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: GENE FLOW BETWEEN SUBPOPULATIONS OF GRAY SNAPPER (LUTJANUS GRISEUS) FROM THE CARIBBEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have conducted a meticulous study on the population genetic structure of gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.
The major finding is the high levels of genetic diversity and high rate of migration suggest that these populations of gray snapper in the Mexican Caribbean and southern Gulf of Mexico may be fairly robust to fishing pressure. Furthermore, gene flow patterns found in this study are certainly a step forward in our knowledge of the population dynamics of that species which is useful for establishing appropriate management and conservation.
The manuscript was well written, with informative figures and tables and thorough results. The language used is clear. The literature is well referenced and the conclusions based on the results are generally sound, however, citing some studies of 2016 to date in the introduction and discussion sections would be beneficial and enhance the manuscript.
In some instances, some changes should be taken into account to add consistency to the text:
1)	Line 73-75. It is missing a reference for this statement.
2)	Line 254. Replace “insignificant” with “not significant”.
3)	Line 277. I suggest to replace word “large” with “important” to be clear.
4)	Line 298. Eliminate “at least” do to ambiguity.
5)	Line 331. Replace the word “fishes” with “fish”.
6)	Figure 2. The header abbreviations should not be in italics. That means It be should be consistent with the figure abbreviations. Furthermore, I suggest either an abbreviation font size (into the figure) to be larger so it is easily visualized.
7)	Table 1. The “Gulf of Mexico” label could be placed on the top of the table, otherwise, it is confusing where it is. Please consider an alternative column header.
8)	Table 2. The “Mexican Caribbean Sea” label could be placed on the top of the table, otherwise, it is confusing where it is. Please consider an alternative column header.
Experimental design: The study is pertinent to know the diversity and genetic structure of populations of L. griseus that is a commercially important species. That allows us to advance our knowledge of the vulnerability of this species to the fishing, which is useful for establishing appropriate management and conservation of stocks.
Sample sizes and analyses used were generally adequate to reach the objectives, however, some suggestions should be taken into account for the robustness of the study:
1)	Lines 141-143. Please provide more information to be clear what do you mean by “capture resident individuals and how did avoid overlapping with the migration activities of these organisms”, or make an explicit statement about migration activities of this species in order to understand the sampling design background.
2)	I suggestion computing a PCA using genetic frequencies in order to identify the most divergent sites (if there would be), since multivariate methods summarize the genetic variability without making strong assumptions about an evolution model, that means they do not rely on Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, nor do they suppose the absence of linkage disequilibrium. Furthermore, it would benefit by analyzing the genetic structure using a Bayesian approach with STRUCTURE software, although you already didn't find genetic differentiation you should to explore your data to get more information about the population structure since you found genetic flow patterns.
3)	It would improve the quality of the manuscript the inclusion of a standardized measure of genetic differentiation (F'ST) because genetic diversity associated with microsatellites can affect FST values. See:
Meirmans, P. G., & Van Tienderen, P. H. (2004). GENOTYPE and GENODIVE: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Molecular Ecology Notes, 4(4), 792-794.
Meirmans, P. G. (2006). Using the AMOVA framework to estimate a standardized genetic differentiation measure. Evolution, 60(11), 2399-2402.
Meirmans, P. G., & Hedrick, P. W. (2011). Assessing population structure: FST and related measures. Molecular ecology resources, 11(1), 5-18.
Validity of the findings: The findings were supported by the genetic analyses that were performed, however, it would be very important to carry out other statistical methods to robust the study. Line 260. Yours findings suggest a panmictic population, they don’t show a metapopulation structure. “Metapopulations differ from the other structures in having regular extinction and recolonization events, source and sink populations. Metapopulations have different genetic consequences, typically having the worst genetic impacts (inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity) for the same total population sizes, especially in the long term”. See:
Crooks, K., & Sanjayan, M. (2006). Connectivity Conservation. (pp. 712). United
States of America, New York, Cambridge Univesity Press.
1)	Lines 261-267, 349-350. Both "Some subtle patterns of reduced connectivity between basins and a distinct directionality of gene flow in the Gulf of Mexico" and "east-west gene flow would indicate that Tuxpan reefs maybe a sink population", are a signal of a metapopulation structure, nevertheless, you should be cautious to the interpretation of results.
2)	Line 316. Please, add more information about the “polymorphic information content general average (0.597)”, you didn't mention it in the methods neither made reference to any table.
3)	Line 323. Both table 1and table 2 are not showing values average for the FIS index higher than 0.20, in that case, you should rewriter the discussion regarding real values the FIS index.
4)	Lines 345-348. Although high levels of connectivity found across the Mexican Caribbean and the southern Gulf of Mexico suggest that the genetic population of L. griseus is quite large and may be fairly robust to fishing pressure, the conclusion could be improved with a more detailed discussion of the background and a more cautious interpretation of results. Currently, the manuscript does not adequately address this issue.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for a meticulous study on the population genetic structure of gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus) from the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. The findings of this study are certainly a step forward in our knowledge of the population dynamics of that species commercially important, which is useful for establishing appropriate management and conservation. The conclusions based on the results are generally sound.


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 SPECIES OF THE GENUS SARSAMPHIASCUS HUYS, 2009 (COPEPODA: HARPACTICOIDA: MIRACIIDAE) FROM A SUBLITTORAL ZONE OF HAWAII
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - The second paragraph of the introduction is difficult to read.
- The description of the molecular methods can be more compact.
- All types collected are depositing in Korea not USA which is unusual for  me.
Experimental design: - Super high quality of the morphological parts.
- The molecular parts probably need some polish.
Validity of the findings: -  The neighbor joining tree (Fig. 7) is not necessary to my mind.
-  Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 is probably better to combine.
- I was confused by not finding a tree or a distance matrix for COI as 18S is not so informative for seeing difference between species.
Additional comments: - Some introduction words about undescribed diversity of these copepods as well as what is known about their patterns of distribution can help reader to understand importance of the work.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW SPECIES OF THE GENUS SARSAMPHIASCUS HUYS, 2009 (COPEPODA: HARPACTICOIDA: MIRACIIDAE) FROM A SUBLITTORAL ZONE OF HAWAII
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Phylogenetic analyses of Miraciidae and a new species creation have values to be published in an international journal. However, there are the following problems to be revised before acceptance.

1.	It is a rule for original research papers that an article has only one theme. The MS includes two different themes, i.e. (1) new species creation with a key to copepod species of a genus, and (2) phylogenetic analysis within a copepod family. These themes are independent. Because the theme (2) is considered to have higher impact to science than the theme (1), this MS should focus the theme (2). The theme (1) should be published as a different paper.

2.	The morphological description is rather redundant. Morphologies common to the genus and family, such as “rami three-segmented” in the descriptions of P1-4, should be omitted, and the diagnostic description should be limited to species-specific characters.

3.	Figures should be arranged according to the order cited in the text.

4.	Literature-based morphological comparison should never be concluded based on figures, except for morphologies that are easily recognizable.

5.	There are problems in terminology. These are noted in the specific comments.

Specific:
Line 111. The URL cannot be opened.

Line 159. “Cephalothorax” should read “Cephalosome”. The former means the 1st prosomite fused cephalosome and 1st pediger.

Lines 160-161. Descriptions should be presented from lateral to medial parts. Since seta is a singular noun, “one” of “one seta” should be deleted throughout the MS.

Line 161. Which part of seminal receptacle in Fig. 5B is “kidney-shaped”? Please show it by arrow in Fig. 5B.

Line 161. Fig. 1D, instead of Fig. 6A, should be cited here, because spinules rows are not seen in Fig. 6A.

Line 166. Seta I is unclear in Figs. 1D and 6E, F. Please add the setal numbers in Fig. 1D.

Line 174. Such the abbreviation “seg-1” is not defined and does not appear in Huys et al. (1996).

Line 176. Only 2 pinnate setae are observed on segment 2 in Fig. 2C. Where is the 3rd seta?

Lines 181-182. Delete “on basis, setal formula. 1.0.130”, because the number of setae is explained in the next sentence. Besides, the setal formula is wrong. (The correct formula is 1.0.4.)

Lines 186-187. I could not understand the one bare seta on exp-1 in Fig. 2E. It is recommended to erase the lines expressing shell thickness, by which the bare seta can be clear with a broken line.

Lines 192-193. Fig. 2G of maxilla is difficult to distinguish each endite and seta. Besides, the trapeziform allobasis without pointed spine-like tip seems unique (doubtful). Please reexamine the maxilla of the other specimen.

Line 195. The spinule number of the longitudinal spinular row appears 21 (not 20) in Fig. 2H. Such the spinule number is generally variable and therefore the definite number could not be presented except for a description on a single specimen. The spinular row appear not on the inner margin but on the medial surface.

Line 198. There are several spinular rows on the coxa. Why was only the row at outer corner described? This one is common to the genus.

Line 199. Use the same expression for “uni-pinnate”/“unipinnate” and “bi-pinnate”/”bipinnate” throughout the MS.

Line 199. The expression “fine spinules”, which is frequently used in the text, should read “setules” throughput the MS. Spinule means small “rigid” spiniform integumental element inserting a hole which is not passing through the integument, and the same but flexible slender one is called “setule”. By using “setules”, you can use simply “spinules” instead of “coarse spinules”. Delete “inner” because of the same word at Line 198.

Line 202. The phrase “with three outer spines and one long geniculate seta and one relatively short” is geniculate and unipinnate setae distally” is confusable. According to Fig.3A Consider “with three spines, mid one of them bare and others unipinnate, laterally and two unipinnate geniculate setae apically.”

Lines 198-208. The separate is too long. Separate it into three sentences, i.e., protopod, exopod, and endopod, to make it more readable. This is also the case for P2 – P4.

Line 210. What is “hyaline frills on inner distal margin”? It is not seen on exp-1 in Fig. 3B. This is also the case for P3 (Line 221).

Line 222-225. The expression is difficult to understand. Ornamentations of spines/setae should be deleted throughout the MS except for species-specific ones, because their ornamentation pattern is well illustrated in Fig. 4A and the setal formula is in Table 2. A necessary and sufficient description without repetition of the information is smartest and generally understandable.

Line 229-230. Inner setae on exp-1 and -2 in Fig. 4B look plumose (not pinnate).

Line 234. “endopod longer than exp-2” should read “endopod longer than exp-1 and exp-2 combined”.

L240. The three inner spines on the endopodal lobe look normal and not to have “forked tip” in Fig. 5A.

Line 242. The expression “one short bare seta with spinules along ...” is awkward, because bare seta does not have spinules.

Line 250. Inner projection on P1 basis in Fig. 3C is not “claw-like” but looks a naked spine. The figure should be re-drawn from a different angle.

Line 252. This sentence has two errors. It means that enp-2 has 6 spiniform setae. Locations of two spiniform setae are not “outer distal” but at mid-length of outer margin.

Lines 253-256. Terminology of seta/spine is wrong. Two apical elements on endopodal lobe are called “spines”, while two inner elements on exopod are called “setae” despite the same form as those on endopodal lobe.

Line 307. Since there have been no information about the L/W ratios of A1 segments of S. kawamurai except for illustrations, it is assumed that the 1.4 and 1.3 in this line were measured on these illustrations by the present authors. However, such the ratios based on illustrations are not always accurate because the segments are not always set horizontally on the slide. Therefore, the difference (1) should be removed from the characters distinguishing the two species.

Line 309. Difference (4), i.e. length of the seta of female P6, should also be removed because of the same reason. Length of illustrated seta is greatly reduced if it inclines.

Line 310. Microspinules may be overlooked under a light microscope and therefore the difference (5) is questionable.

Line 311. Illustrations of terminal caudal setae by Chang et al. (2009) and Sönmez & Karaytuğ (2014) were omitted except for the naked basal part. In the original description by Ueda & Nagai (2005), illustration of the setae was naked but they gave no information about the setal ornamentation. Since the ornamentation of setae has often been omitted in previous papers, it is unknown if the terminal caudal setae of S. kawamurai is naked. Consequently, the difference (6) is questionable.

Lines 311-312. A few spinules along distal margin of the caudal rami were also seen in illustrations by previous descriptions of S. kawamurai. Therefore, the difference (7) is questionable.

Lines 304-316. In conclusion, morphologies distinguishing the two species should be only (2) and (3). Specimen-based examination is necessary to adopt the other differences.

Line 319: According to Lang (1965), P6 outer spinule (=seta?) not naked but plumose. Therefore, the difference (3) is questionable. By the same reason as that in the comment at Line 311, the difference (4) is also questionable.

Line 320. Insert “caudal” before “terminal seta”.

Line 321. “number of seta” should read “number of apical setae”, because the setal number on A2 exp of S. undosus is also three. Anyway, this number is based only on the figure and therefore Lang (1965) may have overlooked the third thin apical seta and the difference (6) is questionable.

Lines 317-321. In conclusion, morphologies distinguishing the two species should be (1), (2) and (5).

Lines 334-335. This hypothesis cannot be understood. In general, early diverged species is closer to the ancestral species than later diverged species, which diverged from early diverged species. Accordingly, if the hypothesis is correct, the early diverged new species is closer to the ancestor than S. kawamurai and S. undosus. This means the ancestor has more elongate forms and more ornamented. If so, it is necessary to explain that the evolutionary trend is from elongate to less-elongate and from ornamented to less-ornamented. Anyway, such the phylogenetic consideration should not be made from morphologies but genetic results. This is also the case for the next paragraph (Lines 336-344).


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 SPECIES OF THE GENUS SARSAMPHIASCUS HUYS, 2009 (COPEPODA: HARPACTICOIDA: MIRACIIDAE) FROM A SUBLITTORAL ZONE OF HAWAII
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have prepared a well-crafted taxonomic manuscript of a new miraciid species from Hawaii, with inclusion of a taxonomic key for the genus Sarsamphsiascus.  They also performed a useful genetic analysis of new sequences from the genus and existing sequences from Genbank. The English language is clear for the readers and the data is accessible already.
Experimental design: The ratios mentioned in lines 325-329 are of critical importance to distinguish the species. A sense of variation from multiple measurements in the form of standard error would give the reader some confidence on these diagnostic characters.

The analyses of DNA data is reasonable given the purpose of the analysis and the availability of public data in this taxon. Phylogenetic studies in Miraciidae are badly needed and this a nice small step towards this direction. It is difficult to make substantial comments on the trees since I (and the authors) regard these topologies as preliminary.  I share their opinion on the need for additional work on the group. I am just curious why did the authors apply different nucleotide models in ML and NJ analysis.
Validity of the findings: Not clear if collection permits were obtained or were even necessary but I sincerely hope that no permits will ever be needed for meiofauna, generally.   There is no mention at all about the habitat (except sandy sediment) and I would like to see as many details as possible on that. Was this just a random sample while the author was in Hawaii or part of a bigger project? Is there a description of the type habitat in another project. Any other work on Harpacticoida or other meiofauna in nearby sites?

The drawings meet the modern standards of harpacticoid taxonomy and the SEMs add a little more information.

Table 1: a minor comment.  Can you indicate to the reader what the X and O represent?
Additional comments: Generally, this is a good taxonomic contribution and will be of interest on copepodologists working on these groups.


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: UNCERTAINTY IN GAP FILLING AND ESTIMATING THE ANNUAL SUM OF CARBON DIOXIDE EXCHANGE FOR THE DESERT TUGAI FOREST, EBINUR LAKE BASIN, NORTHWEST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript “Uncertainty in gap-filling and estimating the annual sum of carbon dioxide exchange for the desert Tugai forest, Ebinur Lake Basin, Northwest China” applied four different gap-filling methods to evaluate uncertainties in annual NEE over a desert forest in northwest China, to provide a robust flux estimate obtained from the eddy covariance measurements. In my opinion, the authors have done a good work (grammar in general, figures, and tables) but I still think the manuscript could be further improved and more clearly written.
Experimental design: Clearly described.
Validity of the findings: Please see more comments below.
Additional comments: General comments:
1.	Why did you choose these four particular gap-filling methods rather than others (e.g. the MDS method widely used in EuroFlux and ICOS flux networks) to assess the uncertainty? Do you have a reason for your preference? Please emphasize this more in your introduction.
2.	It would be great to stress more on how important this particular work is. For example, would the gap-filling uncertainty evaluation only apply for the desert forest? Or how applicable it will be at other types of ecosystems?
3.	Is the random error distribution applicable to other sites/ecosystems?
4.	Would it be possible to perform a simple marginal distribution sampling method (available at https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgi/index.php/Services/REddyProcWeb) to see how off/close this standard gap-filling method could be, compared to the four methods used in this manuscript.
5.	Language may need a bit more work. There are several places that are not clearly written or even misleading, please refer to the detailed comments and make changes where necessary.

Detailed comments:
Line 130: Suggest to add more details on gap distribution and attribution, e.g. are there any long gaps? How many “very short gaps”, “short gaps”, “medium gaps”, “long gaps” (e.g. refer to Moffat et al. 2007)?
Line 170: suggest to cite Papale et al. 2006 rather than Liu et al. 2010.
Line 188: suggest to change “The model” to “The gap-filling model”.
Line 194: It should be Papale and Valentini 2003.
Line 202: Please change it to “…by Schmidt et al. 2007”.
Line 208-209: It should be Gelman 2006, rather than Gelman and Andrew…
Line 271: what do you mean by “effective data points”?
Line 274: what’s the “effective” ratio? Please define.
Line 287: what do you mean by “theoretical and practical deficiencies” here? Please be specific.
Line 288: “…is filtered…”, not “filtering”
Line 290-291: awkward sentence. Suggest to rephrase it like “222 and 192 nighttime Fc data were eliminated by the u* threshold during the growing and non-growing seasons, respectively.”
Line 292-294: Did you remove the negative nighttime flux data? Why or why not?
Line 300: why “the best results”? Did you get other different results than the best ones?
Line 301-302: suggest to delete “with a difference of about 6%”, it’s so obvious that you don’t have to repeat here.
Line 314-316: This sentence is not clear, please rephrase it.
Line 319: how did you quantify the changes in the residuals and compared among the four methods?
Line 335-337: awkward sentence. Please reword it.
Line 342-348: Isn’t this part of methods?
Line 365-367: Reference? Is it assumed by others, or your own assumption?
Line 373: please delete the parentheses on “standard deviation”.
Line 387: “potential carbon sink in the most unlikely place on Earth”, please rephrase it in a logic way.
Line 388: Are you talking about the global missing carbon sink?
Line 387-392: This part reads more like introduction and motivation of your study, which is not recommended to be listed in discussion.
Line 396-400: what is point of comparing your study to a spruce forest?
Line 401-403: which model are you talking about here?
Line 403-407: Please reword it in a concise way, like “the R2 values obtained in this study are all xx% higher than the previous work (refs).”
Line 409-410: Suggest to move this sentence “Thus, …good.” somewhere at the beginning of this paragraph.
Line 451: please change “absorption” to “uptake”
Line 460: why this paragraph is separated from above?
Line 464: Are you indicating the thermal generated mechanism that was reflected by the air temperature difference? If so, please add one or two sentences to discuss more.
Line 501-502: You can’t make the conclusion that the four methods resulted in higher r2 and smaller rmse than previous techniques when you didn’t use any previous technique at your site, unless if you could prove that these gap-filling models are not site dependent. So please reword it.
Line 503-506: Are you in favor of using different gap-filling methods to estimate the uncertainty? Isn’t the random error distribution at your site another more important message that everybody could use for their desert forest sites in the future? Suggest to add more conclusive message that readers could benefit the most from your study.

Figure 1b, It looks like the tower is located on the lake, please modify the red dot. Please add a scale for figure 1c.
Figure 2 caption, FC, “C” should be subscripted. “…over two-month periods”
Figure 4: the asterisk of ustar on the y axis should be subscripted.
Figure 5: CO2 in the flux unit is wrongly written in the figure caption, please correct it. Suggest to label the name of gap-filling model in each figure panel too.
Table 4: It would be very nice to add the sums for growing and non-growing seasons to this table.


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: UNCERTAINTY IN GAP FILLING AND ESTIMATING THE ANNUAL SUM OF CARBON DIOXIDE EXCHANGE FOR THE DESERT TUGAI FOREST, EBINUR LAKE BASIN, NORTHWEST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the research is reported clearly and the ms indicates an appropriate and thorough approach to data collection and data analysis, with clear presentation of the core results. The results are of substantial interest to the  global terrestrial carbon cycle community, and the relevant literature is well referred to. One area that requires more information is over the site description (see below). However, the English language in several places needs improvement in order to encourage a wider readership, with some repetition, and unusual choice of words and in the clarity of structure and logic.  As an  example of the latter,  the introduction and rationale explained for the paper is not very strong – the eddy covariance  method has been used for several decades (not ‘few’, and not ‘gradually become’) and this has been due not just to the development of robust sonic anemometers, but because of robust gas analysers (not mentioned). ‘covariance of wind pulsation and physical pulsation’ is a strange phrase, ‘ covariance of fluctuations in vertical wind speed and gas concentration’ is a more normal way to describe the basis of the approach.  The list of ecosystems  measured is OK, but a single review paper (such as the Baldocchi one referred to earlier) would be a better reference than singling out particular examples from the hundreds available. The first paragraph ends by saying ‘few constant (continuous ?) observations of energy and material fluxes in arid desert ecosystems’ – which is true, but this paper doesn’t report energy balances only CO2 fluxes, so sets the reader with the wrong expectation. The 2nd para lists various factors that result in ‘data loss or abnormalities’, but omits the usually more frequent cause which is when the methodological assumptions are not met – e.g. limited turbulence, non-stationarity, and technical issues such as instrument resolution, frequency response. As the paper is presenting some novel data on the C balance of the Tugai forest ecosystem, it would have been useful to have some info on the extent of this habitat in the introduction to strengthen the case for the importance of these results.
Experimental design: The core eddy covariance methods and instruments and calculations described are very much standard in the C flux measurement field, appropriate and well carried out. However, more information on the ecosystem and site would be most helpful to readers, as most will be unfamiliar, and I found the information given rather confusing   For example, it was surprising that this study in a ‘continental arid climate zone’ is actually in a  ‘wetland reserve’ with the measurement site ‘on the bank of a river’ or ‘near the A. River… in a desert ecosystem influenced by lakes and rivers’. It is also described as an ‘estuary of strong winds’, which is not clear.  More info on the actual site and area being measured would be helpful, and necessary to understand and interpret the results. Is there a previous accessible publication from the project that could be referred to for details? ‘The dominant plants in this region…’ are given but does that mean the veg of the site and thus the vegetation CO2 flux being measured ? If Phragmites is on the site, then I am surprised that this is ‘arid’ and this vegetation  would seem more like swamp or riverine, possibly seasonal. Similarly, doesn’t presence of Populus euphratica suggest a phreatic vegetation type ?  The text only says that there are two ecosystems wetland and arid grassland-forest – was the site completely in the grassland-forest? Also it would be helpful to explain how much of the vegetation is evergreen – ( I looked up  Haloxylon which is, but presumably the poplar isn’t) – to understand the seasonal CO2 flux patterns. The aerial photo of the site (1c, taken when  in the year ? - a larger one of these would be more useful) does not  seem to show Phragmites, and it doesn’t look like 60% vegetation cover, although it is very easy to be misled by a photo. It would be helpful to know the seasonal pattern of vegetation cover as it probably varies greatly given the climate pattern. To understand the CO2 flux seasonality pattern shown in Fig 2 I suggest a first graph of the weather conditions during the year of measurements would be very useful – air temp, radiation, precip, wind speed.  Nothing is said about the soil type(s) present at the site. Also, I note that  the non-growing season is described as ‘Jan-April’ which seems to conflict with  Fig 3 which shows substantial CO2 uptake in March/April, and some even in Jan/feb.
The main gaps in the analysis description is that no mention is made of any frequency loss corrections made (but should be small for an open path set-up); the storage flux term (probably small given the vegetation type and height  – but should be stated, i.e. that they assume NEE = Fc, they do state 'total CO2 flux..' on l. 116 ) nor of the site fetch (the extent of the homogeneous area around the tower) nor of any footprint estimates or filtering for wind direction or filtering. If the site is near a river, then would it affect the flux measurements ?
NDVI information is used (l. 135) but no information about the data source.
Validity of the findings: Potentially a useful set of CO2 flux results for a novel or at least under-reported ecosystem type.
The authors have been open about the limitation of not having soil water content data to help explain the observed patterns, (around l. 425) which in an arid zone site is indeed a pity. Another limitation is that this is just one year of results, and interannual variation could be large; although this does not undermine the work it is not stated clearly or discussed. Neither are the conclusions clear about which gap-filling method is 'the best' for this data set..
Additional comments: The information on data set size, and how much ‘lost’ due to different problems and filtering could all be done more concisely and easily understood with a table.
Fig 2. – need to state if these mean Fc diurnal patterns are before/after u* or other filtering.
The stats in  figure 4 for night-time u* don’t agree with the statement l. 284 about which months are sig diff from others. Is this graph actually informative  as it depends on wind speed seasonality as well as vegetation characteristics ? a graph of u* threshold determinations might be more useful ? While establishing u* threshold is important step, is the estimated difference in u* threshold between seasons (0.10 and 0.12) significant ? The statement in the conclusion (l. 499) that ‘this approach prevented the u* from being affected by the roughness of the underlyng surface and vegetation’ is hard to understand and probably wrong. Is it trying to say that ‘Fc values that might have been affected by low u* were filtered out’? – but this is hardly a conclusion and a standard practice anyway.
Eng lang notes: ‘friction velocity’ not ‘friction vorticity’; ‘outliers’ not ‘wild spots’ l. 434. not clear what ‘mutation points’ means l.435?  Not usual to say ‘enormous differences’ but ‘very large’ (l. 383 , 447, 450.
Fig 5. Graph b with the GP method seems to represent the full range of scatter in the observations much better – the others all show upper and lower ‘limits’ or ‘saturation’ suggesting strong underestimation of large (in absolute sense) fluxes ? this doesn’t seem to agree with the comment that stats parameters all ‘very similar’ l. 303?.
Fig 6 – l. 305 says the gap filled Fc is more obvious diurnal patter’ – than what ? the un-filled – but not shown? Not easy to see differences between these plots.
The cumulative plots in Fig 8 are rather surprising, showing  net CO2 uptake even from February, for 3 of the methods at least.

The conclusion say that the aim was to provide a ‘reliable method’ for interpolation (l. 505) – but I was not left with your recommendation or conclusion of which method of those 4 examined is reliable ?
In the discussion it is important to note that the annual C balance established in this novel data set s just for one year – important given the inter-annual variation often observed in arid environments – particular with rainfall. Is it possible to compare the rainfall measured in 2015 with a longer term record for the site ?

The discussion compares C balance results here with the Californian oak/grass savanna, which seems a useful comparison, but also with a temperate spruce forest which seems an odd one to pick of the many forest sites. (l. 400 or so).


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: UNCERTAINTY IN GAP FILLING AND ESTIMATING THE ANNUAL SUM OF CARBON DIOXIDE EXCHANGE FOR THE DESERT TUGAI FOREST, EBINUR LAKE BASIN, NORTHWEST CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Improved language - see comments below re Fig 1 clarity
Experimental design: Interesting and unique data set and thorough analysis, but see comments below about clarifying what areas have been measured.
Validity of the findings: Thorough analysis, unique data set. Would benefit from more comment about basic results prior to the analysis and gap-filling.
Additional comments: This ms has been improved during the revision. Key changes have been inclusion of the ‘standard’ gap-filling MDS method among the methods tested, more information about the site including soils and weather conditions (Figs 1 & 2) and the English language has been improved.
Some issues that were noted before,  now stand out more clearly, however. Chief of these is that they have included a ‘footprint’ graph (in Fig 1, although it is very small and not very clea, the labelling on the contours is illegible  – I suggest this paper merits a clear aerial photo or satellite image of the site and the footprint separately – the previous version showed the tower and the vegetation, although this has been replaced by the footprint now). Fig 1 c  seems to show that the footprint covers both the river/green areas (is this a satellite image ? )  and the desert. I raised the question in the previous version – are the measured fluxes typical of a desert or of a riverine forest that they now mention (L. 113 “in the forest-desert transitional zone influenced by lakes and rivers”)? Is it “a desert-oasis ecotone” that they mention in their response to reviewers ?  Where they also mention “flux measurements influenced by the river is inevitable” – but this is not mentioned in the paper, which discusses the results as for a desert. Did they find any differences in fluxes when they looked at different directions or wind sectors ? (or was the wind direction very seasonal which makes such interpretation difficult ? ). If the river or riverine vegetation was in the footprint, it might affect fluxes as water can obviously be a source or sink of CO2 depending on chemistry and temperature etc. Clarifying what areas the fluxes were from would help readers wanting to understand desert C balances – which is stated as one of the aims of the work in the intro.
However, it seems from the way the paper is focussed  that the real aim is to compare different gap filling methods, and not to actually interpret or comment on the C balance info, which seems to be missing an important contribution of their unique data set. For example, no comment is made about the measured C uptake during the daytime  in Jan-Feb – despite the below zero temperatures and the low radiation at that time. Secondly, while they examine with statistical parameters the different gap filling methods, they don’t comment on their overall ability to follow the seasonal cycle as shown in Fig 10.  Only  HLM and MDS method seems to have an appropriate low/zero C accumulation in the winter, whereas the other methods have substantial uptake. I would suggest that the MDS pattern seems more ‘believable’  - but the authors know the site and the data they have, and should comment. The ANN method in particular shows a pronounced uptake in Feb – possibly coinciding with the Feb gap period ?  I also note that the final cumulated C values in this Fig 10 do not seem to agree with Table 7 values – in the figure HLM and RBF are similar, MDS the smallest, and GP and ANN the lowest.
Minor editorial points:
NDVI data source is only mentioned in a table and nothing about what spatial resolution and what frequency.
L. 263 repeats L. 248


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 RETROSPECTIVE STUDY COMPARING SUPER-MINI PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY AND FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF 20–30 MM RENAL STONES IN OBESE PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 3.	Flexible ureterocopy was not the first line choice for stone larger than 20mm, why would you compare RIRS with SMP in these patients with such a large stone burden?
Experimental design: it’s a pity that, the present study was a retrospective study, a prospective study was better.
2.	The enrolled cases in SMP group was limited, thus there might be some selective bias in the present study, please enroll more cases in SMP group.
Validity of the findings: The results in table 2 was not completed.
Additional comments: 1.	Interesting study, however, it’s a pity that, the present study was a retrospective study, a prospective study was better.
2.	The enrolled cases in SMP group was limited, thus there might be some selective bias in the present study, please enroll more cases in SMP group.
3.	Flexible ureterocopy was not the first line choice for stone larger than 20mm, why would you compare RIRS with SMP in these patients with such a large stone burden?
4.	Why the patients with body mass index (BMI)>30kg/m were concerned in the present study? Was there any special issue in SMP or RIRS in these patients?
5.	What’s your selection creteria for SMP and RIRS in these stone larger than 20mm?
6.	A KUB radiogram was performed 3 days postoperatively to assess the primary SFR in SMP group, how about the patients with tubeless-SMP? I think it would contribute to a longer hospital stay in SMP group when compared to RIRS.
7.	Why patients received RIRS stayed in hospital for 2.8 days after the operation?
8.	The results in table 2 was not completed.
9.	The discussion was not well presented.
10.	Crammer and spelling mistakes should be revised by native speaking guys.


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 RETROSPECTIVE STUDY COMPARING SUPER-MINI PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY AND FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF 20–30 MM RENAL STONES IN OBESE PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting topic in endourology, in which less invasive approaches in stone disease is studied to improve outcomes, lower complication rates and improve future techniques with the consideration to the costs at the same time also.
The authors are comparing between two procedures one that is widely used and another as a new alternative and less invasive to the traditional PCNL.
The overall English is good but needs to be revised and proofread in areas.
Experimental design: Single senior surgeon with patients
Few questions rise for the methods used and few recommendations:

1- Please check and explain 106-108, you mention use of semi-rigid ureteroscope in a SMP procedure?.
2- Were patients counseled only to choose between 2 procedures or not? and is this a routine way to treat stones of 20-30mm with FURS or SMP at your institution?
3- I recommend mentioning stone composition in addition to mentioning hardness of the stone by HU. That would add validity to your results.
Validity of the findings: The study does show interesting findings, few points:
1- In table 2, you mention that 22 patients out of 37 of the SMP group had complications, that does not reflect the number you give of 29.73%. On the other hand FURS had 12 patients out of 104 (11.54%)
2- Please stratify by type of complication and compare between both groups to give a better understanding what are the more to less common complications in each group.
3- In the discussion, please discuss further about the reason postop stay was longer in SMP.
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: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY COMPARING SUPER-MINI PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY AND FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF 20–30 MM RENAL STONES IN OBESE PATIENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Grammer and spelling still require major revison.
Experimental design: The sample size in SMP group was a little bit small.
Retrospective study had potential flaws.
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: I did not get the response for my previous question. Please send it to the editors and transfer to me, thanks.
1. Interesting study, however, it’s a pity that, the present study was a retrospective study, a prospective study was better.
 2. The enrolled cases in SMP group was limited, thus there might be some selective bias in the present study, please enroll more cases in SMP group.
 3. Flexible ureterocopy was not the first line choice for stone larger than 20mm, why would you compare RIRS with SMP in these patients with such a large stone burden?
 4. Why the patients with body mass index (BMI)>30kg/m were concerned in the present study? Was there any special issue in SMP or RIRS in these patients?
 5. What’s your selection creteria for SMP and RIRS in these stone larger than 20mm?
 6. A KUB radiogram was performed 3 days postoperatively to assess the primary SFR in SMP group, how about the patients with tubeless-SMP? I think it would contribute to a longer hospital stay in SMP group when compared to RIRS.
 7. Why patients received RIRS stayed in hospital for 2.8 days after the operation?
 8. The results in table 2 was not completed.
 9. The discussion was not well presented.
 10. Crammer and spelling mistakes should be revised by native speaking guys.


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 RETROSPECTIVE STUDY COMPARING SUPER-MINI PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY AND FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF 20–30 MM RENAL STONES IN OBESE PATIENTS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revison had great improvement than the previous one in language and spelling, it could be better after native speaking editor's revision.
In the introduction, the indications for RIRS and SMP should be clarified, why 2-3cm stone received RIRS? Why obese patients were selected in this study?
Experimental design: The sample size should be clarified.
Validity of the findings: The detailed  complications in both groups should be presented, as well as the total SFR.
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: RURAL CHILDREN REMAIN MORE AT RISK OF ACUTE MALNUTRITION FOLLOWING EXIT FROM COMMUNITY BASED MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE MALNUTRITION PROGRAM IN SOUTH GONDAR ZONE, AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: •	The write-up is clear and understandable.
•	The format is well addressed and coherent.
•	Literature well referenced, however old references have been cited (Line 54),
•	Acronyms are not fully written for the first time SAM and MAM (Line 56), SPHERE hand book (Line 67),
•	Results are presented in subtitle which is good to catch up ideas easily.
•	Factors associated with acute malnutrition (Line 278, particularly from 279-283) looks long and vague. Pls try shortening.
•	Maintain tables number order based on the position in the main document
•	In all tables, good to indicate chi-square and p-values)
•	The missing cells in Logistic regression table for certain variables are not clear. Why is that? How do we compare the recovered and comparison groups?
•	The figure is very attractive and speaks properly.
Experimental design: •	A well-defined research questions and well planned to full fill the gaps of the area.
•	The research seems to be original in nature, since the authors explained that the program is intervened in the area recently. So they explored the impact of the program.
•	The methods are very detail and tried to clarify all step by step. However, some parts are too detail, like data management and analysis. If too long readers may not be interested to read by looking the large number of pages.
•	Operational definition needs to be referenced.
•	In the statistical analysis, I recommend the ANOVA for the two groups. Explain why you didn’t consider?
•	Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard. Authors indicated the ethical procedures with reference letter. I appreciated refereeing children to OTP if child MUAC was <11.0cm, and/or the child had edema.
•	Why respondents from both groups only female by their gender? Was it intentional or any other justification? (Line 251-252)
•	A very long discussion which explored everything in detail. It has to shorten as much as possible within 2-4 pages with the most relevant ones.
Validity of the findings: •	Recall to immunization status of the child exposed to some level of bias of recall. (Line 142-143).
•	Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question, but in line 492, “take home ration with strict follow up” is that a sustainable and feasible intervention?
•	Your conclusion should be focused based on the variables you identified as significant to SAM in recovered children.
Additional comments: I found this study is a well comprehensive and well explored which is relevant for developing countries where nutrition is their big concerns.


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: RURAL CHILDREN REMAIN MORE AT RISK OF ACUTE MALNUTRITION FOLLOWING EXIT FROM COMMUNITY BASED MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE MALNUTRITION PROGRAM IN SOUTH GONDAR ZONE, AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally the manuscript English language utilization is good but needs minor correction on the following point:
a. Sentence from line 57-61 is long and difficult to understand
b. Sentence on line 73 needs grammatical correction, better if you rewrite in such away ‘children discharged after recovery needs to be followed longitudinally to assess improvements over time’
c. A sentence from line 130-134 need to be break down into two for more clarity.
	On line 262 replace 4/5th by ‘four fifth’
d. A paragraph from line 309-339 is very long with multiple idea which needs reorganization.
e. At the end of line 387 put full stop.
The context of is well described even though some of the reference were very old even beyond 10 year ago. In addition it is good to incorporate the magnitude of acute malnutrition in the general population (first episode which is the comparative population in your study) and nothing was mentioned about the factors. The availability of raw data made the authors genuine for the scientific world and incorporating short description will made it easily understandable.
Tables:
   - Avoid back ground coloring
   - Correct the table numbering since all were labeled as ‘table 1’
   - The variables ANC, palace of birth, FP, Food consumption at pregnancy & lactation are not in line with table title ‘socioeconomic and demographic….’
  - Incorporate the population (children age 6-59 mothers) on the title of the table of associated factors.
Figure: put the title of the figure below the figure.
Experimental design: The method section is well constructed but the following improvements are needed:
a.	Indicate the study period
b.	Provide the source for the information mentioned under the study setting
c.	Avoid the title from the study design since it is repetition
d.	Why don’t you consider previous study magnitude of acute malnutrition among the general population rather than taking 10% mean difference during sample size determination?
e.	Why the urban district was totally removed during the sampling procedure? If they have to be removed the title and study population should be corrected considering only the rural district.
f.	The last paragraph under sample size determination and procedure is better to under data collection procedure.
Validity of the findings: Result:
a. Is child age included under multivariable binary logistic regression as stated on line 280 & 281, if so why since p>0.2
Discussion:
a.	The first statement is not relevant better to be removed.
b.	For the statement from line 309-312 put the reference.
c.	On line 315&316 it was stated that as ‘none of the recovered children were linked to supplementary feeding programs’ but nothing was mentioned about it in the result section?
d.	Maternal educational attainment, preparing child food separately and receiving child food preparation training were stated as possible explanation district difference of acute malnutrition. Why?
e.	Incorporate the possible explanation for colostrum feeding and acute malnutrition
f.	How safe child feces disposal increase the odds of acute malnutrition? Put possible explanation.
g.	Household food insecurity was mentioned as one of the factors but not well discussed. In addition socioeconomic status was indicated as a possible explanation while noting was mention in the result section. How?
Conclusion & recommendation: under this linking to supplementary feeding program, home take ration with strict follow up were recommended whereas nothing were stated in the result.
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: RURAL CHILDREN REMAIN MORE AT RISK OF ACUTE MALNUTRITION FOLLOWING EXIT FROM COMMUNITY BASED MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE MALNUTRITION PROGRAM IN SOUTH GONDAR ZONE, AMHARA REGION, ETHIOPIA: A COMPARATIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: Thank you for considering most of the comment forwarded previously. But still I do have doubt on the generalizability of the study finding to both the urban and rural area. Because your sample population considered only the rural area due to the mentioned reason on your response. So that it better to indicate as the study only covered rural area in the title and population for the seek of generalizability.
Validity of the findings: The authors tried their best to improve the study in meeting the standard. Here I do have some issues:-
1. The first one is with regard the criteria used to select variables for the final model, in which both statistical and theoretical criteria. So that the authors followed double standard in selecting the variables, for instance age was selected based on the their theoretical knowledge where as the rest were selected using statistical criteria(p-value<0.2). This is introducing error or bias as far as my knowledge. Therefore, they should follow similar criteria in selecting  all variables.
2. The second one is with regarding the conclusion  and recommendation, in which the authors need to conclude and recommend based on the finding of the study. So that better to remove issus mentioned about supplementary feeding program and home take ration.
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: SURVIVAL OF SIDE GRAFTS WITH SCIONS FROM PURE SPECIES PINUS ENGELMANNII CARR. AND THE P. ENGELMANNII × P. ARIZONICA ENGELM. VAR. ARIZONICA HYBRID
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is relatively clear and relevant from the scientific point of view. The objective is relevant, but the purpose of morphological analysis should be explained earlier in the subsection, for example, in hypothesis, and incorporate in general objective. Some correction of language is needed.

Some tables and figures are described insufficiently making their interpretation incomplete.
Table 1. Define the value after the means. Is this SD? This is necessary to describe.
Fig. 2. The same comment: whiskers should be described.
Fig. 3. It is necessary to indicate the basis of the figure and describe what the scatter means in this case.
Experimental design: Some parts of the experimental design are not well explained. It is unclear, how many grafts were made, because the numbers in the manuscript does not correspond the experimental design. The authors wrote "120 grafts were made using Pinus engelmannii rootstock; 60 grafts were done with scions from hybrid-donor trees and the other 60 with scions from pure trees". But the second part of the experiment includes 20 scions from 2 parts of 6 trees (3 pure species and 3 hybrids). Isn't it 240 trees, 120 per species/hybrid variant? This should be explained.

The terms "high hybridization" and  "degree of hybridization" should be clarified. Does this relate to F1, introgression or AFLP analysis? This is important, because scions were collected based on this information.
Validity of the findings: Some intermediate and final conclusions are doubtful.
It is impossible to draw a conclusion about the effect of the graft height on probability of survival from an experiment with a relatively uniform rootstocks and scions (L438-439). This would be possible if they had obviously different parameters. If they really had, this is unclear from the experiment description.

It is unclear, why the authors consider incompatibility as the probable cause of the graft death. As was fairly pointed out in the "Materials@Methods", there are many factors affecting the survival of grafts. This is especially noticeable against the fact that no biological differences between species and hybrids were described in the article, and we could not make any assumptions about the nature of the incompatibility.

L428-430 This is a trend here, and it’s normal to mention it, but the authors need to clearly indicate that this is a trend. The words "arithmetically higher" sound doubtful.
It is known, that in many species the crown part from which the scion originates is important not only for graft survival, but also for the graft growth form (Araucaria sp., Tectona grandis). In other species, this phenomenon is not observed, like in this manuscript. The biology of the species is very important in this case. The authors could name some of the distinguishing traits of P. engelmannii and P. arizonica that led to this result. This also could explain why P. engelmannii has low graft survival. Indeed, some species are best propagated by grafting, and some by cuttings. What about P. engelmannii? Maybe that is why it is so poorly propagated by grafting? And could it happen that P. arizonica is propagated better by grafting, so their hybrids have greater survival in grafts? All this doubts could be solved by the proper description of both species.
Additional comments: ## Major Comments
The author have to mention both parent species when talking about hybrids, not only "hybrids of Pinus engelmannii".
The term "pure trees" is incorrect, it can be misinterpreted as a tree without grafting. Pure species is correct, this term is often used in high-ranked journals (Sujii et al., 2019; Baena-Díaz et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018).
In the Discussion the main points of the results or first part of them should be briefly summarized before comparing them with others.
It is important to say how hybrids differ from pure species and whether there are advantages in their plantation planting. Do they grow better or not? The aspects of adaptation is well described, but morphology is also important. The main thing is to make it clear whether it makes sense to replace species with hybrids in specific cases of plantation planting.
It would be good to see in Materials@Methods main morphological characteristics of the species and hybrids, as well as the parameters of donor trees, including their approximate age and height.

## Specific Comments
L84-85 Please define the early stage of development and indicate the age of initiation of reproduction in the grafts.
L90 Cross is correct term, not cross-linking.
Fig. 1 Please do not use the same letters, if there are no differences anywhere, just write it in the legend. The whiskers need to be identified.
L297 Since several samples are being compared, the Bonferroni correction should have been applied in all cases of comparison, and this is specified in the methodology. Is there a reason, why this is mentioned in this case?
L303 P-value varies between the text and the figure.
Do not provide a reference to the same figure or table in the same subsection several times, one reference is enough.


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: SURVIVAL OF SIDE GRAFTS WITH SCIONS FROM PURE SPECIES PINUS ENGELMANNII CARR. AND THE P. ENGELMANNII × P. ARIZONICA ENGELM. VAR. ARIZONICA HYBRID
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) The article is well written, using clear and technical correct text.
2) The introduction presents a good background referred to the situation of forest species in Mexico and the problem of the loss of forest area as posing a study that can help implement the solution to this problem. However, the main objective is the study of the response to the graft and the various factors that might influence and determine the success of this propagation, and on this issue there are some suggestions:
As specified in lines 79-82, there are several factors involved in the success of coniferous grafting, including graft compatibility, as the author explains in one of the references (Pera Luna et al., 2019). The introduction should be improved at this point in more detail. Between lines 83 and 87, there are some references to this problem but refer to other species.
If the exit of the graft depends of several factors, including compatibility, this aspect must be resolved at the beginning of the approach, to ensure the results obtained in the work.
I suggest that some references related to the graft behavior of the species involved in this study be included, to focus the work and the results obtained in a successful graft response, without the interference of a possible incompatibility response.
In line 92, some references say the opposite of the sentence, the sentence should be rewritten to know better where the lack of studies on the use of hybrids in conifers is.
In line 94-96 there are references to studies in fruits and vegetables, but the three references are two of tomato and one of melon, not fruits.

3) Table 2 should be explained in more detailed. First they explain that exclude the height of the rootstock, and then conclude that there are no dasometric variables affecting mortality  of grafts, referred to Table 2, but do not explain how it reached this conclusion
Experimental design: 1) The grafting process has practical applications in various crop production and analysis of the mechanisms involved it is relevant to many interesting questions in the development of plants.
2) The research question is well defined. The main objective of this work is to elucidate the implication of some factors involved in the success of the graft. However, the authors apply a methodology based on statistical models to assess the probability of occurrence of successful grafts. But there is no mention in the state of the art of previous studies using this methodology, or the novelty that means applying these models. I suggest the inclusion of some reference concerning the application of these models in other studies, to better understand how this study helps fill the research question.
3) The investigation has been conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard.
4) The methods are described with enough information for another researcher to reproduce.
However, in some cases there are too many details; e.j the location by coordinates of the institute where the grafts were made is not relevant.
Some sentences are not well formulated: line 111: "Therefore, at the time of grafting, the rootstock was 2.5 years old." This date is not a consequence of the treatment explained above.
Until line 121, it seems that the selection of plant material between hybrids and pure lines was made only by visual selection. But on line 122, it is revealed that the selection was made after the use of molecular markers of type AFLP. I suggest rewriting the sentence.

Some photography would be useful to understand the dasometric variables, for example referring to the length of the stem. Root Height? And graft height, with respect to what? It is not clear what these variables refer to.
The assessment of the models is explained very widely. I am not familiar with this methodology, so I cannot assure you that it has been applied correctly.
Validity of the findings: 1) The novelty of the results is clear, then on the assumption made, results are discarded that do not provide answers and study new possibilities arise with the applied models. In my opinion, they should focus on the novelty of the results in this regard on the findings of work.
2) The conclusions are well stated linked to the original research. Only the reference to the ‘incompatibility’ should be considered. It is not the same the survival rate of the grafts and the graft incompatibility response. The graft incompatibility response is related to the genetic of the both combinations, and the survival of the graft combinations, and the studies related to this hypothesis, are not involved with the graft response.
As no compatibility studies have been done, my suggestion is that the conclusions should not refer to this response, and they should be mention in the introduction, previous studies that  have been done in this type of combinations
The conclusions do not refer to the models used to estimate odds ratios and hazard ratio to know the effects of the variables studied, and they are an important part of the results. It should be mentioned in the conclusions.

The article is novel and addresses a topic of interest for the propagation of species. It is well structured and activities are well directed. However, revisions on some topics are required to strengthen the hypothesis and the studies performed. It is necessary to differentiate compatibility problems from graft success, as well as provide prior information on compatibility work in these species. And to place the results of models in a context to previous work and the novelty that it implies.
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: REFORMING TEACHING METHODS BY INTEGRATING DENTAL THEORY WITH CLINICAL PRACTICE FOR DENTAL STUDENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I find the basic reporting of the study to be very descriptive and realistic.  It made
me feel that I had a good understanding of what was going to be tested.  For those of us not familiar with Chinese dental education an additional sentence beyond "traditional" might help.
Experimental design: I am a little concerned on several aspects.  It sounds like the "graders" were those who were running the test.  Would it not have been better to have 3rd party, uninvolved graders or at a minimum faculty in the "traditional " curriculum to grade.  In my opinion there is a bias with the faculty being the graders.

The other item that I would ask is having  a patient survey at the end of the exercise. If the goal is to make the dental student more effective in communicating, shouldn't the patient be the ultimate grader in how successful the student was in communication of the necessary treatment.

Finally, for this teaching method to be successful, should more steps have been utilized before the students met the patient.  For example, role play guidelines, how to critique a role play, and even starting with a non dental scenario to better make the student comfortable with role play.. In the discussion section the statement is made "Many students lack adaptability to this training method."  This is a significant statement that raises many questions for me.  How could you make this method more suitable for those students?  What facts led to this statement?

Sample size is reasonable for this type of experiment.
Validity of the findings: I believe that the findings are valid, but the significance needs to be considered.  Does the time exist in the dental curriculum to use the PBL approach?  How man and which procedures would you use this for?  Does this run contrary to an "evidence based treatment planning" curriculum or does it supplement it?

Finally, the statement regarding "many students lack adaptability...…." tells me that maybe the students chosen for dental school do not have the skills to be good communicators.   Perhaps we should be selecting for other skills and abilities.
Additional comments: Well written and it follows nicely.


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: REFORMING TEACHING METHODS BY INTEGRATING DENTAL THEORY WITH CLINICAL PRACTICE FOR DENTAL STUDENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: The purpose of this study entitled “A teaching reform for integrating oral theory with clinical practice for dental students” written by Wei Wang, Xuewei Bi Yuhe Zhu, Xiaoming Li was to designed to explore the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) as a teaching method in dental education compared to traditional methods.

The concept of PBL was developed in the late 1960s, and the past fifty years it has been shown to be superior to traditional methods. It used globally, as a small-group teaching approach, requires students to use information to solve a problem, which is more effective than learning by reading or listening. In this approach, students are more active and thus can develop a variety of skills, such as teamwork, problem formulation, information finding, discussion and explanation of new information to others, decision making, and conclusion formulation.

In general, this manuscript has minor potentials, but in the present form is quite weak, lacks several important information and measures statistics of the surveys and knowledge quiz (validity and reliability data) and does not add very much to the literature on PBL that has not been gained from other studies.

Introduction should be rewritten to provide more in-depth discussion on theoretical background of PBL in dental clinical education. The literature review, as presented, is scant and requires a much larger explanation of the elements of PBL for dental education. By including this information, you can strengthen your rationale, and justification for the use of a PBL in the context of your study.

The description of specific dental course at your University is missing. It is difficult to place your session in the context of medical curriculum in Europe and US. Since PeerJ is a globally recognized education journal, the description of your specific dental course in your University (both dental) and learning environment for should be provided in more details. For example, how many total hours student have of PBL in the experimental vs. “traditional” curriculum.

In the quantitate analysis there is weak description of the rationale for using specific statistical tests in this study. More robust statistical tests should be used to compare examination performance for all cohorts. Effect sizes should be reported using Cohen’s d or other statistical methods.
Issue of the survey instrument and knowledge quiz. There are no scientific descriptions of used survey questionnaires or knowledge quiz. Kendall’s tau B and Cronbach’s alpha should be used to assess the validity and reliability (respectively) of each instrument. Also, how the tool was developed and tested is important. The survey tool needs to be strengthened and revised in order to position it to measure the effectiveness of PBL.

There is no mention of the survey platform utilized to collect responses (e.g. Qualtrics, Google Forms). Include this so that readers may understand more about how the experiment was performed.
Also, knowledge quiz should be available either for reviewers either as an appendix or supplementary material to the manuscript for readers.

Discussion is also one of the weakest parts of this paper. It is disorganized and some section of discussion should be shifted to introduction. Your discussion needs to provide a basis for interpreting the results as either a paradigm-shifting or incremental contribution to the field. This is currently missing. Please also interpret results (in the Discussion section) through the lens of the theoretical framework for PBL in dental clinical education more accurately.

A separate paragraph on limitation of your study should be provided at the end of discussion for readers.

Figure issues: Current versions are not acceptable for publication: each one should have header row with well-defined columns. For qualitative reporting max 2-3 quotations should be chosen to support the selected theme. Descriptive demographics should be presented in the table: age (mean +/-SD) sex). Peer J does not accept figures in present quality. All figures should be in uniform style as graph and horizontal or vertical 2D bars with both X and Y axes visible and labeled.

A predominant view in educational research surveys is to include five or more response anchors in your survey items (you have only 2 or 3). You will need to discuss this as a limitation in your discussion section.

The bibliography for this research manuscript was submitted in a messy and sloppy format. There were mistakes in dates, names, in addition to wrong in-text citations. The bibliography is really skimpy and insufficient for PeerJ journal which is evidence-based driven. Many recent and important literature positions in the field of dental PBL education were omitted. Reviewer feel that many more positions of bibliography should be reviewed for introduction and discussion.

Lastly, numerous grammatical errors were noted throughout the manuscript. Please carefully review and revise.


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: REFORMING TEACHING METHODS BY INTEGRATING DENTAL THEORY WITH CLINICAL PRACTICE FOR DENTAL STUDENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. The current way of presenting the contents seems to be more of the result of direct translation from Chinese to English, rather than an manuscript that was being targeted directly to a more broad audience.
1.1	The term “oral theory” (possibly just referring to the anatomy of the oral cavity) that the authors use seems to be in fact the “dental theory/knowledge” (the science of dentistry), although the Chinese translation of both terms seems to be similar. Clearly that the whole manuscript is about applying the dental knowledge to practice and building up clinical reasoning competences for the students.
1.2	The authors should be clearer about their idea on what “the communication with patients is not enough” means in line 35-36, it could be the limit of time for the students to communicate with the patients, or they did not receive enough training time on communicating with patients.
1.3	The terms “theoretical course” and “theoretical knowledge” has appeared multiple times in the manuscript, as well as in the title of the manuscript. Such expression could be confusing, and difficult for readers to understand. I believe that such terms might actually means the dental knowledge of such students to be able to recall and explain certain professional contents, and the ability to analyze and/or apply such contents to solve certain problems (clinical reasoning). As skills (or competences) and be categorized into cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains, I do suggest using words such as cognitive, knowledge.
1.4	It is recommended to use the term “clinical reasoning” rather than “clinical thinking” in lines 204 – 208, as the former is a more broadly accepted term to use.

2.	Thorough references should be made to overall manuscript to show strong support of the rationales for implementation of such a project and implications for influence regarding the curriculum/curricula reform for the dental trainees.
2.1	The authors have a comprehensive description in the introduction part, yet the approach the authors made to this part needs further improvement regarding how the whole literature review part is being structured and referenced. Further reference should be made to the background of the current teaching and learning status of the dental students (lines 33 – 43) and the gaps the authors have identified (lines 65 – 85).
2.2	The author teams have come up with a very interesting conclusions from the project, however, when it comes to associating the results with the current knowledge previously identified, strong existing evidences should be shown in the discussion part, especially from line 220 to line 245. One recommendation regarding the references that should be included is that the authors should seek to include references that had described about the competences of the physicians/dentists. D Xu et al (The Lancet, 2010,375(9725), 1502-1504), S Baozhi et al (Medical teacher, 2003, 25(4), 422-427), D Xu et al (Journal of problem based Learning in Higher Education,2013,  1(1), 72-83) and many others are among the articles published by Chinese scholars and medical educators that had done intensive studies regarding the competency framework in the Chinese setting as well as learning approaches such as PBL.

3.	There seems to be an overlap between the Materials & Methods and Evaluations, Results. The Materials & Methods part should be a clear and brief. Parts of the “Design of the training protocol” can be rearranged to the results part, as how the PBL training was actually planned and implemented can actually be regarded as part of the results/product that you produce after the project.
Experimental design: This novel experiment is within the scope of the PeerJ Journal, and it answered the question of how PBL can be integrated in the dental undergraduate curriculum in China and it touched on the sub-topic of testing on the effectiveness and efficacy of such modification.
Validity of the findings: The authors should include statistical analysis of the result regarding "Paper examination results of the clinical-simulation PBL training group and the control group". Otherwise, drawing the conclusion of having significant difference between the two groups will not be possible
Additional comments: The manuscript is overall acceptable as a novel study, and hearing voice from China in areas of medical education is good. It would be good if the author team can have someone with expertise in medical education and educational theories, as this manuscript falls directly into the area of medical education innovation and reform in China. And there are certain scholars from China (even from the China Medical University) available for the author team to make contact with regarding reviewing your manuscript before you re-submitting the edited manuscript to make it strong with a strong support of educational framework or evidence.


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: NOTES ON THE CHEEK REGION OF THE LATE JURASSIC THEROPOD DINOSAUR ALLOSAURUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors describe several interesting features of the well-known theropod dinosaur Allosaurus and analyze some characters that have been used on phylogenetic analyses of this taxon. The intraspecific variability of this taxon is a topic that has been broadly discussed. This work adds important data to the knowledge of the cranial anatomy of Allosaurus as well as to the taxonomic and phylogenetic interpretation of some cranial features, especially related with the European species Allosaurus europaeus.
The manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language, the literature references are updated, the context is well described.
Experimental design: This is an original research, the questions are well defined, relevant and meaningful, the investigation is rigorous and the methods are described with sufficient detail.
Validity of the findings: The figures are high quality, well labeled, and described, and the conclusions are relevant and well stated.
Additional comments: I made some notes directly on the manuscript. Apart from these notes, I have only few additional comments and suggestions:
- On page 7, line 70, I think you should include the references of Yun. (2019), Carrano, Loewen, and Evers. (2018), and Carpenter and Paul (2015) to the case.
- On page 8, the phrase on lines 90 – 95 is too large, I suggest splitting it in two.
- Along the manuscript you use Allosaurus “jimmadsoni”, but the name proposed by Chure (2000) is Allosaurus “jimmadseni”.

Apart from this, I strongly recommend the publication of this manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: NOTES ON THE CHEEK REGION OF THE LATE JURASSIC THEROPOD DINOSAUR ALLOSAURUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I find no particular faults with the structure of the paper, the quality of the text, or the soundness of the arguments.

The relevant literature is extensively cited.

The figures provided are necessary and sufficient to make their case.
Experimental design: Their observations are sufficiently well documented to be replicable by other workers. Indeed, by using high-quality photographs rather than interpretative drawings they will help to rectify the particular problems concerning the interpretation of the anatomy of the jugal that this paper is meant to address.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions of the authors are sound, and will aid in future studies of theropod dinosaur anatomy and taxonomy.
Additional comments: The authors should be congratulated on this brief review of just one relatively small section of the skull that nevertheless has important implications for theropod taxonomy and systematics. Their work helps to correct a very, very widespread anatomical misinterpretation (they note a number of different researchers and studies which used this misinterpretation). Their observations are strongly supported and documented.

I see very little to recommend in changing for a published version of this. There are a couple of typographic errors that I noted. One is spread throughtout the text, and the other is a minor one.

The first of these concerns the as-yet-not-formally-named second North American species of Allosaurus. The proper spelling of the forthcoming new Allosaurus species is “jimmadseni”. That said, even though this is the worst-kept secret in theropod taxonomy, I think it might be better to not refer to this forthcoming taxon by name. I have heard that Chure is working with additional colleagues to finally get this name published, but I do not know the status of that paper. So it might be better to refer to it as “Allosaurus Morrison sp. 2” or something of that nature. Invertebrate paleontologists and micropaleontologists seem comfortable in referring to unnamed “sp. 2” and the like until the formal names are applied, so it might be useful for vertebrate paleontologists to do so as well.

Line 110:	A typographic error: “Ceveland” for “Cleveland”

The observations documented here will be very helpful in future studies, both with regards to the external antorbital fossa configuration and the internal pneumatic structures.

I am intrigued by the possibility that A. europaeus might not be separable from one or the other North American species.


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

Input:
Title: NOTES ON THE CHEEK REGION OF THE LATE JURASSIC THEROPOD DINOSAUR ALLOSAURUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written, clear and based on useful observations, and references. The revisions are very simple and straight forward:
L.72 and figure captions: The spelling "jimmadsoni" should be "jimmadseni" after the Jim Madsen and according to Chure (2000: p. 22).
L. 118: Missing "ML"
L. 171, 304 and others: please use lower case after colon punctuation (:).
L. 476: space "from the"Figure 6 captions: clarify the Allosaurus species.
It would be interesting to hear comments about the validity of A. jimmadseni, A. atrox, A. amplus, A. lucasi  and contributions to the diagnosis (synapomorphies) of the genus and each one of the species.
Experimental design: The MS is based in specimen observations, that seem accurated.
Validity of the findings: The results seem valid.
Additional comments: The article is well written, clear and based on useful observations, and references. The revisions are very simple and straight forward:
L.72 and figure captions: The spelling "jimmadsoni" should be "jimmadseni" after the Jim Madsen and according to Chure (2000: p. 22).
L. 118: Missing "ML"
L. 171, 304 and others: please use lower case after colon punctuation (:).
L. 476: space "from the"Figure 6 captions: clarify the Allosaurus species.
It would be interesting to hear comments about the validity of A. jimmadseni, A. atrox, A. amplus, A. lucasi  and contributions to the diagnosis (synapomorphies) of the genus and each one of the species.


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

Input:
Title: COMPARISON OF ROUTINE HEMATOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF LIVER AND KIDNEY FUNCTION, BLOOD COUNT AND LIPID PROFILE IN HEALTHY PEOPLE AND STROKE PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well organized, however, the English language should be improved thoroughly. Some sentences are ambiguous, as listed below.

The introduction and background are clear and correctly referenced.

The structure of the manuscript conforms to PeerJ standards and discipline norm.

Figures are relevant, and appropriately labeled and described. All raw data are available.

The manuscript is self-contained and includes all relevant results.
Experimental design: The research is original, within Aims and Scope of the journal.

The research question is clearly defined, relevant and meaningful.

More details of the methods for statistical analysis should be described.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided and conclusions are well stated.
Additional comments: In the manuscript (#42702) entitled “Comparison of routine hematological indicators of liver and kidney function, blood count and lipid
profile in healthy people and stroke patients”, the authors systematically studied more than forty clinical indicators in 41 ischemic stroke patients with no other severe complications and 80 healthy people. Using statistical analysis, correlation analysis, and principal component analysis, the authors found abnormalities in conventional hematological clinical indicators in the stroke patients compared with the health people, such as red blood cell width distribution, platelet large cell ratio, and albumin concentration. Some of these differences are significant, and the patients and the health people can be clearly distinguished with sophisticated data analysis. Therefore, the detection and analyzation of these low-cost routine clinical indicators has great significance for risk prediction, early diagnosis and management of ischemic stroke.

Moderate comments:

1. The authors used the word “significantly” a lot in describing the difference in clinical indicators between patients and healthy people, mainly based on the P value. However, we know it has drawbacks to present and interpret results using P values. For example, although they all have a P value smaller than 0.01, the difference in RDW-CV is so obvious, but in LY is not large (in my opinion) and the P values could be flipped between significant and non-significant with different sets of data of the same parameter, especially when the sampling size is not large enough. The authors may consider using more neutral words to describe their results.

2. The method for statistical data analysis has not been described clearly. There is no description of box plots in the legends for Figs. 1−3. What type of correlation did the authors use? For PCA, did you use raw data or standardized data?

3. The authors could add another panel in Fig. 4, showing the difference in correlation coefficients between patients and health people. The dominant pairs will stand out by themselves, and it will be easier for the authors to interpret and audiences to get the information.

Minor changes to make the description more clear

Font size of Axis Labels in Figs 1, 2 is too small to read

“TP” is not mentioned in Fig 2 Legend

Lines 33-34. Reorganize the sentences “To evaluate … the statistic analysis” to “In this paper, we carried out statistical analysis, correlation analysis and principal component analysis to evaluated the clinical value of routine hematological indicators in early diagnosis of ischemic stroke using R language”

Line 38. Reorganize the sentence “different degrees of liver function test abnormalities” to “different degrees of abnormalities in liver function test”

Lines 42-43. This sentence is ambiguous. Make it clear.

Line 47. Replace “detection” by “the detection and analyzation”

Line 58. Replace “predictive” by “predict”

Line 65. Replace “only few” by “only a few”

Line 83. Reorganize the sentence “calculated by correlation and principal component (PCA) analysis.” to “examined by correlation analysis and principal component analysis (PCA).”

Line 90. Replace “Fig 1” by “Figure 1”

Line 98. Replace “Firstly” by “First”

Line 135. Replace “in China or abroad” by “either in China or abroad”

Lines 163-165. The sentence “These results demonstrated … the occurrence of stroke” is ambiguous. Make it clear.


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: COMPARISON OF ROUTINE HEMATOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF LIVER AND KIDNEY FUNCTION, BLOOD COUNT AND LIPID PROFILE IN HEALTHY PEOPLE AND STROKE PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Xiaofang Cui et al. investigated whether routine hematological indicators can be used to predict ischemic stroke. The authors critically compared the conventional hematological parameters in ischemic patients and the healthy person. The authors successfully established that these clinical parameters can be used to predict ischemic stroke. Professional English was used throughout the article. The introduction properly described the background and the context of the work with appropriate reference. The structure of the article conforms to the PeerJ standard. The figures were relevant and well-labeled and described. Raw data were provided for the article.
Experimental design: It was clearly stated how the research fills the stated knowledge gap in the introduction section. The research questions are well-defined and meaningful. The methods described in the manuscript are sufficient to follow. I have the following questions regarding the selection of patients for ischemic stroke.
Could you please elaborate “For the stroke group, the sole inclusion criterion was that the patient was diagnosed with a first ischemic stroke event;” Are all the patients already suffered an ischemic stroke? Was there a patient who didn’t suffer ischemic stroke yet but are likely in the future? If so, what are the parameters used for diagnosis? What are the timelines for occurrences of stroke and the collection of data on hematological indicators?
Validity of the findings: Data was interpreted completely and supported the conclusion. The conclusions were well described and in accordance with the original research questions. The authors were successfully established that the conventional hematological clinical indicators can be used to predict ischemic stroke.
Additional comments: Minor comments:
-	The written informed content is in Chinese. Please provide a version translated in English.
Typos:
-	Line 34: “stroke. R language was use to carried out the statistic analysis” - - > “stroke, the R language was used to carry out the statistical analysis”
-	Line 37: “concentrations and platelet large cell ratio” - - > “concentrations, platelet large cell ratio”


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: COMPARISON OF ROUTINE HEMATOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF LIVER AND KIDNEY FUNCTION, BLOOD COUNT AND LIPID PROFILE IN HEALTHY PEOPLE AND STROKE PATIENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no  comment
Experimental design: no  comment
Validity of the findings: no  comment
Additional comments: Increase the font size of Figure 4


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: COMPARISON OF ROUTINE HEMATOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF LIVER AND KIDNEY FUNCTION, BLOOD COUNT AND LIPID PROFILE IN HEALTHY PEOPLE AND STROKE PATIENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors satisfactorily answered all the comments and provided the requested information.
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: POSTOPERATIVE HYPERLACTATEMIA AND SERUM LACTATE LEVEL TRENDS AMONG HEART TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -English needs to be improved at various places including the Abstract section for a clearer understanding by the audience. Last half of the background section is hard to understand.

-Typos are also abundant. For example in the materials and method section-Serum lactate level measurements within first 48 hours post-HTX were obtained every 6 six hours from routinely conducted arterial blood gas analyses- 6 six, please remove extra 6.

-Line 54 has a typo :from Lac 0 to Lac 48; p= p=0.000; Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Please remove extra p=.

-Line 51 is very hard to understand.

-Change from passive to active tense is very frequent in the materials and method section which should be avoided.
Experimental design: I commend the authors for evaluating the usefulness of serum lactate levels in their study as a measure of post-HTX operative care. However, I would like the authors to consider the following suggestions-

1. It would be a more comprehensive study if normal serum lactate levels were calculated from patients without HTX by the authors instead of using published values from literature. Serum lactate trends in normal individuals will also contribute greatly to the study.
2. More information on 'internal lab standardization' will help readers understand the threshold values selected by the authors
3. It would add greatly to the study if the authors made efforts to describe alternate measures of evaluation of post HTX outcome
Validity of the findings: none
Additional comments: 1. The resolution of figures needs improvement
2. Figure Legends needs improvement


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: POSTOPERATIVE HYPERLACTATEMIA AND SERUM LACTATE LEVEL TRENDS AMONG HEART TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript reports a detailed study of serum lactate levels in post-heart transplant patients which can be extremely useful to determine the possible outcome of patients postoperatively.
Experimental design: In the study, the authors did not present the research question clear enough. I think they should include more background and details from the previous reports for better understanding to broad interest readers.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I have raised a few issues which are pointed out below:

1. Please re-write the abstract section especially the background and results section. In the background section, the research problem is not presented clearly.
2. I suggest to re-write the introduction section of the manuscript. As it stands now, it reads poor and is difficult to follow. It should be clear and more general.
3. Please cite the reference for serum lactate level measurement from arterial blood gas analyses.
4. There are no details mentioned in the figure legends. I found the text written in the figure very difficult to read and interpret. I think it is better to move all the details from the figures to figure legends.
5. The text written in the colored boxes in Fig.2 flow charts is very difficult to read. Please replace with the better resolution image.