p < 2*10-16” by p < 0.001”

L333: Please put “1,18 as subscript: F1,18

L334: replace “p < 2*10-16” by p < 0.001”

L341: remove “analysis of deviance;” ; Please put “1,17 as subscript.

L357-358: I suggest the following change to the text: “Most compounds were emitted in higher proportions from blossom buds of M. domestica cultivars compared to M. sylvestris genotypes (Table 2).”

L365: Please cite Table 2 at the end of the paragraph.

L366-368: This whole part of describing the use of PCA should be presented in the methodology, not here.

Figure 4: it is very difficult to observe the elements of this figure since they are very small. Please try to increase the size of the fonts and the different elements shown in the figure.

Discussion: I missed more objective writing as presented in previous sessions (such as methodology and results), perhaps this is due to excessive repetition of results. Furthermore, I believe that the study questions (L147-L158) should be properly developed here.

It bothers me a lot the amount of repeated results that are presented in the eighth paragraph. Lines 468-478. Is it really necessary? I think that only treating (in a comparative way) whether the values were higher or lower than those of a given study would be sufficient here.

Conclusion: This first paragraph should be reformulated and synthesized. L606-607: remove: “, as indicated by significant differences in infestation rates between M. domestica and M. sylvestris”


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: MORPHOLOGICAL AND OLFACTORY TREE TRAITS INFLUENCE THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE APPLE SPECIES MALUS DOMESTICA AND M. SYLVESTRIS TO THE FLORIVOROUS WEEVIL ANTHONOMUS POMORUM (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the numerous comments and provided additional information to clarify their choice of trees, timing of VOC collection and have tempered their discussion and conclusions accordingly. The manuscript is greatly improved.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: MORPHOLOGICAL AND OLFACTORY TREE TRAITS INFLUENCE THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE APPLE SPECIES MALUS DOMESTICA AND M. SYLVESTRIS TO THE FLORIVOROUS WEEVIL ANTHONOMUS POMORUM (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have been made all necessary changes in a brief way as all sections have been improved as per suggestions. I have found no ambiguity in this paper according to the language, article structure and description of results. So, I recommend this manuscript for publish in this journal.
Experimental design: Research question and methodology is well defined and all necessary changes have been made to fulfil the PeerJ criteria for publishing the manuscript
Validity of the findings: Current version of the manuscript is well revised by the authors according to the suggestions provided by the reviewers.
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: MORPHOLOGICAL AND OLFACTORY TREE TRAITS INFLUENCE THE SUSCEPTIBILITY AND SUITABILITY OF THE APPLE SPECIES MALUS DOMESTICA AND M. SYLVESTRIS TO THE FLORIVOROUS WEEVIL ANTHONOMUS POMORUM (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I am reviewing the updated version of this manuscript. Now, I found an improved manuscript in general. The authors did a good job in order to address my concerns. I believe that the manuscript is now eligible for acceptance.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFICACY OF COMMERCIAL DECONTAMINATION AGENTS DIFFERS BETWEEN STANDARDISED TEST SETTINGS AND RESEARCH LABORATORY USAGE FOR A VARIETY OF BACTERIAL SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: line 42: change active to effective. this applies throughout paper.
44: Suggest referring to disinfectants by their active ingredient rather than brand names,  this applies throughout the article.
141: define BD BBL. Make sure all abbreviations and acronyms are defined throughout text.
154: add reference for the MBDF assay
220: need to describe how AUC was determined in the Methods section
247 and elsewhere: the word "data" is plural, so change the word "is" that follows to "are". this applies throughout
287: add reference for selection of antibiotic resistant E coli
428-435 and 438-446: are these paragraphs supposed to be in figure legend?  If so they are way too long and should be in narrative for Results or Discussion
Table 2: normally the manufacturer's location for where it is purchased is included
Experimental design: 130: indicate source of bacteria, i.e., where were they purchased
143: with such a wide range in bacteria levels, how can you be sure that differences in results you saw were not attributed to differences in starting bacterial levels.  it would've been better to try to maintain similar levels regardless of species.
156: so duplicates were used for each bug/dilution/disinfectant? Need to clarify number of replicates used.
164: indicate what the appropriate agar was
general comment: consider adding some text to explain how the assay you used is different than some of these standards that you mention
Validity of the findings: 38: these really aren't real world conditions.  these are just simple in vitro tests.  Tests would've been much more realistic if actual materials were used instead of using suspension tests.
214: indicate whether the minor differences were statistically significant
215: indicate the reference or source indicating which dilution should be used for a generic chemical such as bleach
Additional comments: Figure 2 legend: indicate what the units are for AUC, and how calculated.  And for the whisker plots, need to define the statistics associated with the boxes and whiskers.


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 EFFICACY OF COMMERCIAL DECONTAMINATION AGENTS DIFFERS BETWEEN STANDARDISED TEST SETTINGS AND RESEARCH LABORATORY USAGE FOR A VARIETY OF BACTERIAL SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Writing is generally of good quality and is written understandably. The cited literature is appopriate and  provides a good background to the work and the raw data is available online.

The figures are presented professionally although I found the results sometimes to be a bit difficult to interpret (particualrly  area under curve data). However, I am unfamilar with this type of analysis so this may just be me.
Experimental design: I think the aims could be explained and justified more clearly. The authors mention that large/heat sensitive items cannot be autoclaved but the study itself seems to only be concerned on the efficacy of various disinfectants for decontaminating purified laboratory cultures (which can easily be autoclaved).

The experimental design has a major flaw in that the authors did not seem to utilise a neutralisation agent (e.g., Dey-Engley/SCDLP broth) to quench the activity of the biocides following completion of the contact time.  All EN standards require the biocides to be neutralised using an agent which is validated for both efficacy and toxicity. Without a neutralisation step, contact times may actually be considerably longer than what was stated. Additionally, the biocide would still be present when the bacteria were enumerated; as biocidal concentrations were being used, this would almost certainly mean that some of the biocides would have remained above the minimum inhibitory concentration. This means that observing "no growth" could simply be due to growth inhibition, rather than bactericidal activity.

Biocides were also diluted in Mueller Hinton or 7H9 broth prior to use. These broths contain proteins which would seriously interfere with the efficacy of the formulations.

One of the authors' critiques of current testing standards is that products only have to demonstrate a 5 log10 reduction to be certified as effective. However, by my calculations (provided in the attached document), their assay is only able to determine a 4.15 log10 reduction for mycobacteria, since the lower limit of detection of their enumeration method was not taken into account.
Validity of the findings: Unfortunately the lack of neutralisation completely invalidates the findings of the study, as none of the data can  be trusted to properly reflect the reported test conditions. I have provided a more detailed breakdown in the attached feedback.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE REGULATION IN THE BALKAN SPADEFOOT (PELOBATES BALCANICUS KARAMAN, 1928) AT THE BEGINNING OF NOCTURNAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the ms is concise and well written and presented. However, it has (few) linguistic issues in certain parts which I (not an native English speaker) have tried to ameliorate.
I present these issues along with one issue in the methodology in the line by line comments below. I recommend the article be published after a minor revision to address the specific points mention.

Line 100: P. syriacus balcanicus.
Lines 100-102: “…we were able to register and analyze only … P. balcanicus”. Does this mean that the authors did not locate P. fuscus? Or did not discriminate between the two? My guess is the first, but if yes, this should be more clear.
Lines 102-103: “On 25.06; 28.06 and 17.07.2020 we were able to detect a total of five active specimens in the dusk period before the full darkness.” I, again, guess that the authors here want to stress that the animal does not become active before full darkness. If this is their point, it is not clear. Please rephrase. Moreover, please add numbers after the dates e.g. something like 25.06 (2) 28.06 (1) …
Lines 160-162: The syntax here is problematic. Maybe change “were” to “we”, or rephrase.
Line 180: exceeds > exceeded
Line 184: have > were
Lines 184-185: here and further down (lines 234-236) the authors mention thermal differences regarding animals which had emerged before a small time period. Nevertheless, they do not mention how they did understand that the animals had just emerged. There is a point where they mention animals covered with sand as an indicator. But I think the authors should make a clear statement about this, even if is only a qualitative approach (e.g. “covered with sand”)
Line 185: Soon later the body… > Soon after, the body…
Line 186: decreased rapidly and continues  > decreased rapidly and continued
Lines 186-189: “decrease in temperature could be observed as a function of time in all measured” should read “decrease in temperature as a function of time could be observed in all measured”. Moreover, the meaning of the second part of the phrase “while the soil samples at the same sites showed large dispersion and lower correlations.” is not clear to me. Please rephrase/clarify.
Lines 193-194: please consider the following wording: Most amphibians possess a very low potential for thermoregulation (Brattstrom, 1979).
Lines 198-199: please rephrase. Consider e.g.: Water temperature, body water balance and the way the animals deal with it by means of physics of vaporized water, are regarded as the most important factors (Tracy et al. 1993). Moreover, could the part “by means of physics of vaporized water” could be replaced by evaporation? Perspiration? Other relevant term? Finally, please recheck the connection of this phrase with the previous one.
Line 227: On certain nights, some toads start their activities on the surface. I do not understand the meaning of this phrase.
Lines 234-236: how did the authors determine that the animal they saw had emerged 10’, 20’ or 60’ ago? Please see also comment for lines 184-185. Maybe, time after sunset could be an indicator for what they want to demonstrate.
Line 247: With lowering the relative humidity > “with the lowering of relative…” or “as the relative humidity lowers…” or similar
Lines 279-280: except for the syntax problem, this phrase is too strong a statement. Please consider something like: “The field method we applied is noninvasive, and should be considered for similar studies as it dramatically reduces the need to capture and handle small sized ectotherm tetrapods”.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE REGULATION IN THE BALKAN SPADEFOOT (PELOBATES BALCANICUS KARAMAN, 1928) AT THE BEGINNING OF NOCTURNAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article tackles an interesting topic, which is thermoregulation in amphibian. These animals are generally considered thermoconformers, which does not mean that heat exchange processes do not necessarily play a central role in their ecology and physiology. Therefore, this piece of research could make a fine contribution to the area of thermal biology.

However, the current version of the manuscript needs more work. In the first place, the English needs a thorough revision. Below are some specific points where the grammar needs improvement. However, just addressing those points will not be enough to make the text readable. I strongly recommend the authors have their manuscript revised by a fluent speaker of English.

Moreover, the abstract needs rewriting. As it is, it goes back and forth between background and methods. The first sentences of the abstract should contextualize the whole study, stating why the topic is relevant and what is known. Then, it should briefly describe the goals of the study. Next, your methods should be explained. Finally, the main results should be presented and discussed. The reading will be much smoother by following this sequence. Moreover, I find the last sentence of the abstract kind of misleading, as, unlike this sentence suggests, this article does not look into the relationships between thermoregulation and behavioral shifts. I’d suggest the authors rewrite this section to give a clearer idea of what will be studied in the manuscript.

The introduction is better organized, but it still could benefit from some polishing. I recommend the authors rethink it, always bearing in mind what they did, what they want to tell, and how the introduction serves that purpose.
Experimental design: One of my main concerns with this article is that I did not get a clear view on what the aims of the authors were. Was it a comparison between the temperature in the environment (air and underground) and the toads? In the results section, it would seem that they wanted to compare sampling days, as if their objective was a description of the thermal relationships between toad and environment as the season progresses. But that is never stated in the methods section. And, if that was the aim, a more detailed description of the sampling protocol (sampling effort, how the sampling dates were chosen, etc.) is needed. Also, some sampling days were rainy whereas others were not. I wonder whether that would affect the willingness of toads to abandon their burrows, and the thermal relationships between the environment and the animals, which would make the results between days hardly comparable.

Moreover, the probes and devices used must be better described. Just stating the trademark won’t provide the reader with a sufficient idea of how it works. The reader needs to know the type of information they give, and why it was necessary to use different devices to obtain different measures. Was a comparison between techniques one of the goals of the study? It was never stated. Likewise, in the discussion (and even in one of the figures) the temperatures of feces are described. But details on how and why these measurements were taken are not sufficiently described in the materials and methods section. How many feces were measured? What is more, the total sample size, i.e., how many toads were measured, should be clearly stated. Why were sexual differences not assessed?

Also, the statistics are vaguely described. Also here, I get the impression that a greater clarity in the aims of the study would be reflected upon a better described statistics section. I would like to remind the authors that all statistical tests conducted should be clearly described here, in the same order in which the results will be presented.

I recommend the authors think clearly what their aims are, how their data contribute to those aims, what information they can give, and rewrite the materials and methods section explaining what they did and how they obtained that information.
Validity of the findings: More information is essential, especially concerning the characteristics of the devices used and why they were needed, so as to evaluate the validity of the results reported. Moreover, the results themselves should be presented in a clearer fashion. Many parts of the results sections appear to be too descriptive. My suggestion is that the authors stick to the statistical analyses performed (which are not sufficiently described, neither in the statistics nor in the results sections) and give the values (r, chi-square, F-statistics, P-values…) derived from each test. Again, comparisons among days are not necessary unless they are a part of the aims, which was never stated.
Similarly, many paragraphs of the conclusions appear unrelated to the findings of the authors, and function mostly as a description of amphibian heat exchange in different circumstances. I recommend a more direct comparison between the results obtained here and those by other authors.
Additional comments: In general, I find that this article is well-meaning, but needs more work to accomplish its goals. And that is, to my mind, its main weakness: its goals are not clear. I recommend the authors rethink what their real aims are, and rewrite the whole text to serve the purpose of clearly explaining those aims: why those aims, how they were reached, and what they mean in a wider context. Stay away of everything that’s merely anecdotal, and stick to the statistical results obtained and their biological significance. Writing a scientific article is an arduous task which requires a fair amount of thinking, most of which has to do with the structure of it. I recommend the authors devise clearly what is the “story” the want to tell, and structure the entire article bearing it in mind. Tell that story, and only that story, following these tips:

The introduction should make a pertinent summary of what is known about the subject, without giving superfluous information though. It should begin with general information, and become gradually specific. Particularly important is the segue: make sure your concepts and idea follow a cadence that is as smooth as possible. And, to conclude, state clearly what objectives this piece of research intends to accomplish.

The materials and methods section should describe the species, the study system, the sample sizes, the devices used (not only should the trademarks be stated, but also the kind of information they provide), and, in a separate section, the statistical analyses performed, clearly described.

The results section should, in an orderly fashion, provide sufficient statistical detail to let the reader know which effects were significant and which were not, following the sequence described in the statistics section.

The discussion should connect the novel findings described in the previous section with what is already known, stressing their significance. Ideally, the main results should be described first, and then gradually develop the secondary results. However, this is susceptible of change depending on the very nature of the data themselves.

Also, the English should be formal, advanced, and correct. Below is a list of mistakes that need amendment. However, I strongly recommend the text be thoroughly revised by a competent native speaker of English.

Line 18: what does “behavior mode” mean? If it just means “behavior”, I’d remove the word “mode”. And if it’s a valid concept, it needs clarification.
Line 22: I’d remove the adjective “bright”, as well as the word “the” before “sandy”. Plus, “substrate” should be in the plural form.
Line 23: remove the period after “cm”.
Line 25: a comma is needed after “measurements”. Also, the past tense should be used here.
Line 27: I’d say the average reader won’t know what a K-type thermocouple is. I suggest a brief explanation.
Line 28; “and a thermal camera…”.
Line 29: “basis”.
Line 36: “have changed”.
Lines 38-39: change “in the ectotherm organism” to “in ectotherms” or “in ectothermic organisms”.
Line 41: change “extreme activities level of their muscular system” to “extreme levels of muscle activity”.
Lines 39-41: this sentence fails to connect ectotherms in general to amphibians in particular, as it disregards other ectotherms which do perform at high body temperatures by actively thermoregulating. I suggest a milder segue, something like “Although most ectotherms invest very little in heat production, some thermoregulate actively, whereas others are thermoconformers. Such is the case of most amphibians”. You will easily find citations to support these statements.
Line 43: change “coasts” to “costs” (this mistake has been made twice in this sentence).
Line 44: change “, however small” to “. However, small”.
Line 45: “cold-blooded” (which is the correct spelling) is an old-fashioned concept that should no longer be used. I recommend using “ectotherms” instead.
Line 47: change “media” to “surroundings” or “environment”.
Line 49: “heat storage”.
Lines 49 and 51: change “would” to “should”.
Line 50: delete “the” before “air”.
Line 52: delete “the” before “metabolism”.
Line 54: change “or” to “and”.
Line 56: change “inhabited media” to “habitat” or “microhabitat”.
Line 56: change “exchanges” to “exchange”.
Line 57: delete “of” before “convection” and “The” before “temperature”.
Line 58: “thermodynamic”
Line 61: reword to “different types of sun rays”.
Line 64: “coast” should be changed to “cost”.
Line 67: a new paragraph should begin here.
Line 67: “In this paradigm” should be changed to “In this context”.
Line 68: add a comma after “species”.
Lines 68-69: why did you focus on the dusk period in the early summer? This sentence is more appropriate in the discussion section, where it’ll be clearer after explaining the biorhythms of this species.
Line 69: make clear what a thermal profile is. And add “and” before “the profile”.
Line 72: what is “the thermal specific”? Please, explain. I’m not familiar with this concept.
Line 74: add comma after “(1992)”, and change “had” to “have”.
Line 75: what are “elements” in this context?
Line 76: change “burrowing” to “burrows”.
Line 86: the capital “s” in “spadefoot” is incorrect, here and throughout the manuscript.
Line 99: change “concerning” to “pursuant to”.
Line 102: change “from” to “of”. And add comma after “2020”.
Line 105: change “spend” to “spent”.
Line 106: change “become” to “became”.
Line 125: delete “at” before “12 cm”.
Line 127: change “to” to “with”.
Line 128: change “willing” to “prone”.
Line 129-130: this statement isn’t even a proper sentence. I am not sure this is the appropriate location for it.
Line 144: what does “our values” mean in this context?
Lines 145-146: this sentence is too ambiguous. What measurements specifically? How were they compared? Also, tables should be cited in the results section, not here.
Line 149: this sentence is not properly written. Is the comma spare?
Lines 153-163: This entire paragraph is mostly anecdotal, and the information given here does not really contribute to the presentation of your scientific results. I would rethink this paragraph, or even delete it, unless you intended to present a work on the seasonal progression of toad activity and temperature. If that is the case, more information is needed, regarding how the sampling was done, what the sampling effort was… A problem to that, though, is that the weather was not similar in the different sampling nights, which could affect the activity of the toads and thus make it difficult to compare activity among nights.
Lines 153-154: this sentence should be deleted, as it does not add anything to the text.
Line 156: were these differences statistically significant? This should be clearly stated.
Line 159: change “were” to “was”.
Line 160: change “were” to “we”.
Line 162: the comma after “(22.59ºC)” should be a period.
Lines 166-168: this information was already given in the methods section. Thus, there is no need to repeat it here.
Line 170: a comma is needed after “camera”. Although this sentence could well be rewritten, as it does not sound natural the way it is.
Line 173: delete “the” before “air temperature”.
Lines 174-176: sentences like this are to be avoided. Instead, you should clearly state your results and indicate the figure where they can be seen, for instance: “All temperature measures taken in different areas of the dorsum of these toads were lower than air temperature (Fig. 4).”
Line 177: a comma is needed after “temperature”.
Line 178: please, be specific: higher or lower?
Line 179: delete “the” before “substrate”.
Line 180: “exceeded”. Also, delete “the” before “air temperature”.
Line 181: “remained”.
Line 184: “were”. Also, how do you know the time elapsed since the toads emerged?
Line 185: “spent”. Also, change “soon later the body…” to “shortly after that, body…”.
Line 186: “continued”. Also, delete “the” before “air temperature”.
Lines 183-189: please, provide the statistics that prove all these assertions.
Lines 193-194: rephrase into “For most amphibians, a limited thermoregulation potential has been stated”.
Line 196: “environmental factors”.
Line 197: “more slowly”.
Line 198: “The most relevant factors were considered temperature, body water balance…”
Line 201: This dash should be a period.
Line 209: This dash should be a period.
Lines 209-210: “Body hydro-regulation is even more challenging than thermoregulation in some amphibians”.
Line 230: please, discuss these conclusions here.
Line 237: This dash should be a period.
Line 247: “With dwindling relative humidity”.
Line 248: “the toads’ bodies”.
Lines 255 and 257: The comma before “however” should be a period.
Line 267: “thermal”.
Line 271: was this aim described in the methods section?
Line 280: “ectothermic tetrapods”.


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

Input:
Title: TEMPERATURE REGULATION IN THE BALKAN SPADEFOOT (PELOBATES BALCANICUS KARAMAN, 1928) AT THE BEGINNING OF NOCTURNAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The new version of this manuscript has noticeably improved after the changes implemented. However, there are still multitudinous grammatical errors to be corrected. The authors claim that a native speaker of English reviewed the manuscript. Yet, the writing is still full of language mistakes that make the reading difficult and hard to follow. Below is a detailed list of mistakes I have spotted. Nonetheless, I strongly recommend the authors seek the aid of another fluent speaker of English who does a better job. As it is, the quality of the findings described is overshadowed by the poor writing.

Line 19: Not necessarily incorrect, but “conditions” would be more appropriate, as physiology is usually multi-faceted.
Line 21: Again, “changes” would be more adequate.
Line 21: “In the range of our study” does not add much information. I suggest replacing with the actual geographical area (NE Bulgaria), which would be way more informative.
Line 23: “their nocturnal activity” conveys the idea that the toad has a biphasic activity period, one diurnal and another nocturnal. I do not know this particular species, but I am well acquainted with their close relative, Pelobates cultripes, which is strictly nocturnal. If, as I suspect, P. balcanicus is chiefly nocturnal too, I would rephrase this into “their daily activity period, which is nocturnal”.
Line 24: A comma is needed after “toads”.
Lines 21-32: This part of the abstract is still messy and needs reorganization. It cannot go back and forth from methods to system description as it does. I suggest something like:

“We studied the thermal ecology of adult Balkan spadefoots (Pelobates balcanicus Karaman, 1928) in NE Bulgaria. These toads spend the daytime buried between 10 and 15 cm in sandy substrates, and emerge after sunset. On the substrate, their thermal energy exchange is defined by the absence of heat flow from the sun. Secondary heat sources like stored heat and infrared radiation from the soil play an important role for the thermal balance of the active spadefoot toads. At the beginning of their daily activity, we measured substrate temperature (at a depth of 11-12 cm) and toad surface body temperature, and also provided thermo-profiles of the animals and the substrate surface in their microhabitats. On the basis of our measurements and additional data, we discuss the eventual role of air humidity and the effects of surface and skin water evaporation on the water balance and activity of the investigated toads.”

Line 47: “ectothermic tetrapods”.
Lines 53-54: I see no need to specify this formula here. It is rather simple, it basically repeats the statement in the sentence, and thus it makes the reading more difficult.
Line 56: Delete “see” before “Mokhatla”).
Line 56: Actually, what is transferred is “heat”, not “temperature”.
Line 69: Delete “the” before “thermoregulation”.
Line 87: Change “to” with “with”.
Line 103: “We always followed”.
Line 106: Change “None” with “No”.
Lines 116-117: “on which a highly sensitive… is located”.
Line 130: Did you mean “unit”?
Line 154: “additionally measured”.
Line 178: Delete “measured to be”.
Line 195: “sections”.
Line 208: “did not use”.
Line 209: A comma is needed after “body temperature”.
Line 221: The comma after “means” is not correct.
Line 222: The comma after “precise” is not correct. What is more, this entire sentence should be rewritten, as it is awkward and its meaning is difficult to deduce.
Line 224: The comma after “demonstrates” should not be there.
Line 231: Change “big” for “large”. Except in some very specific fixed expressions, the word “big” should be avoided in scientific English, as it is somewhat colloquial.
Line 233: What do you mean “several second”? Did you want to say “few seconds”?
Line 237: “compared”.
Line 238: “surroundings”.
Line 242: Delete “the” before “environmental”.
Line 244: A comma is needed before “however”.
Line 245: “considered to be”.
Line 246: Delete “their”.
Lines 248-249: Did “cutaneous evaporation water loss” mean “cutaneous water evaporation”? Besides being grammatically awkward, the former wording is redundant”.
Line 253: Delete “the” before “water”.
Line 263: “the toad could also lose”.
Line 263: “(especially if the sky is clear)”.
Line 263: Delete the comma after “stressed”.
Line 265: “would only be possible”.
Line 265: Change “in case of” with “in the event of a”.
Line 270: Delete “The” before “surface”.
Line 271: Delete “the” before “spadefoot”.
Line 272: Delete “underground”.
Line 285: “sections”.
Line 294: Delete “the” before “relative”.
Line 298: change “and this” with “, which”.
Line 301: “those analyses,”.
Line 303: “. However,”.
Line 303: “conclusions”.
Experimental design: I have nothing new to add regarding the experimentalm design.
Validity of the findings: I have nothing to object to the validity of the findings.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GENUS AND SPECIES OF FROG FROM THE KEM KEM (MOROCCO), THE SECOND NEOBATRACHIAN FROM CRETACEOUS AFRICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - Some minor grammatical errors can be found (e.g. anuran remains, instead of “anurans remains”; Abstract, line 8). However, I am not a native English speaker, so I cannot assess this aspect. This is why I recommand linguistic editing (e.g., lines 56-58: “that cannot be easily incorporated”, instead of “remains ... that are not easily incorporated into phylogenetic analyses”, and many others).
- Introduction is informative, but Material and Methods should be completed by information which anatomical terminology was followed. I strongly recommand that the authors use standard anatomical terminology (e.g., from Sanchiz 1998), because some of their terms (especially those which are used in anglicized form) are hardly understandable, they seem to be created ad hoc (e.g., “epiotic eminence”, instead of “prominentia of the canalis semicircularis posterior”), thus difficult to use in anatomical comparisons.
- Literature seems to be well referenced & relevant. However, I must confess that I did not check this aspect in detail.
- Figures are relevant, high quality, but not well labelled & described (see below).
Experimental design: - Research question are well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Validity of the findings: - The descriptive parts are written well, mostly with correct terminology.This is in contrast with figure plates, which sometimes include incorrect interpretations.
- The main purpose of this paper is to describe a new taxon, differentiate it from other related taxa, and present all its distinctive characters in a way that other researchers could easily use them in their comparisons. The crucial point in this process is Diagnosis. Because it is based on a single, incomplete (= fragmentary) specimen, the authors were able to use only a few (6) characters:
1.	Skull hyperossified
2.	Frontoparietals coossified, lacking midline suture
3.	Frontoparietals covered by pit-and-ridge ornamentation
4.	Frontoparietals bearing a smooth occipital flange
5.	Frontoparietals without frontoparietal incrassation
6.	Deep, groove-like central recess on the posterodorsal surface of braincase on each side of foramen magnum, housing the foramen of the occipital artery.
The first two are correlated with one another. No.3 is not clear – judging by Fig. 1A, it consists of robust tubercles of various sizes, but not of pits separated by ridges. Micro-CT reconstructions may not be accurate. Thus, can Fig. 1A be completed by a photograph of the ornamented surface? The frontoparietal incrassation in living anurans fill the fenestrae separated by the tecta in the roof of the braincase, which results in smooth ceiling of the braincase. In living anurans the incrassation can be recognized only after outlines of bone (of frontoparietal) and cartilage (of tecta). In hyperossified taxon, the borders between ossified structures disappear (as is the case with proc. paraoccipitales and prominent posterior semicircular canal), thus the braincase ceiling becomes smooth. The deeper central recess of the three recesses (the medial and lateral are shallower) is a character which may be subject of individual or developmental variation. Thus, only characters 4 and 6 may be considered reliable, which is not too much. In this situation, I would advice to strenghten the Diagnosis by inclusion of Differential diagnosis, which might better illustrate differences from other related taxa.
Additional comments: - Some anatomical interpretations are incorrect (e.g. “carotid canal”, which is actually the canal for the arteria occipitalis; curiously, it is given under correct name in the Diagnosis, line 218); anteriorly, where it leaves the frontoparietal it is called the arteria orbitonasalis, not “carotid artera” as is the case of explanations to Fig. 1; “foramen perilymphaticum” in Fig. 1G, which is actually the foramen endolymphaticum).
- Why all specimens were microCT scanned? Were they covered by sediment? This should be mentioned in Material and Methods section.

Questions and remarks to the authors
Line 33: I strongly recommand that the new taxonomic name is not introduced in the Abstract, which sometimes is published separately from the main body of the text; this may potentially create confusion for those who assemble records for synonymy. It is recommanded to use the new name first in the Systematic Paleontology section, i.e. in lines 190 and 193.
Line 65: Should not this be 100–95 Ma?
Lines 76-77: The sentence does not seem to be complete or is formulated incorrectly.
Line 81: The definite article should be removed.
Line 82: Should not be “of” inserted before “these fossils?
Lines 213-219, Diagnosis: Hyperossification is manifested not only by coalescence of the braincase with the frontoparietal, but also with parasphenoid. In the frontoparietal, the paraoccipital processes fuse without any distinctive suture on either side with the prominentiae of the posterior semicircular canal. Why do you call this structure of dual origin the eminentia epiotica?
More important - how did you recognize that the frontoparietal has no incrassation? In fact, incrassation(s) are dermal bone (frontoparietal) fillings in the fenestrae of the roof of the braincase; the fenestrae are separated by narrow bands of the endochondral bone. Thus, both dermal and endochondral bones together, make the roof of the braincase continuous, such that the frontoparietal incrassation cannot be recognized. Thus I do not consider this diagnostic character (absence of FRP incrassation) reliable.
You mention among diagnostic characters also the pit-and-ridge ornamentation. However, in Fig. 1A it rather consists of large but low tubercles on flat, horizontal surface. How reliable is your microCT reconstruction in this respect?
The three recesses on the postero-dorsal surface of the skull are insertion areas for muscles coming from the trunk (intertransversarii superiores; see Gaupp 1893, fig. 63). This area is usually highly variable, as may be judged also from comparisons of the left and right sides in Fig. 1E. Do you think that such weak diagnosis is sufficient for distinguishing the holotype from other similar material?
Occipital flange (ocfl) is mentioned among diagnostic characters, but it is not given among abbreviations of Fig. 1.
Line 230: Sing. processus paraoccipitalis, plural processūs paraoccipitales, but here it is better to use the anglicized form “paraoccipital processes”.
Line 231: precisely “prominentia ducti semicircularis posterioris”.
Lines 233 and 235: what is the difference between “lateral expansion of the frontoparietal” and “tectum supraorbitale”?
Lines 236-237: See above, Diagnosis.
Line 239: See above.
Line 244: It is the same artery, but from the point where it enters the orbit, it is called a. orbitonasalis (Gaupp 1899, figs. 82, 89).
Line 256: Crista parotica always extends laterally.
Line 259: Fig. 1B, G (?)
Line 269: In fact, partition between the braincase and otic capsule.
Lines 272-273: This variation is very common in anurans.
Line 276: It is important to write that your reconstructions in Fig. 2 represent casts of the cavities in the left otic capsule (elsewhere you use the term “endocast”, which is also understandable).
Lines 286-287 and Fig. 2: Given that you describe the endocast of the otic capsule, your perilymphatic cisterne contains also the sacculus and lagena, surrounded by closely adjacent wall of the perilymphatic space, but its more spacious part (i.e., the cisterne) is actually located only in the posteromedial portion of the otic capsule (according to Wever 2014; see also your line 292). So, that part of the endocast which is labeled “pycist” in your Fig. 2 is the cistern in posterior view (Fig. 2B) but it cannot be observed in anterior view (Fig. 2A), where is the sacculus located, which closely adjoins its wall. Furthermore, the “lateral chamber” is that part of the perilymphatic space, where its wall is in contact with the inner surface of the footplate and operculum, so it is a pitty that the contact surface between the perilymphatic space and these two middle ear structures are not involved in your reconstruction. In any case, be precise and describe this part as “transverse section through the perilymphatic space close to fenestra ovalis”, rather than “oval window” which is confusing. Finally, the same situation is in the opposite side, which is labeled “acoustic duct” (accdt). This is actually the transverse section through that part of the perilymphatic space bulging into the braincase cavity, which also contains the stato-acoustic nerve. Note also that the “round window” occurs only in mammals at the basal turn of the cochlea. I have not heard about it in amphibians where the auditory receptors are located beyond lagena.
Line 294: There are two little foramina in the lateral wall of the jugular canal called the foramen perilymphaticum superius and inferius (Stadtmüller 1936: Handbuch der vergl. Anatomie der Wirbeltiere, pp. 527-528, fig. 394), but never identified as “round window”.
Line 298: The correct name is the stato-acoustic nerve, because it contains fibres from both organs.
Line 302: This is correct, but see Fig. 1G, pf.!
Line 306-307: Please, can you include a brief information which terminology you follow? I do not understand what is “otic plate” (= “ramus paroticus”) and “posterior process” (of what?). Sanchiz (1998) tried to make a simple explanatory list of anatomical terms, but he forgot to include the squamosum! The aim of unified anatomical terminology is mutual understanding among anatomists, but this is not possible in current situation when various terminologies are used. I used the terminology of squamosum which is explained in Roček (1981, fig. 33).
Line 324: Posterior process of what?
Lines 326-328 and Fig. 3: Posterior margin (of what?) bears a shallow depression ... which is articular facet for the quadratojugal. However, the quadratojugal articulates only with the quadrate (sometimes also both coalesce together), and the quadrate has a suture with the ramus “posterior” of the squamosal, not with the processus posterior of the ornamented part of the squamosal (i.e., lamella alaris). This is an example of terminological mess.
What is sdp in Fig. 3 (not found in abbreviations), squvre (not found among labels in Fig. 3)?
Line 333: Thus, this “large” process is the proc. zygomaticomaxillaris (Figs. 3F, G)? Please, check the text in lines 334-341 with Fig. 3.
Line 365: What is “anterior vertebral canal”? Please, rewrite this sentence.
Line 376: Should it be “as wide as long”?
Line 380: “posteriorly” can be removed.
Line 387: One of ... vertebrae.
Line 428: What about Cretaceous of Utah (Roček et al. 2010)? Scotiophryne pustulosa Estes, 1969 ? Theatonius lancensis Fox, 1976 ? “Eopelobates sp.” from the late Maastrichtian of Wyoming and Montana (see Gardner 2008)?
Lines 456-457: This sentence is incomplete, please check.
Line 470: Arteria orbitonasalis.
Line 483: median suture
Lines 496, 199: posterior process of what on the posterior surface of the frontoparietal?
Line 501: See above.
Line 545: Better anglicized “paraoccipital processes”.
Line 556: its
Line 560: head or ball in your terminology?
Lines 568-569: shallow and poorly delimited fossa cubitalis is also in permanently water-dwelling Palaeobatrachus, probably due to stretched forelimbs in swimming, like in Xenopus.
Line 572: ulnar epicondyle
Line 586: iliac, because of Latin crista iliaca, not crista “iliala”. See also your line 597: inter-iliac.
Line 588: Do both these names mean the tuber superius?
Lines 592-593: Please rework this sentence, because its souds a little messy.
Line 596: ilioischiadic
Line 600: You can also include (or at least check Roček Z., Gardner JD, Eaton JG, Přikryl T. 2013: Anuran ilia from the Upper Cretaceous of Utah – Diversity and stratigraphic patterns.  In: Titus AL and Loewen MA (eds) At the top of the Grand Staircase, pp. 273-294)
Lines 658-659: Why you use sometimes “otic plate” and sometimes “lamella alaris”? Terminology should be consistent.
Line 660: antorbitale is correct.
Lines 683-684: Palatine is present also in Early Cretaceous Genibatrachus (unpublished).
Line 749: Did anybody complete investigation of the material (mentioned as Pyxicephalus or Aubria) in Blackburn D., Roberts E. (2013) A late Oligocene anuran fauna from the Nsungwe Formation, southwestern Tanzania. Program and Abstracts of the 73rd Meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Supplement to the online JVP October 2013, p. 88?
Line 810: In Beceten is correct.
Fig. 1  A is correct; B is right lateral; C is ventral; should be B; E is posterior, slightly dorsal; left lateral is absent! F is anterior, not “left medial“; D is correct; G is correct.
Lines should be more precise (e.g., in F should reach up to the groove, jugular foramen in D should be indicated by arrow, because it is not visible, etc.). In explanations, Latin (e.g., tectum supraorbitale, pars contacta) and anglicized terms (prootic and majority of others) are mixed. cc = “carotid canal“ is actually canal for the arteria occipitalis; optic foramen is correct. pf = “perilymphatic foramen“ is actually endolymphatic foramen (always above acoustic foramina) in G. Two perilymphatic foramina are in the lateral wall of the foramen jugulare.
Fig. 2  Given that the pictures illustrate casts of the inner cavities of the otic capsule, the figure legend should be changed to: Inner casts of the left otic capsule. Please, use also precise anatomical terminology, which is in case of inner ear especially important. What you call the “oval window“ is actually transverse section of the sacculus; sacculus never expands in frogs. The canals are generally called the anterior, posterior, and lateral semicircular canals, which have an ampulla on one of their ends (thus, “ampulla of the anterior semicircular canal“, sups is crus commune, accdt is in fact canal for acoustic nerve, etc.). “Otic chamber“ and “round window“ can be recognized only in mammals, but not in frogs.
Brace below A in figure plate is a typing error?
Fig. 3	What is sdp? (absent in the list of abbreviations, but used in A). sqvre and sqvr are used in B, but only squvre is given among abbreviations. sqpp in D, but not among abbreviations. What is what? mr points into the recess, not to the ridge in H

Minor additional errors are highlighted in yellow in the annotated PDF 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: A NEW GENUS AND SPECIES OF FROG FROM THE KEM KEM (MOROCCO), THE SECOND NEOBATRACHIAN FROM CRETACEOUS AFRICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Excellent
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: Valid
Additional comments: Review

The introduction and background material are well-written and thorough.

Line 184: The sentence "We based this constraint tree (available in the
Supplemental Materials) primarily on recent phylogenomic analyses, including Feng et al (2017), Streicher et al. (2018), Yuan et al. (2018), and Hime et al. (2021)." is vague and needs specificity. Exactly which of these studies was the basis for the constraint tree. As written, it appear the constraint tree was constructed with no particular analysis, just a "feeling." Some of these studies do not support the same clades. I don't have any preference for one over the other, but the authors should state exactly how the constraint tree was constructed.

line 197: "posterior braincase preserving incomplete frontoparietals, parasphenoid,
198 and prooticooccipitals."  As worded this implies that the frontoparietals and parasphenoid are part of the braincase, which is not correct. Also, I don't ever recall seeing the word "prooticooccipitals". Others have used otoccipitals or "prootic and exooccipitals." Frogs don't have a basioccipital or supraoccipital.

Also, Fig 1 labels the "prootic" not prooticoccipital. Use consistent terminology throughout.

line 216: The authors should describe somewhere the significane of "no incrassatio frontoparietalis on the ventral surface of the frontoparietals;"

line 233: pars contacta? Please state where the terminoloy comes from, not just where the list of characters is (Lemierre?)

line 244. The "occipital artery" foramen is mentioned, but this is labeled in Fig 1B as the carotid artery.

Fig 2. Is this the left or right inner ear? Also, the order of labeling A, B, C, is odd. Why not label the top three as A, B, C?
Also there is a large black brace that obscures one of the labels.

line 292: "In the posteromedial region of the perilymphatic cistern, a short and large canal, representing the perilymphatic duct, opens posteriorly (Fig. 2B, D) into the braincase and the condyloid fossa (i.e., “round window”; Wever, 1985)."
In Fig 2. the round window is clearly labeled with no ambiguity, but the use of "round window" in the text implies that this opening may not be the round window.

line 297 "housed the pathway of the cranial nerve VIII (Gaupp, 1896), representing the
acoustic nerve (Duellman and Trueb, 1994)." This is confusing. Are the authors subdividing VIII into acoustic and vestibular branches. Many refer to VIII simply as "acoustic" even though it has hearing and equlibrium functions.

line 310: "though it is not uncommon for anuran cranial bones to display variation in ornamentation within an individual". Not clear what you mean. Do you mean there is variation in ornamentation among different elements? This is not a surprise. Or do you mean something else?

line 346: "Although the shape of the centrum varies...". How does it vary? In cross section? Please be more specific.

line "In other anurans, there is documented variation in the length of the centra of...". Certainly Trueb (not cited) has noted this in several earlier papers.

Fig 4: postpostzygapophysis, not postzygapophyse. Same for pre-

Fig 4I. "spinal foramen" is labeled. As far as I know, no frog has a spinal foramen within the vertebra; the spinal nerve always exits between vertebrae. Some salamanders have intra-vertebral spinal foramina--see papers by Jim Edwards.
I don't know what this foramen might be.

In general, the heavy black scale bars are not esthetic and distract from the otherwise excellent figures. Can these be made thinner?

line 410. These for superfamilies are all crown groups, so you are not considering stemm-fossils that may have co-ossified skulls. Please re-write.

line 416: Where is Gobiatidae in your tree?

line 434: "However, the principal synapomorphies used to diagnose Neobatrachia, such as the presence of palatines (also called neopalatines in neobatrachians;
Baez et al., 2009) cannot be assessed based on the preserved elements of Cretadhefdaa."

A couple of points here. Why is the presence of palatines is more of a "principal" synapomorphy than the bicondylar sacrum?

However, the authors have unknowning documented a derived character state that does place the fossil at a lower level in the tree: the bicondylar sacrum. As far as I know, this is found only in Neobatrachia. I think this is worth more discussion.

line 480: "their attribution to Calyptocephalellidae is certain." Just a comment: I don't agree that it is certain. The tree support is not much stronger than many nodes in the tree in this paper. I think the authors of Calyptocephalella satan were influenced heavily by geography.

General taxonomic note: Hyloides, sensu Frost is not monphyletic because it includes Sooglossidae, a clear error. Hyloidea, which you do use in some parts of the ms, is the appropriate name.

Ranoides sensu Frost is the same as Ranoidea, which was used for at least 40 years before Frost. In the interest of stability, and following Feng et al., I suggest using Ranoidea (especially since Blackburn is a co-author of Feng et al.

The legend for Fig 7 does not indicate what the numbers on the tree branches mean.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GENUS AND SPECIES OF FROG FROM THE KEM KEM (MOROCCO), THE SECOND NEOBATRACHIAN FROM CRETACEOUS AFRICA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Introductory part good (including English), anatomical part still with errors.
Experimental design: No comment. This is a classical descriptive paleontology.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Remarks to the authors
Those parts of the text highlighted in red deserve your revision.
Line 183: Correct to: Calyptocephalellidae
Line 184: Neoaustrana (?)
Line 186: Natatanua (?)
Line 232: differentiated
Line 241: median ... between
Line 250: prooticooccipitals
Line 257: posterior process (of the frontoparietals ?)
Lines 261-262: As I objected last time, in fully coossified tecta with thickened parts of the frontoparietals the ventral surface of the braincase roof will be smooth (i.e., the incrassations will not be recognizable).
Line 263: prooticooccipitals (ossified parts of the otic capsules) are two, like one on each side (as you mention in line 279).
Line 283: for (?; compare line 291).
Lines 325-326:  “the large foramina of the medial wall of the braincase is the fusion of the two acoustic foramina”. This does not make sense. First, these foramina are in the lateral wall of the braincase; second, the large foramina cannot be the fusion of acoustic foramina. Please, reword the sentence.
Line 328: Again, this is the lateral wall of the braincase.
Line 334: Insert: “... the base of the processus posterolateralis”. This needs to be corrected in labeling in Fig. 3A-E.
Line 342: The lamella alaris in complete only on its anterior end.
Line 343: Remove “possibly a fused”. It is always part of the squamosum, like processus posterolateralis. Furthermore, it is true that the ramus paroticus adjoins the crista parotica, but this is the common scheme in all anurans, not only in Beelzebufo.
Lines 348-349: This is not true! The squamosum is always connected to the crista parotica by means of its ramus paroticus, disregarding whether its lamella alaris is in contact with the frontoparietal table or not.
Line 353: Processus posterolateralis lacks ornamentation in all frogs.
Lines 354-355: Totally incorrect.
Line 357: Middle portion would imply that there should be a part of the orbital margin, which is not true.
Line 360: See comments to Fig. 3 below.
Lines 366-367: This is incorrect, see below.
Line 406: to be elongated (?).
Line 444: to coalesce and to fuse mean the same.
Line 452: Pelobatoidea or Pelobatidae (?)
Line 455: This is highly improbable, not supported by any evidence.
Line 509: seem to be similar (?)
Line 570: Better: paraoccipital processes.
Line 587: Same as previous.
Fig. 1 ef is not explained. Endolymphatic foramen is erroneously given as pf in Abbreviations.
Fig. 3A-E squamosal. sdp is not explained. This set of pictures is confusing and partly incorrectly identified. The lamina alaris, if ornamented, always bears ornamentation on outer surface and is smooth on inner surface. Its anterior end  (“sdp”) cannot be the processus posterolateralis, thus cannot bear the quadratojugal facet. The broken base of the processus posterolateralis is identified incorrectly as “sqvl”.
Fig. 3F-H maxilla. If pzm means processus zygomatico-maxillaris (i.e., at the posterior end of the orbit) and par ? means palatine articulation (at the level of the postnasal wall, where is the orbital margin that should be between the both? Moreover, the palatine, which is a flat, horizontal bone adjoining the postnasal wall ventrally, should be connected by a suture to the horizontal lamina, not to the oblique ridge on the inner surface of the vertical portion of the bone. What you identify as pzm is actually broken end somewhere close to proc. frontalis. What you indicate mr is the maxillary fossa (or recess) for the processus antorbitalis of the palatoquadrate bar. This maxillar fragment actually represents a short section at the level of the anterior margin of the orbit.
Fig. 5: Please explain white arrows.
Fig. 7 I cannot find red circle mentioned in the figure legend.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GENUS AND SPECIES OF FROG FROM THE KEM KEM (MOROCCO), THE SECOND NEOBATRACHIAN FROM CRETACEOUS AFRICA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: All criticisms were addressed satisfactorily.
Experimental design: All criticisms were addressed satisfactorily.
Validity of the findings: All criticisms were addressed satisfactorily.
Additional comments: None


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: TUMOR BUDDING OF CERVICAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: EPITHELIAL-MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION-LIKE CANCER STEM CELLS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors performed analyses on clinical cervical squamous cell carcinomas samples to understand the stem cell state of tumor budding. The manuscript is well written in professional English.  The author provided sufficient citations to support the importance and characteristics of tumor budding. All raw data, figures, and tables are provided. The results in the manuscript support the original hypothesis.
Experimental design: The authors provided a large set of clinical samples for their analysis. This will provide critical insight into the mechanism underlying tumor budding.  The authors provided detailed methods  and rigorous statistical analyses for other people to replicate their study
Validity of the findings: All data required to support the author's conclusion has been provided.

One minor point that needs to be corrected: Since all markers examined in this study are not 100% expressed or not expressed in either tumor budding or rumor body, the author would better provide representative figures for both positive and negative tumor budding and tumor body (i.e.: SOX2+ tumor budding, SOX2+ tumor body, SOX2- tumor budding, SOX2- tumor body.) This will help the reader to compare the differences between the positive and negative expressions of these markers.

In addition, figure 1D needs to be replaced since the vimentin staining is clearly non-specific staining.
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: TUMOR BUDDING OF CERVICAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: EPITHELIAL-MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION-LIKE CANCER STEM CELLS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the authors concluded that tumor buds in cervical squamous cell carcinoma may have an EMT-like cancer stem cell property. Tumor budding is an interesting topic. The advantage of this study is it connects tumor buds with cervical squamous cell carcinoma clinical stage. However, this study may some improvements before it can be accepted for publication. Following are the comments:
1.	Language improvements are needed. I would strongly suggest the authors pay extra attention on grammar and proofreading.
2.	Is this CD44low/Sox2high phenotype only observed in tumor buds (supportive data needed)? How did the authors make sure this CD44low/Sox2high subpopulation is cancer stem cells?
3.	I would suggest the authors separate CD44low/Sox2high cells from two cervical cancer cell lines and compare EMT and biological functions of this CD44low/Sox2high subpopulation with other subpopulations within bulk cervical squamous cell carcinoma cells.
4.	The magnification of images is low. I would suggest the authors show characteristic areas with higher magnification. This will give the data a better presentation.
Experimental design: Please see my comments in Basic reporting.
Validity of the findings: Please see my comments in Basic reporting.
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: TUMOR BUDDING OF CERVICAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: EPITHELIAL-MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION-LIKE CANCER STEM CELLS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Could the authors provide relevant citations for Line 59 and Line 78

2. As mentioned in my general comments below, I would urge the authors to add additional figures, provided relevant data in the form of graphs, and not just as a Table. For example, authors could provide distribution of IHC scores for all genes across 95 samples in the form of a histogram

3. Could the authors add relevant in-text figure references for each result presented in the Results section?
Experimental design: 1. What do the authors mean by “tissue chips” in their Methods section?

2. Could the authors provide some motivation for why the genes mentioned in Line 110 were selected in this study. For example, it would help to have citations to relevant text that points out the selected genes as markers for EMT or CSCs.
Validity of the findings: 1. In general, I would encourage the authors to think more about the interpretation and implications of their data in the Results section, rather than just stating the data. For example, for each gene the authors should write 1-2 sentences for what their data suggests. Are their Results expected, or surprising?
Additional comments: This manuscript provides evidence for the existence of EMT-like CSC cells in tumor buds, based on increased expression of key protein marker genes in the tumor bud, as compared to the tumor body. Particularly, the authors looked at the expression of genes E-cadherin, β-catenin, vimentin, Ki67, CD44, and SOX2 in 95 primary CxSCCs samples. Overall, the conclusions of this study seem to be potentially informative, and methodologies are clearly outlined. However, I urge the authors to improve the way data is presented in the manuscript. The Results section is missing in-text figure references, and the only result is provided in the form of Table 2. It would be helpful to see distribution of IHC intensity scores for different genes across 95 samples in the form of a histogram, or a box plot, instead of a Table. Additionally, authors need to provide interpretation of their results, beyond just stating the results.


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

Input:
Title: TUMOR BUDDING OF CERVICAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: EPITHELIAL-MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION-LIKE CANCER STEM CELLS?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author clearly addressed my question by showing more clear figures.
Suggest accepting this manuscript.
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: N/A


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: TUMOR BUDDING OF CERVICAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: EPITHELIAL-MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION-LIKE CANCER STEM CELLS?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors improved their manuscript. If it is applicable, this current version could be considered for publication.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: COMPENSATORY GROWTH AND UNDERSTORY SOIL STOICHIOMETRIC FEATURES OF HIPPOPHAE RHAMNOIDES AT DIFFERENT STUBBLE HEIGHTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The effect of stubble heights on height growth and biomass of Hippophae rhamnoides, which is crucial and useful species used in the vegetation recovery practice in that area, were reported in the paper, it is interesting to provide the appropriate stubble height to help local people to manage this vegetation in the fragile environment by two-year experiment. I recommended it publish after minor revision.

Abstract section, in the part of Method, “The findings will offer some new clues
for eco-construction in feldspathic sandstone areas and theoretically underlie soil-water
loss administration in this region” this sentence should be moved to the end of Result part.
Line, 90, changed “Yu Wentao” to “Yu”
In the Introduction section, a hypothesis is needed.
Line 131, change “vegetation” to “species”.
Line 222, in this section, “The explanation rates of axes 1 and 2 are 92.72% and 0.30% respectively”, because the explanation rate of axis 1 was 92.72%, and it is high enough, and it was only 0.30% for axis 2, it is better to ignore the axis 2.
In the result section, please provided the statistically significant level, such as P<0.05 or P<0.01.
Line 239-241, please decide the compensatory type based on the statistical analysis results, although, the index was larger than that control, it should be statistical larger, then you can get such conclusion.
Line 280-281, the statement was different from the results, please check.
Line 295, check the authors.
Line 328-330, why did you cite this result, RDA, not PCA was used in this research.
Line, 345, “1.48” was different from the data in the result section.
All Figures need improve to make them clear. Please indicates the full name for abbreviations in the Fig. 4.
Experimental design: The experiment was well designed.
Validity of the findings: The findings were validated by data and statistical analysis.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: COMPENSATORY GROWTH AND UNDERSTORY SOIL STOICHIOMETRIC FEATURES OF HIPPOPHAE RHAMNOIDES AT DIFFERENT STUBBLE HEIGHTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The manuscript entitled “Compensatory growth and understory soil stoichiometric features of Hippophae rhamnoides at different stubble heights” investigated soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus and their stoichiometric characteristics, as well as the compensatory growth ability of Hippophae rhamnoides at different stubble heights. The results find that the stubble height of 15 cm promoted the growth of the vegetation and the accumulation of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Overall, there are some interesting findings. However, I have some concerns about the logic, arguments, and wording in the paper. For example, the level of English throughout the manuscript does not meet the journal's desired standard. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully.

2. The “Introduction” section needs to be expanded further with relevant information. For example, why do the findings differ between the existing studies and what are the possible reasons? The authors may summaries appropriately, thus drawing out the importance of your research, rather than simply highlight the need for further research because of the inconsistent findings among previously studies.
Experimental design: 1. Line 224-232: You have used variables such as total porosity and water holding capacity in RDA, but how did you measure these variables? All the variables used in your study should mentioned in Materials & Methods.
Validity of the findings: 1. Line 205-207: What is the purpose of analyzing the variation coefficient of the variables within each treatment? A weak variation of coefficient for each variable among replicates within the same treatment is normal; in contrast, a large variation of coefficient indicates high heterogeneity between samples or a problem with the experimental design.

2. Line 233: Soil moisture is a highly dynamic variable and is sensitive to weather etc. Are the results of soil moisture reliable if only measured once? Please clarify.

3. Line 234-235: “The effect of soil moisture on total porosity is very significant.” How does soil moisture affect soil total porosity? It should be the other way around.

4.  Generally, the “Discussion” is mainly descriptive, similar to the section of “Results”. There is little explanation of the indicative meaning behind the observed results. Authors should compare the findings to previous studies. Also, the deep meaning of the results should be described from a larger perspective.

5. The conclusion is also descriptive and lengthy. In the conclusion section, authors should focus on one or several important conclusions based on your results and highlight the importance of your study or state what gaps your research fills.
Additional comments: 1. Line 23-24: “Method. The findings will offer some new clues for eco-construction in feldspathic sandstone areas and theoretically underlie soil-water loss administration in this region.” This sentence looks more like a research objective and cannot be placed in the Methods section of the Abstract.

2. Line 27: “Investigated by RDA”? How should this statement be interpreted? RDA is a method of analysis, how to investigate the compensatory growth ability.

3. Line 36: Abbreviations should be given their full name when they first appear in the abstract.

4. Line 38: “SOC, TN, TP contents (0.36, 0.66, 6.97 g/kg)”. It doesn't make sense that the content of TN is nearly half as high as SOC. Please check the experimental analysis process or data processing methods.

5. Line 41-43: “SOC, TN, and TP are all dominant factors to regulate the eco-stoichiometric features of understory soils in H. rhamnoides”. How can SOC, TN and TP be the dominant factors in regulating eco-stoichiometric characteristics when they are themselves indicators for calculating eco-stoichiometric characteristics in your study? This is difficult for me to understand.

6. Line 74: Please add the year of this reference after Cutforth et al.

7. Line 78: Also add the year of this reference after Cutforth et al.

8. Line 84: Add the year of this reference after Shahrudin et al. It is the same elsewhere.

9. Line 154-156: Abbreviations should be given in full when they first appear in the paper.

10. Line 158-165: The method for determining soil pH is very general and does not have to be so detailed (8 lines in the paper), please refine it.

11. Line 173-181: Please add the related references.

12. Line 187: What method is used for multiple comparisons after ANOVA?

13. Table 1: Note at the end of the table that the data in the table are means ± standard deviation or standard error. In addition, a test for significance of differences is required.

14. Table 4: Abbreviations should be given in full at the end of the table.

15. Fig. 4: Please standardize the names of the variables in the diagram, e.g., PH, SoilBulDn, etc. In addition, abbreviations should be given in full in the note.


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: COMPENSATORY GROWTH AND UNDERSTORY SOIL STOICHIOMETRIC FEATURES OF HIPPOPHAE RHAMNOIDES AT DIFFERENT STUBBLE HEIGHTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There are many punctuation issues throughout the manuscript. Do not put spaces between the punctuation mark and the preceding words. Spaces are used to separate words, and punctuation should follow the last word immediately. For example, Line 38: “of 15 cm .”, it should be “of 15 cm.”.

Additionally, there must be a space between each sentence and the punctuation of the previous sentence. For axample, Line 57: “erosion.Hence,”, should be “erosion. Hence”.

There are many such errors throughout the manuscript, check the full manuscript carefully.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: 1. Line 35: it should be “soil organic carbon (SOC)”, not “soil rganic arbon(SOC)”. Many similar problems, correct them seriously.
2. Line 35 and 38: it should be “nitrogen”, not “itrogen”. “Word” has the function to check for misspellings, why don't you check carefully before submitting your manuscript?
3. Line 37: “at all stubble heights were larger than those of the control”. The abbreviation CK for control was used earlier, so why not continue with the abbreviation here. But in fact, CK is not the correct abbreviation for control. Control and CK are both one word, so why must you use abbreviation?
4. Line 93: “potential of yhrogen”???
5. Line 165: Replace “+” with “and”.
6. Line 171: If you have removed the coefficient of variation from the “Results”, why do you need to write the formula for calculating the coefficient of variation in the “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: EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL BEVERAGES ON THE NEUROBEHAVIORAL MOTILITY OF CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: •	The manuscript was written in clear professional English language. The authors should go through the spell checks and errors. eg Line 48: appropriately ; line 276: compared

•	The authors have given relevant literature and background information. Authors should cite the work by Cermk et al.  Whole-organism behavioral profiling reveals a role for dopamine in state-dependent motor program coupling in C. elegans. eLife. 2020; 9: e57093.´which is a very relevant literature to the described work.

•	Figures are relevant, well labelled and described.  Yet the authors could give some vedio evidence or recording of the nematode behavior. Additionally, a schemata of the described worm behavior could greatly enhance clarity for the readers.
Experimental design: The work is interesting given the documented ill-effects of certain beverages to human population and is relevant to the scope of Peer J. Research questions are well defined as the authors want to evaluate the effects of 18 different beverages on behavioral modulation of nematodes and extrapolate on its toxicity. The experiments are performed well and methods described sufficiently.
Validity of the findings: Although the findings are interesting and useful, there are certain concerns that the authors need to address for publication in Peer J.

1.	Figure 1 has bar charts with significance, please provide error bars in the graphs
2.	In many places in the manuscript, (Line 213, Line 220) data is expressed as 12%~49% and 36%~43% respectively (P<0.05). Please express it as mean ± sem.
3.	In the introduction, typically lines 66-71 comes at the end of introduction. The authors should shift this part to the end before starting the methods section. Instead authors could put a simple line here such as ´we proposed to study the effect of beverages on behavior of C.elegans´ and continue with the next paragraph.
4.	The authors focus on the positive effects. They should also clearly conclusively state the negative effects and describe/discuss the reasons. For example: in this line 251: while fruit  juice, carbonated drinks, relieve fatigue drink, functional beverages, tea and coffee all showed the characteristics of weakened feeding and mobility, which may be related to the food search process of nematodes. The authors should discuss the possible reasons for this result.
5.	In line 233: they state that feeding behaviour are used to evaluate neurotoxicity. Could they discuss or evaluate the feeding behavior they recorded with neurotoxicity?
6.	Lines 260, 266: It should be mentioned as 4a, 4b, 4c rather than 4abcd
7.	Some page numbers in references are not proper. Example: line 414: 161-169 rather than 161-9. Same is true in line 423, 434. Please carefully check all references.
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: EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL BEVERAGES ON THE NEUROBEHAVIORAL MOTILITY OF CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: the aim of this study looks like to screen certain bioactivity of several commercial beverages using C. Elegans as the animal model, from this aspect, the novelty of the present study is not clear. The chemical composition of the samples should be provided, and further molecular biological studies need to be conducted to support behavioral observation results.
Experimental design: as the authors suggested, other endpoints such as reproduction, lifespan, molecular stress response, etc, should be included in the experimental design. And in my opinion, there was no logical correlation to compare the 18 beverages as their chemical components are totally different. this experimental design is more like an observational study, or a bioactivity screening.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL BEVERAGES ON THE NEUROBEHAVIORAL MOTILITY OF CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript is well written and sufficient context is provided.

Is there a reason why the bar charts in Figure 1 lack error bars?

In Table 1 dairy beverage section, please comment on the difference between prepared milk beverages A, B, C and D. Since their characteristics are very similar, what is the rationale for having so many milk beverage?

What does the heading ´proportion´ mean in Table 1?  Please change to a meaningful heading or what information is the proportion values provide here?

Give the units along with the heading in Table 1. Eg: pascal for osmotic pressure
Experimental design: Research question is relevant and meaningful.

The authors must provide a detailed methodology of how they measured the beverage characteristics. A method section detailing how they measured osmotic pressure, specific gravity and the instruments used. This is critical for reproducibility.
Validity of the findings: Why are the LC50 values not provided ?

Line 261-262: based on figure 4 ABCD it has been mentioned that head thrash frequency is reduced 23%~30% and similar percentages are given based on Figure 4. It is not clear how this has been calculated as the figure does not seem to reflect these values.
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: EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL BEVERAGES ON THE NEUROBEHAVIORAL MOTILITY OF CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: THE AUTHORS HAVE ADDRESSED ALL CONCERNS SUFFICIENTLY AND I RECCOMMEND PUBLICATION IN PeerJ
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
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: EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL BEVERAGES ON THE NEUROBEHAVIORAL MOTILITY OF CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors satisfactorily addressed all my comments.