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: ANALYSIS OF CORE GENES FOR COLORECTAL CANCER PROGNOSIS BASED ON IMMUNE AND STROMAL SCORES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The title, introduction, methods, results and discussion are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the article is well constructed, the experiments are well conducted, and analysis is well performed. The figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled and described. The abstract needs more editing with more details and summary level sentences.

The authors have carefully revised the languages by a English native speaker. All the revisions were reviewed and look fine to me.
Experimental design: The experimental design is original and the research is within the scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The methods are highly technical, ethical and logistical. Statistical methods are chosen correctly.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided in detail. The findings are meaningful. The conclusions are well stated and relevant to the research questions.
Additional comments: The revised version of the manuscript has addressed all the comments I raised. The updated manuscript looks fine to me.


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: ANALYSIS OF CORE GENES FOR COLORECTAL CANCER PROGNOSIS BASED ON IMMUNE AND STROMAL SCORES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Grammatical mistakes in the sentence formation
Ex , for line number 170
The results of the enrichment analysis of KEGG pathway in GSEA shown that the gene ..

Similarly for line number 172
In addition, the results shown that the …

Please correct these sentence formation. Please also thoroughly check the manuscript for grammatical errors.
Experimental design: Methods have been described.
Validity of the findings: Conclusion are stated. Limited to supporting results
Additional comments: This manuscript informs the scientific community about prognostic genes in CRC using various statistical and bioinformatics approach.


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: BOTH LANDSCAPE HETEROGENEITY AND CONFIGURATION DETERMINE WOODLARKS (LULLULA ARBOREA) BREEDING TERRITORIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below.
Experimental design: See below.
Validity of the findings: See below.
Additional comments: General comments
Overall, the manuscript is well-written. Additionally, analyses on the habitat preferences of the woodlark are highly relevant for successful conservation management. However, my main concern with this study is that the sample size is clearly too low (18 territories vs. 16 non-territories) for a high-ranking journal such as Peer J with a broad international audience. Therefore, I would recommend submission to a more specialised ornithology journal such as Bird Study.

Specific comments
Title. Please delete ‘in Austria’ to address a wider readership.
Line 36. “An important driver”
Line 41. Please delete “and wetlands”; wetlands are unimportant for the study organism.
Line 97. “, Austria (Central Europe)”
Line 100. “We selected these areas since they host the main populations of the Woodlark in Upper Austria”
Line 192. “differ”


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: BOTH LANDSCAPE HETEROGENEITY AND CONFIGURATION DETERMINE WOODLARKS (LULLULA ARBOREA) BREEDING TERRITORIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic is not new and the article does not add particularly informations on what we already know about this species; however, Lullula arborea is a specie of conservation concern and, above all, is a good indicator of the presence of diversified landscapes that, in this particular historical period, are threatened by a lot of different pressures and better understanding their ecological importance and functioning is very important

The article is clear, the reading is fluent and the hypotheses cited in the introduction are fully developed along the manuscript, even if the part regarding the land use changes are not fully deepened and it seems to be "external" from the rest of the article. The authors find no apparent links between land use changes and the decrease of Lullula arborea population, however in my opinion a more comphrensive discussion on which reasons could be at the base of it decline lacks. Written in this way this part does not have much sense, probebly it could be better to cut it at all.

The English language is properly used.

Figures and Tables are well structured and easily understandable; the references are complete and updated.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Except for the part related to the potential impacts of land use changes on the species population, which appears to be "external" from the rest of the article and does not add any relevant information, the initial hypotheses are clear and well developed along the manuscript.
Methods are clear and complete; one only thing: in line 112 you should give more details about the number of field surveys (how many?). Statistical analysis is appropriate and correctly used.
For what concerns the findings, these are well and comprehensively presented and seem to be consistent with what we already know about the ecology of the species. The approach to consider different (three) spatial scales gives the findings more interest.
One of the parameters which seem to have a positive effect on the presence of breeding territories of the species are the dirty roads; the authors postulate that it is because dirty roads are patches of bare soils, used by the species for accessibility of food resources. I agree with this statement, but I think you should analyze and exclude the possibility that this positive effect is not linked with the fact that where there are roads, the surveys are more easy, the probability to cover all the study area increases as well as, consequentely, the possibility to detect the species.
Additional comments: I think this article, with minor revisions and few more details, could be interest to better understand the ecological functionality and importance of cultural micro- and macro-diverse landscapes.


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: TOXICITY OF CLOTHIANIDIN TO COMMON EASTERN NORTH AMERICAN FIREFLIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: The number of samples are so limited; however, the observation took long time and can conclude the low risk of the chemical. It is the novel knowledge.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Abstract – no comment

Introduction  – no comment

Materials & methods

-	You gave the good information of firefly collection (lines 78-87). If you arrange them in a table, it might help the reader understand your firefly collection easily including the numbers of larvae of 2 testing groups.
-	Please define more detail of 2 groups of testing larvae. Which instars was classified for late-instar larvae and early-instar larvae? Are they classified by moulting or size? If it is size, please define size range.
-	I think you can use genus abbreviation for the second writing. As in https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11060627, they used the different Pt. and Pn. You can check from other references.
-	On lines 90 “…while the majority of late-instar Photuris were wild-collected in summer of 2019”, Could you tell the numbers of them?
-	On line 180, please explain more. How to record feeding frequency for the analysis.

Results

- From the methods, the responses were observed at 1 and 4 h after exposure. Could you explain more when the larvae began the responses on line 195?
- In the part of “Feeding behavior” on line 204. There was pupation of tested larvae in some cases of late-instar larvae. This might affect on feeding behavior because the larvae before pupation will not show feeding behavior. Did it affect on any results in this part?
- On line 213 (1 to 5 peroinds), do the authors mean "larval instar"? If it is, please use the words for more appropriate meaning.
- On lines 214-215, please put “unit” for the median.
- Do you have the information of abnormal moulting behavior?

Discussion

-	Your discussion needs more detail about mode of action of clothianidin. You can improve your discussion on the toxic responses.
-	It is the good idea to discuss the behavioral avoidance (construction of soil chambers) to the chemical on lines 245-247. I wonder if the larvae were in unsuitable environments such as too dry soil. Did you control the soil moisture? If the larvae live under dry substrate, do they construct and live in soil chambers? If you controlled it, you can discuss their avoidance.

Figures
Fig 2-4. The data of control groups might be needed for the analysis. They should be in the graphs. Could you improve them?


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

Input:
Title: TOXICITY OF CLOTHIANIDIN TO COMMON EASTERN NORTH AMERICAN FIREFLIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper addresses a quite important question concerning how neonicotinoid insecticides might impact the terrestrial larval stage of North American fireflies. The manuscript is well-written, provides relevant background, and clearly articulates the research question; in addition, data are clearly presented in six figures and one table.

I’ve made several suggestions on the pdf for points that I think should be clarified (sorry, pdf issues impeded comments after p14), and I’ve summarized these minor suggestions below in hopes that these might help improve the manuscript.
Experimental design: Minor comments:

1) Some additional information for methods:
a)	It would be useful to know how you chose the specific clothianidin concentrations used in these experiments (lines 136-7), and how these relate to levels likely to be encountered in the field. This important context is now presented in the Discussion (lines 288-294), but curious readers might like to hear about this in the Methods.
b)	It would be helpful to know the size range of the larvae that were used in each experiment (lines 134, 156, 165).
c)	While sample sizes are given here, it might be helpful to reiterate these in the results (noted in pdf).
Validity of the findings: Minor comments:
2) Results
a)	More consistency is needed in reporting treatment levels (=clothianidin concentrations): in places you switch from reporting treatment levels in ng per g soil to ug per g soil (eg. line 200), and then also switch sometimes to ppm or ppb (eg. lines 189). Not sure of the rationale for this but it seems unnecessarily confusing – clarity of the MS would benefit greatly from using consistent measurement units that match the data shown in your figures (eg. ng g-1)
b)	In lines 200-2, you should remind readers that mites prematurely ended this one experiment.
c)	Figure 5 (survivorship curves): where sample sizes are given, add “per treatment”
Additional comments: Minor comments:

3) Discussion
a)	In the first paragraph it would be worthwhile to compare the toxicity results to those seen in previous studies of the aquatic larvae of Asian fireflies (cited in the Intro).
b)	Here again, please convert units to those used in figures.
c)	In the discussion it might be worthwhile to mention possible adult exposure for adults resting on vegetation and for females ovipositing in soil.

4) Very minor comments:

a)	3) Figure 1A currently shows the startle response of a healthy Photuris larva. If available, it might be informative to include a contrasting image of a larvae exhibiting a toxic (T) response.

b)	4) In the review of previous work on effects of insecticides on the aquatic larvae of Asian fireflies (lines 47), please include species names.

c)	5) Any information on sex ratio of the Photuris that successfully eclosed?


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: TOXICITY OF CLOTHIANIDIN TO COMMON EASTERN NORTH AMERICAN FIREFLIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an important topic that was well-prepared by the authors. It’s funny, I’d been wondering about fireflies and neonicotinoids for a number of years now; glad someone got around to evaluating this group. Since they don’t naturally fall into the ecosystem service category like pollinators or natural enemies, fireflies have fallen to the wayside a bit, but people clearly care about them from an aesthetic perspective.
The writing is very good throughout and I only have some minor wording suggestions noted. The authors cite appropriate studies to support their findings, background, and rationale. I also had no problem interpreting the figures.
Experimental design: The methodology was appropriate to the question. I liked the approach of dosing up the soil to test the larval stage. The authors did a nice job acquiring firefly offspring and rearing them in the laboratory, which is not all that easy to do. However, would’ve been better to measure clothianidin in the soil to confirm the target residues.
Validity of the findings: There’s no doubt that the sample size is very low and this study’s conclusions would be stronger if they had higher replication. Also, the authors test the larvae over a 30-100 day period, but in nature these insects are belowground for 1-2 years, so they’re only capturing a snapshot of the lifecycle, which is fine for short-term toxicity testing, but sub-lethal effects are harder to tease apart, assuming that these negative effects would accumulate over time spent in contact with the chemical.
That being said, I’m more lenient on this issue due to the fact that these data are hard to come by and it still seems likely based on their findings that fireflies are relatively tolerant of clothianidin compared to other insect groups.
Additional comments: General Comments…
Just as a general comment, the authors found weak effects of clothianidin on fireflies at field-relevant concentrations, yet still try to concoct a path by which neonicotinoids are involved in their decline in the Discussion. I think this is a general problem with eco-toxicology literature, i.e., authors try to find a way to conclude that a certain pesticide is involved in species declines, even if their data do not support this (in which case, why conduct the study to begin with?). I understand that they can’t exclude interactive effects with other stressors, but that’s not what they tested and that’s always a caveat thrown at the end of eco-tox studies as a means to justify weak responses. I realize the authors are attempting to be cautious and don’t want to flat-out say that neonics are perfectly safe for fireflies, but the alternative is also problematic and a bit of a pet-peeve of mine for this type of literature. Just something to be careful of in the writing.

Line Edits…
L14 & 19. It’s unclear at first-read (I understand now after reading the whole paper) why you’re specifying the larval stage here. I’d either be more specific about why larvae would be more vulnerable than other life stages, or use more general language about firefly exposure.
L21. I’d remove one of the two uses of “larvae” (probably the first) to avoid redundancy.
L21-23. Would be good to also mention what your response variables were.
L24. I’d avoid making comparisons with other insect groups, at least in the Results section. Your Methods don’t say anything about testing other non-firefly insect groups so this is interpretation that would be more appropriate in the Discussion sub-section beneath.
L24 & 25. Genus name should be abbreviated on second use. Here and throughout the rest of the paper as well. Unless that’s against PeerJ policy.
L29-31. Mmmm, I’m having a hard time squaring this conclusion with the statement immediately prior (L24-25). First they’re relatively tolerant and then it could contribute to population declines? Seems like mixed-messaging bit. And related to my broader comment above.
L82. Some of this info could be useful in the Discussion for interpreting why the authors found such high tolerance. Larger species tend to be more tolerant of insecticides. Also, are these species of fireflies currently in decline? This would be helpful to know. It says they’re a widespread species, but unclear if they’re undergoing a range-contraction. If not, this could also explain the tolerance (i.e., rare/declining taxa could be more vulnerable).
L88. Can you be any more specific about what late-instar means (i.e., how you determine larval instars from field-collected individuals)? How many larval instars do they even have?
L90. Does this mean you wild-collected the larval stage? How? By sifting through soil? Can you even ID the larvae? More info here would be helpful.
L96. Is there a citation for the use of cat food in firefly rearing?
L131. I assume the soil was then mixed around? Or did it just go on the soil surface?
L136-137. Why these concentrations? This could use more rationale. A “normal” range of soil residues were reported in the Intro (L55), but these were in different units and this section could still benefit from explaining why you chose these specific doses.
L137, 155, 164. You’re using the term “assay” I think in a way that I’m unaccustomed to. I would refer to an assay as synonymous to “trial”. But it looks like you’re using it here more to mean a block or replicate? Please try to clarify.
L230 (Discussion). I realize you only studied the larval stage, but it might be helpful to briefly note possible routes of exposure for the adults as well.
L316. You just said “despite low acute mortality” on the prior line; looks a little strange back-to-back
L399. Misspelling of “Journal”


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: REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE OF SWITCHING FROM TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE TO TENOFOVIR ALAFENAMIDE IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEPATITIS B: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well-structured and very nicely written. The English language is unambiguous and professional. The introduction provides a well-balanced view of the current state of the literature, and references are adequate.

Suggestions for further improvement:
1.	Abstract: The methods section should be expanded to include the definition of main outcomes and the statistical methods used to assess them. In addition, consider reporting TDF treatment duration  on lines 29-30 as years (interquartile range) instead of years (range) for consistency with the rest of the manuscript.
2.	Abstract lines 36-41: These sentences need to be restructured. In its current form, authors list the values first, and the time points afterwards. Consider reformulating it in this form: “The body weight decreased from xxx at TDF start to xxx at the time of switching to TAF, and returned to xxx 48 weeks thereafter.”
1.	The first sentence in the introduction should include main keywords for the reader to know what the study is about. As you start with a statement on HCC, one might think that the impact of tenofovir on HCC will be assessed. As this is not the case, consider starting with the WHO estimates or the consequences of untreated CHB instead.
2.	Line 65: Consider replacing “densitometry” with “density”.
3.	Line 102: Why is “range (minimum/maximum)” included here? Consider removing.
4.	HBV viral load: 5 Million +/- 180 Million doesn’t make much sense. This problem arises most commonly with skewed values. I would suggest to report and analyse all HBV viral load values on the log10 scale (line 125 and table 1).
5.	Line 171-174: Authors report on a study from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study where switching from TDF to TAF led to decreases in ALT. However, as authors noted, CHB patients were excluded in this study. Consider replacing the reference with Surial B, Béguelin C, Chave J-P, et al. Switching From TDF to TAF in HIV/HBV-Coinfected Individuals With Renal Dysfunction-A Prospective Cohort Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2020; 85:227–232. In this study (also conducted in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study), patients with HIV/HBV coinfection also experienced improvements in ALT after switching from TDF to TAF.
6.	Table 1: It is not immediately clear what “baseline” means. Authors define it in the text, and therefore there is no ambiguity there, but if readers only look at figures/tables, this might be problematic. Consider replacing “baseline” with “At TDF start” in graphs/table 1/abstract or give definitions in the captions.
7.	The figures are nice and provide a clear story. However, figures 2-4 could be combined as one 3-panel figure to reduce the number of display items. In addition, consider reporting the exact p-value instead of significance stars.
8.	Consider adding a conflicts of interest / funding section for transparency.
9.	Line 61: should be “disoproxil”, not “dipovoxil”
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and relevant. However, I have some concerns:
1.	For the outcomes, the time points must be made clearer. In lines 88-89, it should be made clear that the outcomes (viral suppression, ALT normalization etc). were assessed at TDF start, at switch from TDF to TAF, and after 48 weeks of TAF. In addition, authors should also indicate whether viral suppression was assessed at one time point, or over the whole period (baseline to switch, switch to end).
2.	What definition was used to categorize patients as having chronic HBV infection? In addition, what were the indications to start treatment at your hospital? Do you follow EASL / AASLD guidelines or other? For instance, 1.2% of individuals did not have replicating HBV DNA at TDF start. On which criteria did you start NA-treatment in those individuals?
3.	Authors used the MDRD formula to calculate eGFR. Since CKD-EPI may be more adequate to estimate renal disease (Matsushita et al. JAMA 2012), please explain why you used MDRD and/or consider using CKD-EPI instead.
Validity of the findings: I thank the authors for providing the underlying data. The conclusions are well balanced and supported by the study results. Although authors have used adequate statistical methods, I see one major additional limitation of the study:
1.	All analyses are descriptive and the methods used are unable to adjust for major covariates (e.g. diabetes, cardiovascular disease, malignancy) which may influence changes in renal function or weight. This limitation and its potential impact (including direction) should be clearly stated in the discussion section.
Additional comments: In this study, Su et al. assessed the impact of switching from TDF to TAF among 167 patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in Taiwan. TAF replaced TDF in those individuals because of a programmatic change within the hospital. Authors found that switching from TDF to TAF led to high HBV viral suppression rates, stable ALT values and increases in eGFR and body weight.

The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic and is a welcome addition to the literature. It is well-structured and nicely written, however, the methods sections need improvements in order to replicate the study, and the reporting of the results and abstract need improvements for clarity.


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: REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE OF SWITCHING FROM TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE TO TENOFOVIR ALAFENAMIDE IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEPATITIS B: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Su et al. is fluent to read and structured. The results are nicely put into context with background and existing data. The conclusions drawn from the data are well comprehensible. I have a only few minor comments:

1. The high percentage of patients with cirrhosis is striking - I would appreciate a list of the number of patients with cirrhosis by diagnostic criteria used (n patients with cirrhosis in ultrasound, n patients with cirrhosis in CT, etc.).
2. In line 166 it should read "the decrease in ALT".
3. In Table 1:what do you mean by malignancy? Please provide more information for the reader
4. Platelet counts, INR/Quick, triglycerides, cholesterol and alkaline phosphatase levels should be added in table 1 if available
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: MISINFORMATION EFFECTS IN AN ONLINE SAMPLE: RESULTS OF AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY WITH A FIVE DAY RETENTION INTERVAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and professionally presented. I have only a few minor points where phrasing could be clarified. I present these in order of appearance in the manuscript:
1)	Opening sentence (lines 47-48) is a little misleading as written. The 69% figure from the Innocence Project refers to mistaken eyewitness identification (e.g., lineup/showup IDs), which isn’t really relevant to the misinformation effect. To my knowledge, we have no way to quantify the impact of misinformation on wrongful convictions based on our current data
2)	The authors describe the typical misinformation paradigm involving misinformation read in the form of a narrative, ostensibly from another witness (lines 58-59). I’m not so sure that this is the predominant method – paradigms that involve discussion between the participant and a co-witness (real or a confederate) are also very common, as are having participants read fictional news reports or similar. Perhaps this section could be softened slightly and other methods of introducing misinformation could be acknowledged
3)	The authors define “retention interval” as being between encoding the event and being exposed to misinformation (lines 96-98). However, there are two important retention intervals in any misinformation study – between encoding and misinformation exposure, and between misinformation exposure and memory retrieval. Perhaps the authors could make that clearer and consider the implications of having such a short retention interval between the misinformation and retrieval?
4)	On lines 107-113, the authors begin to outline different memory tests that can be used to examine misinformation effects. This paragraph felt incomplete – the authors begin by stating that the type of test is important; they then point to one specific test (2AFC), before moving on. I was expecting more consideration here of different types of memory test and their advantages and disadvantages (e.g., old/new recognition; modified 2AFC (a la Zaragoza et al); source monitoring tests; free recall tests….
5)	On line 238, the authors explain that SDT assumes that decisions are based on familiarity. However, SDT is silent as to the evidence that makes up this decision dimension – it could be familiarity, or recollection, or something else. A more agnostic label, such as ‘evidence strength’ might be better here
I was able to access and examine the data files, which included each participant’s raw data and final outcome measures. I was also able to duplicate all of the confirmatory analyses that were reported between line 311 and 357. However, to aid reproducibility further, I have the following recommendations:
1)	Please produce a data key to accompany the datasets, which clear specifies what each variable means and (for any categorical variables), how the variables are coded
2)	Please clarify whether a flattening constant was applied to deal with any hit rates or false alarm rates at floor/ceiling. From looking at the data file, I think this is the case, but it is not explicitly noted in the manuscript
Experimental design: On the justification of the research:
1.	The authors’ case for their paradigm seems to rest on the argument that people now frequently encounter video footage of real criminal events online (e.g., through livestreaming, or because onlookers post video footage to social media), and that they may also encounter misinformation through similar means, or through erroneous news reporting in the confusion that often surrounds unfolding events. However, a person watching such an event is not going to become a key witness  - they can’t provide any information over and above what investigators can already see in the video footage. Videotaped incidents are typical in this field (for ethical and logistical reasons), so this isn’t a criticism of using a videotaped event, more as of the mismatch between the rationale that is presented and the applied reality
2.	The 1-week delay that is mentioned in the title and abstract isn’t quite accurate – the modal delay appears to be 5 days. In the methods, it becomes apparent that participants completed the memory test 5-10 days after encoding; perhaps the authors could amend the title and abstract to be more accurate?
3.	The authors have a secondary question, which involves examining changes in vividness and emotionality over time, and how they relate to perceived changes. I struggled to understand the rationale for these analyses  - the authors very briefly state that these analyses were to “establish the minimum therapeutically meaningful change in ratings of vividness and emotionality across sessions”. More detail and justification is needed here. Why is this important? What does minimum therapeutically meaningful change mean, and how is it measured? I also wondered whether this information would be better suited to online supplementary materials
The methods were clearly described, aside from some minor things:
1)	Please provide a sample size justification – this needn’t be based on a formal power analysis; it may be based on resource constraints, for example; see Lakens’ recent work on sample size justification: https://psyarxiv.com/9d3yf/
2)	Please provide a clearer breakdown of participant exclusions (i.e., number excluded for failing attention checks; number excluded for not watching the video in its entirety)
3)	Related to the point above, were participants failed for excluding either attention check, or only if they failed both?
4)	On lines 218-228, the authors describe the composition of their memory test, but the numbers don’t seem to add up. From examining the datafile, it looks like there were 12 true statements, but the authors state that there were 8 in the text. I think this is an error – could the authors check?
Overall, the methods appear to be rigorous and are described clearly enough (when combined with the material on the OSF) for a direct replication
Validity of the findings: The authors’ interpretations appear to be sound, and they follow logically from the analyses that were reported. There are some issues that the authors could perhaps consider in their Discussion, though:
1)	Demand characteristics. The participants in this study weren’t warned that they had been exposed to misinformation – and we know that warnings reduce the misinformation effect by about half (Blank & Launay, 2014). This might be because it causes participants to engage in more careful source monitoring and/or because they realise that they are not supposed to just ‘go along with’ the suggestions of the experimenter. To what extent might participants have rated critical items as being truthful because they remembered them being in the narrative and they didn’t appreciate/understand that they weren’t supposed to report information from the narrative?
2)	Related to the above, did any participants express suspicion in their open ended comments about the misinformation? Loftus has conducted some work on whether salient pieces of misinformation serve as ‘red flags’ which then act as a prophylactic against further bits of misinformation. Was any pilot testing of the materials done to make sure the misinformation was perceived as plausible and not too obvious?
Additional comments: This manuscript describes a single online experiment in which 99 participants viewed a video of a fictional high school shooting (taken from a movie), which was shot to look very realistic (e.g., from handheld video camera and security camera footage). 5-10 days later, the participants were randomly allocated to a control or misinformation condition; participants in the misinformation read a narrative, ostensibly written by another witness (who had seen the same video), which included 8 pieces of misinformation. The participants in the control condition took part in a filler task instead. All of the participants then rated 24 statements about the video on a 1 (false) to 6 (true) scale. Half of the statements were true, 8 were critical misinformation items, and 4 were incorrect filler items. The researchers found evidence of significant misinformation effects, which were strongest when measured using area under the ROC.
The study is clearly reported, appears to have been conducted rigorously, and has reproducible analyses. There are some issues with rationale/justification that could  be addressed in a revision, as well as some very minor issues in the Introduction and Methods that could be clarified.


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: MISINFORMATION EFFECTS IN AN ONLINE SAMPLE: RESULTS OF AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY WITH A FIVE DAY RETENTION INTERVAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article is beautifully written and was a pleasure to read. Results are clear and accompanied by appropriate figures and tables. Exploratory analyses are clearly marked as such and there are no concerns regarding these.

The literature review is good but one minor point is that the authors might consider checking whether recent publications from Melanie Takarangi's lab are relevant. Some earlier work from this lab is already cited in the manuscript and I am aware that this group has continued working on misinformation effects in traumatic memories, e.g. Nahleen et al 2020 Does emotional or repeated misinformation increase memory distortion for a trauma analogue event?
Experimental design: The authors have provided a clear overview of relevant literature and a good justification for conducting this research. The design makes use of a well-established method for making responses in signal detection experiments (ratings on a scale from 'certain false' to 'certain true') and applies this nicely to a misinformation paradigm.

One issue the authors may wish to clarify is the description of these responses as a 'categorical judgment' in line 117. It seems this is more akin to a continuous variable than a categorical one.
Validity of the findings: The SDT analyses including ROC, d' and bias are appropriate for the data and are described clearly. The results are clearly reported and the authors have made excellent use of Bayes factors and effect size estimates to give a comprehensive explanation of results. For completeness, comparisons of responses to true vs non-misinformation false items and misinformation items vs non-misinformation false items could be included in supplementary materials but this is not absolutely necessary and can be done at the authors discretion if they choose.
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: MISINFORMATION EFFECTS IN AN ONLINE SAMPLE: RESULTS OF AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY WITH A FIVE DAY RETENTION INTERVAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the issues regarding literature review raised in my earlier review. I am satisfied the relevant existing findings are covered in their introduction.
Experimental design: The authors have now clarified the measurement of categorical responses.
Validity of the findings: There were no issues to address raised in my earlier review.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed the minor issues I raised in my earlier review. I think this manuscript is now ready for publication and I think it will make a nice contribution to the literature.


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: EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF OTOLITH-BASED AGE AND GROWTH RECONSTRUCTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE LIFE STAGES OF A CRITICALLY ENDANGERED ESTUARINE FISH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The terms used for naming of the sectioned otolith internal morphology vary among fish species and authors. The term “core” used by the authors here would be acceptable if precisely described and used consistently in the whole text. Nevertheless, I am afraid that it is not. For the first time the term “core” appears in the 153 to express the inner central part of the otolith without a precise definition what it means. In line 164 the phrase “based on the clarity of the core and edge increments” may suggest that there are increments deposited in the “core” and they are important for further analyses.  In line  167 there is a citation:  “Increments were counted from the core to the dorsal edge… (Hobbs et al., 2007) (Fig. 1B).” which could be misleading as it is not clear if increments deposited in the core were counted only by Hobbs et al., (2007) or also by the authors (Fig. 1B). From the next sentence (lines 168-170) I got an impression that the term “core” has been synonymized with “primordium” (a center of otolith deposition) as a distance between the core and hatch mark was given (8 μm). In the following sentence (lines 170-172) it is clarified where the daily increments enumeration starts, i.e. from a hatch mark towards otolith dorsal margin which could imply that the “core” was used to describe the most inner part of the otolith section located around the single central primordium and externally limited by a hatch mark. Although the reference to Fig. 1c (Fig. 1C, “core”) at the end of this sentence introduced information noise again.  The caption of Fig. 1C says: “(C) … 180 daily rings from the core (hatch) to the outer edge (death)”. Moreover, descriptions and symbols in Fig. 1C explain that the most inner part otolith section (arrow) name is “primordia” (should be “primordium” as Delta Smelt otolith is characterized by a single central primordium), while a “core” indicated by a vertical line refers to the hatch mark! It is not a big deal to make some order with these terms. I would suggest sticking to the following: “central primordium” as a origin of otolith growth deposition and  starting point of the radius measurements and a “core” - otolith section located around the single central primordium and externally limited by a hatch mark.
The figure 3 description:  “Aging accuracy across life stages.” does not match the figure contents, as the aging accuracy was presented vs. age and life stages were not indicated on the X axis.
According to the instructions for reviewers listed under the final subtopic of “Basic reporting:”, i.e. Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses. (The submission should be ‘self-contained,’ should represent an appropriate ‘unit of publication’, and should include all results relevant to the hypothesis. Coherent bodies of work should not be inappropriately subdivided merely to increase publication count.) I have some doubts that the submitted work constitutes a part of a larger project thus representing a “salami slicing” case. Of course the reviewer cannot prove such a serious accusation but if one considers the arguments listed below and in the next paragraphs of the review (Experimental Design and Validity of the Findings), such a possibility should be considered.  A validation of a daily character of growth increments in otoliths should constitute the first step towards facilitation of age and growth studies of fast growing/short life-span fish or early life history stages. However, opposite to the reviewed paper, in most publications such a protocol is a part of a larger project. In the reviewed paper the participation of 11 coauthors from six scientific and research institutions appeared to be necessary to verify the already published findings of Hobbs et al. (2007) and to extend the age-range of the studied fish from about 100 (Hobbs et al. 2007) up to 271 days post hatch. Both studies were performed on the cultured material. Therefore, the extension of the otolith microstructure by the reviewed paper on larger and older fish does not  give the final answer if the wild fish otoliths of adults can be aged on the basis of daily growth increments.
Experimental design: The research questions/targets defined in lines 96-103 and the outcome of the performed analysis presented throughout the paper from the abstract to conclusions  make my ambivalent expressions. From a positive perspective everything is well defined, processed, methods are described with sufficient detail, statistically sound and relevant. However, if we consider the whole performed research is scientifically justified, some doubts arise. The executed research was based on the cultured fish kept in stable environmental conditions and feeding regime relevant for consecutive live history stages. The lack of reference to a wild fish otolith microstructure and growth greatly undermine the importance of the proposed research. Thus, I am afraid that the presented conclusions are reaching too far. Authors, on the basis of earlier published papers are aware that results obtained with cultured fish material should not be extrapolated directly on wild fish population, especially those with a complex migratory behavior, where the impact of environmental conditions may greatly disrupt otolith growth - somatic growth relationship, growth increments width or their definition. However, to support their conclusions  the authors  mentioned that “prior work has indicated that such variation is likely negligible for reconstructing size-at-age in Delta Smelt ≤ 90 mm SL (Hobbs et al.,2007)”. I have checked the Hobbs at al. (2007) as carefully as the short time for this review allowed but I could not find the mentioned phrase. Therefore, the extension of the observations  achieved from the experiments and materials  based on cultured fish on to wild populations,  in my opinion is not fully justified (lines 407-410). However, all the presented results, if limited to the cultured fish, are achieved according to the highest standards of otolith and fish growth research. Especially those on the otolith-somatic proportionality and initial increment formation. Let me also express my doubts if otolith microstructure is utilized in the future to study cultured Delta Smelt growth as there are much simple and cost effective methods to estimate growth when the hatch date is known. In addition, I am sure that the effects of image magnification for older, slower growing individuals has not been studied so far and possibly will not be studied that way by anybody else in the future.
Validity of the findings: As already mentioned under the previous paragraph of the review, not every conclusion is supported by the results and fully justified. In addition to that in the discussion (lines 347-351) there are two sentences not supported by the submitted paper results thus should be removed from the manuscript or a relevant citation added.
Additional comments: In addition to several technical comments regarding terminology and figures or figure captions, I have the following suggestion how to make the carefully elaborated results  based on culture fish publishable. It is possible on a low labor input and project cost but additional materials should be available.  The authors need to convince the audience  that the achieved results and “experimental approaches greatly improve the interpretation of otolith-derived metrics for fisheries ecology and conservation, the facilitating valuable reconstructions of hatch dates, growth rates, and movement patterns of wild fish populations”. And without a reference to the wild Delta Smelt population/s it does not seem to be possible. In addition, to the already performed research the relationship otolith size vs fish length of cultured fish and wild fish should be compared. This relation could act as a proxy of the somatic growth rates according to the well-known rule that faster growing fish (younger) deposit relatively smaller otoliths than slow growing (older) fish of the same length. If there is no significant differences between those two groups your observations are easy transferable to the wild population. Remember to use the otolith length rather that otolith radius and for adults both sexes should be treated separately to avoid additional noise if there is a dimorphic growth in this species. Otolith length – fish length relationship could be also utilized to calculate the size structure of Delta Smelt from predator’s stomachs and/or for the assessment of the species size structure from otoliths found in bottom deposits. Of course such a simple approach does not exclude a need of more specific studies of otoliths from wild populations.


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: EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF OTOLITH-BASED AGE AND GROWTH RECONSTRUCTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE LIFE STAGES OF A CRITICALLY ENDANGERED ESTUARINE FISH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Fails
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided (see below and suggestions in marked MS)
1 the introduction doesn’t provide enough background (i.e. is there other known age experiments)
2 the introduction could benefit from a restructure. At the moment we hear about the study spp in the first parag. This would be best left to late in the intro. Instead start broadly ie brief on mgt of threatened fish or biota, hard parts to gather demographic info, background on otoliths, then the study spp, objectives….
3 the intro doesn’t cite the literature beyond campana and a couple of target spp studies
4 the discussion needs to put the study in a wider context (e.g. schlero is first mentioned in the conclusion). How bout some references to blacks work or gillanders. Ie the exciting aspect is this is all validated now we can compare growth across seasons and different habitats
5 What does the different increment width at ~ 60 d mean - expand
6 the concern with applying this information is that real world noise may make the microstructure different. As such, there needs to be a discussion about how a marked wild fish trial is an important next step and seek to find if that has been done before and put the study in that context.
Experimental design: Pass (aims and scope of journal not clear)
Validity of the findings: Fails
impact and novelty not assessed. Negative/inconclusive results accepted. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated. – expand context
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results. – mentioned concern on conclusion above
Additional comments: Congratulations on a well designed study that is important for conservation of threatened fishes. However, before publishing the intro and discussion need 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: EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF OTOLITH-BASED AGE AND GROWTH RECONSTRUCTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE LIFE STAGES OF A CRITICALLY ENDANGERED ESTUARINE FISH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: As it is my second revision of the second draft of the same paper I have inserted all mu comments under the p.4 "Additional comments"
Experimental design: As it is my second revision of the second draft of the same paper I have inserted all mu comments under the p.4 "Additional comments"
Validity of the findings: As it is my second revision of the second draft of the same paper I have inserted all mu comments under the p.4 "Additional comments"
Additional comments: I feel satisfied with an extensive scale of positive and merit content of the authors’ response on my comments, questions and critical remarks. Most of my reservations have been accepted or reasonably explained.

Despite of the above mentioned, positive authors’ response on the reviewers comments I have to express two additional doubts/remarks that should be eventually addressed by the authors during the second round of the reviewing process. To be honest I have overlooked one of these issues in my comments to the first draft but even so I consider it important enough to be mentioned at this stage.
246-248   Fish size was then contrasted with otolith size using simple linear regression to assess otolith-size to fish-size (OS-FS) proportionality, and OS-FS proportionality was contrasted among cultured and wild adult Delta Smelt using a linear model.
During reviewing the first draft, I have somehow omitted analysis of the Figure_S2 and Table S1 thus, the methodology described in lines 246-248 followed by statistics and the previous version of Figure 2B looked fine to me. Now, I am aware that the presented linear regression to describe otolith-size fish-size relationship, fitted to data representing the whole size range may result in certain limitations of the proposed model. Despite of a high r2 the single linear model for the whole size range of investigated fish will be not the best tool, e. g. for back-calculation of fish somatic growth from otolith increments. The residuals have not been analyzed and the noticeably steeper slope of the OS-FS relation during early larval period suggests that residuals are not distributed evenly.

Authors expressed some doubts towards a single general model for all size classes as mentioned in the Results and Discussion and in Table S2 where three options of linear models have been presented. I do agree that slight differences of coefficients for all sizes and >10 mm SL models could be practically neglected but due to a significant difference of the otolith size vs SL relationship in early larvae the sentence “Overall, otolith size varied strongly and linearly with fish size (slope = 0.070 ± 0.001, intercept = 6.79, R2 = 0.988), indicating that otolith growth is largely proportional to fish growth across the age classes examined (Fig. 2B)” is not fully justified. I do not understand why the authors have not calculated this relationship using e. g. stepwise (piecewise) linear regression as performed in many other otolith growth vs somatic growth studies? Changes of otolith size – fish size relationship at certain ontogenetic stage transitions (uncoupling of otolith growth and somatic growth) are common in many fish species. With regard to the assumption of constant proportionality between otolith growth and fish growth, the overall validity of constant proportionality becomes suspect when applied to the early life history stages of fishes (Hare and Cowen 1995).

My second reservation/concern refers to the sentence pasted below and the Fig. 2B.
283-285 Mean ± s.d. otolith-somatic ratios of juvenile-adult (> 35 mm) cultured and wild Delta Smelt were 12.0 ± 0.8 and 12.27 ± 1.0 μm/mm, respectively, and did not differ significantly between the two groups (t = -1.82, df = 97.3, p = 0.072, Fig 2B).
In my opinion the statistical procedures chosen to prove that otolith somatic ratios in individuals >35 mm of cultured and wild Delta Smelt do not differ are not appropriate. I do not want to discuss if p = 0.072 means that observed difference is significant or not. I would say that to compare if two linear regression functions differ or not the coefficients should be calculated for both and then tested. I cannot do it as the data for wild fish are not available. Moreover, comparison of otolith-somatic ratios on the basis of their mean values, even when performed to a similar range of fish size and statistically justified i.e. data fit to normal distribution, does not meet biological criteria of relative otolith size to fish body size growth. Even though otolith growth generally follows somatic growth trends, the relative otolith size to the fish size changes with fish size, age, life history traits, variations of environmental parameters and feeding conditions. Thus, a mean value does not constitute appropriate measure to investigate such a relationship between populations. I do insist to change the method to compare the otolith somatic ratios in individuals >35 mm of cultured and wild Delta Smelt from means to regressions coefficient analysis.
If may suggestions are accepted some slight changes should be introduced to the “Otolith-Somatic Proportionality” chapter of Discussion.


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: EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF OTOLITH-BASED AGE AND GROWTH RECONSTRUCTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE LIFE STAGES OF A CRITICALLY ENDANGERED ESTUARINE FISH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: pass

very minor:
1 Concurrent sentences on lines 460 and 462 begin with the same ~ half dozen words. This is awkward and reducing the wordiness of the start of the sentence beginning in 462 will alleviate.
2 Sentence on ln 487 is back to front ie the first phrase and refs could be moved to the end and reduce clumsiness and readily make sense.
3 Species names in italics ie refs.
Experimental design: pass
Validity of the findings: pass
Additional comments: Much improved MS. Congrats to authors on a great contribution to fish, calcified structure and fisheries science.


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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Amber Roegner et al., the article entitled "Childhood parasitic infections and gastrointestinal illness in indigenous communities at Lake Atitlán, Guatemala," is a very well conducted and written study.
Experimental design: Appropriate as per study design, no further comments
Validity of the findings: Authors estimate the prevalence of shedding of waterborne fecal parasites among children 5 years of age and younger, assess the household-reported incidence of gastrointestinal illness in children, and finally characterize water sources, treatment, and
sanitation conditions in households.

They concluded that the prevalence of protozoa could not explain the frequency of gastrointestinal illness, and risk from other enteropathogens must be explored.
Additional comments: Figure quality needs to be improved,  significance mark put at appropriate in figures.


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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Amber Roegner et al in their manuscript “Childhood parasitic infections and gastrointestinal illness in indigenous communities at Lake Atitlán, Guatemala “did a cross-sectional study to determine whether household use of untreated lake water results in increased risk of shedding of parasites and gastrointestinal symptoms. Overall, the study is well designed, thoughtfully carried out, and is of prime importance for the community.
I have few minor comments:
In all the figure legend, authors should include the total number of subjects (n), statistical test  used and show p values.
The quality of figure 3 ,5 2B, D should improve.


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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Authors might consider making sentences short as it may help in providing a much clearer message to the readers.
2. Graph in Figure 3 appears to be a little confusing on the end highlighting the positive cases of Giardia. The data can be represented in a more suitable way to highlight a positive correlation between the incidence of infection and the respective treatment adopted.
Experimental design: 1. Authors have meticulously planned the study and credit should be given to them for honestly highlighting the pitfalls of the study design and the lacunae. Having said that, the authors have incorporated maximum assessable parameters that could influence the outcome of the study.
Validity of the findings: 1. It will be interesting to estimate the parasite/bacterial load in the lake at different geographical points that were selected in the study.
2. The microbial load might also be influenced by the hygiene practices adopted by the community. It will be nice to bring forward that correlation if any with respect to the contamination observed in each of the geographical regions.
3. It might not be feasible, but out of scientific curiosity did the authors follow up the microbial load after water treatment strategies adopted by the population?
4. Did the physical wellness inclusion criteria include the possibility of episodic cases of GI symptoms?
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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
Experimental design: I find an experimental design met all the standard, except the range of pathogens could have been studied in ELISA.
Validity of the findings: I find the results support the conclusion, the study draws attention to waterborne diseases among children and presents the practices that need to follow by the government and community to prevent such outbreaks.
Additional comments: The manuscript is very well written. I also find the use of statistical tests is appropriate and follows the practice of good study design. I recommend the manuscript be accepted in its current form.


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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 5

Output:
Basic reporting: The text of the manuscript was clearly written. There are a few minor comments that could improve sentence clarity which are described in the general comments to the author.

The author's also provided enough background on the subject matter and study region for the reader to be able to interpret the findings of the manuscript.

The author's also formatted most of the table and figures correctly. However, Tables 3 and 4 both appear to have two separate tables. I would suggest changing the format of each table and or make them officially 4 tables.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The author's properly evaluated the findings. I would, however, suggest to only report one effect measure from the logistic regression. The author's currently report RR and OR, but choosing just one measure would likely make the manuscript more clear and concise.
Additional comments: As outlined by the authors, the study aims to better understand the connection between water sources used for drinking and other purposes and the health of the communities bordering Lake Atitlan, in Guatemala. Specifically, the authors used fecal samples and household surveys to better understand certain risk factors in the population and then relate this to WASH practices. The authors found the prevalence of shedding Giardia and Cryptosporidium in the population <5 years of age (n = 401) was ~ 11%, but that reports of health symptoms associated with poor water quality was much higher, indicating other factors at play in regards to community health, which provides good grounds for further research.

While there are some aspects of the manuscript which should be corrected or further addressed, I recommend this work to be accepted for publication with minor modifications as outline below.

General: The author’s have a brief paragraph about sanitation and hygiene, but was there any attempt to correlate sanitation with levels of pathogens observed in the fecal samples? If so, this would be an important component of the work. If not, consider removing the sanitation section from the results and just mention this in the discussion to make the manuscript more focused on the analysis.

General: The author’s present both risk ratios (RR) and odds ratios (OR) from some of the analysis. The reviewer has not seen this done before and is unclear if this is appropriate. For example, with logistic regression, the OR is typically the effect measure reported, but under some situations the RR may be a more appropriate measure. Please consider exploring this further and potentially only report one of the effect measures to make the interpretation for concise and clear.

General: The author’s compare two types of test kits to detect Giardia and Cryptosporidium, with some interesting results. Can the authors provide more information about the tests to help the reader interpret the findings that some tests seem to be more/less sensitive? For example, are the tests using the same sample volumes? It would be good to clarify why one might expect differences between tests and the authors might be able to make some recommendations about why certain tests would be expected to perform better under certain conditions and this be an important note for future research.

Specific comments:

Line 88: Please consider clarifying the sentence. Is this just describing the demographics of children <5? Also, a bit confusing that the sentence states these numbers were in 2017, but also 2018 and 2019?

Line 105: Please consider changing “mom” to “mother”.

Line 203: Please consider keeping this in the previous paragraph and adding a citation for float and smear approach.

Line 206: Please clarify what is meant by “banked”, is this the same as archived?

Line 275: The authors mention sand filters in the proceeding sentences being protective again Giardia detection, however, this method treatment does not appear in Figure 3, please correct. Also, please consider adding sample sizes to each group shown in Figure 3.

Figure 4: Can the authors provide information about the population of these different villages? For example, is SL much larger than the other population and would some effort to standardize the data by sample size help with interpretation?

Line 392: Please remove the italics of protozoal.


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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 6

Output:
Basic reporting: Roegner and colleagues have studied the impact of direct water sources and different types of water purification methods on the occurrence of water-borne diseases like giardiasis and development of symptoms like diarrhea, vomiting, fever, etc in the inhabitants around the Lake Atitlan, Guatemala. This study becomes important as it provides insights into the most efficient method among different methods used in these communities to purify water that leads to minimum cases of illness. This study could be used to raise awareness in the communities to not use the water directly from natural sources and why filtration is necessary prior to water consumption. The manuscript is well drafted and methods and results are explained in detail. I recommend that the manuscript can be accepted after a minor revision. Below is my comment;
1.	Please include the data for prevalence of Cryptosporidium in Children (Figure-4).
Experimental design: The experimental design used by the authors is comprehensive. The study includes the full details of participants like age, BMI, etc. All the methods used in the study are described in full details.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data is being provided except for the data for prevalence of Cryptosporidium in Children (Figure-4). Please include the data.
Additional comments: Roegner and colleagues have studied the impact of direct water sources and different types of water purification methods on the occurrence of water-borne diseases like giardiasis and development of symptoms like diarrhea, vomiting, fever, etc in the inhabitants around the Lake Atitlan, Guatemala. This study becomes important as it provides insights into the most efficient method among different methods used in these communities to purify water that leads to minimum cases of illness. This study could be used to raise awareness in the communities to not use the water directly from natural sources and why filtration is necessary prior to water consumption. The manuscript is well drafted and methods and results are explained in detail. I recommend that the manuscript can be accepted after a minor revision. Below is my comment;
1.	Please include the data for prevalence of Cryptosporidium in Children (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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Amber Roegner et al in their revised manuscript "Childhood parasitic infections and gastrointestinal illness in indigenous communities at Lake Atitlán, Guatemala" made required/suggested modifications. I am happy with the revised manuscript, revised version is much more improved and it will be more helpful and informative for readers.


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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: The authors have addressed the comments satisfactorily.


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: CHILDHOOD PARASITIC INFECTIONS AND GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AT LAKE ATITLÁN, GUATEMALA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have revised the manuscript according to my comment and have included the data in the manuscript.
Experimental design: Experimental design is comprehensive.
Validity of the findings: The data is statistically sound and the study is impactful.
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: RUMEN BACTERIAL COMMUNITY PROFILE AND FERMENTATION IN BARKI SHEEP FED OLIVE CAKE AND DATE PALM BYPRODUCTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: the study is well done the use of the language is adequate, making the paper easy to read and to understand.

It is also well referenced and enough context to understand the study is presente din the introduction.

Tables and figures are OK and also discussion.
Experimental design: The study is well designed, the research question well defined, and it was done with enough rigor. In addition, the description of the methods provide enough details for repeating the experiments. Nevertheless I have a question:

how the composition of the feeding mixtures were defined see:

"The experimental rations were as follows:
S1: a common concentrate mixture served as a control ration; S2: a non-traditional concentrate mixture including 10% olive cake (OC) and 60% discarded date palm (DD); and S3: the same concentrate ration in S2 supplemented with roughage as ground date palm fronds (DPF) enriched
with 15% molasses."
Validity of the findings: the findings are valid and valuable, however I have a question, in the conclusions is stated that "Animals fed on such byproducts should be supplemented by degradable protein" was the addition of degradable protein evaluated in the study? if not why?
Additional comments: please review the references and be sure all scientific and gene names are in italics.
Provide more information about the characteriztics of Barki sheep and why they are important.


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: RUMEN BACTERIAL COMMUNITY PROFILE AND FERMENTATION IN BARKI SHEEP FED OLIVE CAKE AND DATE PALM BYPRODUCTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In table 1: The third column I think should have been S2 not S1. Right?
L336: please correct the reference. Awawdeh & Obeidat (2013) did not investigate dates.
Experimental design: meet the standards.
Validity of the findings: meet the standards.
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: ESTIMATING THE DIFFERENCES IN CRITICAL THERMAL MAXIMUM AND METABOLIC RATE OF HELICOVERPA PUNCTIGERA (WALLENGREN) (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) ACROSS LIFE STAGES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally the writing is clear, and the methods were particularly well-written, and the authors have done well to provide references to support most of their arguments. I have three concerns:

1. Please include metadata with your raw data that explains each column title, and each factor. For example, there is an ambiguous column titled 'Log transform' and none of the columns describe the units of measure. Also the precision of their raw data is not consistent across columns and rows (some V-dotCO2 data is reported to X.XXXX, while others are reported to X.XXXXXXXX). I also think an example trace showing the raw VCO2 data and activity within an example recording for one insect, as well as the inflection point they used to determine the CTmax is important to include.

2. In places, the writing in the introduction and discussion can be unclear, and sometimes difficult to link to the overall study design. The arguments/language can come across as grandiose when describing the gaps in knowledge that exist in the literature, as well as the potential applications of CTmax and metabolic rate data It's also not always clear why some arguments are being made (e.g. about gas exchange patterns in insects) in the introduction when this information isn't directly address by this study. The links between CTmax and predicting an insect's vulnerability to climate change are contentious, and not always well-supported. I encourage the authors to do more to qualify these connections in the introduction.

Overall the authors write well, follow structural conventions and provide their raw data; this manuscript was often and enjoyable read. However, I believe the above concerns should be addressed before this work published. I have also provided specific suggestions/comments by line number below.
Experimental design: In general, I think the authors' methods are well-described and provide sufficient detail such that the work could be replicated. Their research questions could be better stated as well-justified hypotheses, and this would help the reader understand relevance and meaning of their work. I do have two major concerns:

1. The authors' research questions are OK, but a meaningful justification for their predictions is missing. Two of their predictions describe 'phenotypic plasticity' as an explanation for the phenomena they will observe, yet their insects were reared under a single constant temperature. The authors are measuring immediate responses to temperature, without an opportunity for phenotypic plasticity to occur, so it's not clear to me how their experiment can address these predictions. I'm also not convinced that the explanations for their predictions are the most apparent. For example, they predict that "because insects are plastic in their responses to temperature, the metabolic rate among the life stages would be lower at the ecologically relevant condition compared with the stress conditions" (Lines 161-163).  However, their ‘stress conditions’ are high temperature and their ‘ecologically relevant conditions’ are lower temperatures. Temperature has an overwhelming effect on the metabolic rate of an ectotherm due to thermodynamics, so of course metabolic rate will almost certainly increase, but this not primarily because of plasticity or stress per se.

2. While their respirometry methods are generally well-written and explained, I have concerns with how the carbon dioxide production data are extracted/described:  At line 259 and in their figures, the authors describe metabolic rate as (V-dotCO2 ml h-1) which is a volumetric rate (i.e. V-dot). This is a standard proxy for metabolic rate, and in my experience, V-dotCO2 is usually calculated from the mean of the CO2 ml h-1 trace of flow-through respirometry data. However, at lines 229-230 they describe calculating (V-dotCO2) by extracting the *integral* of the volumetric rate. But the integral of a volumetric rate is a volume (ml). It’s not clear to me how they move from this volume (ml) to the volumetric rates (ml h-1) reported in your figures and results. Are they dividing the volume of CO2 produced by the time over which the integral was taken? The authors need to do more here to explain this calculation/data extraction as their data extraction seems non-standard for flow-through respirometry.

This is made more confusing by the fact that the authors' estimates of overall VCO2 (Figure 1, Figure 5) are much lower than those reported for their temperature-VCO2 curves (Figure 3, Table 1)? This is confusing: the authors need to clarify how these two sets of measures of VCO2 were calculated, if they intend for them both to be proxies of metabolic rate, and clarify the discrepancy in their values.

The authors also account for the effect of body mass (which differs between life stages) on metabolic rate by including it as a covariate but never describe if this is a significant covariate in the results (albeit, they do mention this briefly in the discussion).

It’s also not clear what gas exchange patterns the authors' insects use (discontinuous, continuous, etc. until a brief not in the discussion) which can have important consequences for how VCO2 data should be appropriately extracted.

Overall I believe the authors data have been collected in a technically rigorous manner, and their methods mostly well described. However, I would like to see the above concerns addressed before this work published. I have also provided specific suggestions/comments by line number below.
Validity of the findings: The authors provide the underlying data, although, I believe an example trace of VCO2, the ADS, activity, etc for each life stage would be useful to illustrate their approach to data extraction to the reader.

At times, I'm not entirely convinced of the explanations the author's offer for the patterns in their data (e.g. amount of fat body explaining variation in metabolic rate between life stages) but the authors do a good job of using hedges when they are speculating.
Additional comments: Below I provide specific comments and suggestion, by section and line number, which I believe will improve your manuscript:

Abstract

I think you could revisit the abstract. As it stands, your abstract doesn’t make clear to me why you measured VCO2 other than to estimate CTmax using thermolimit respirometry. You report differences between the mean CO2 emission rate of each life stage in the abstract, but it’s not clear how or why this information is useful to the reader.

•	Line 17: “As many insects…” should probably be “As most insects…”
•	Line 19-20: “…could elicit different physiological and behavioural responses…” This is a bit too general, I think. What physiological and behavioural responses are you interested in assessing in this manuscript? Do you even assess any behavioural responses here? Suggest revisiting this section of the abstract.
•	Line 21 and throughout! : “(V́CO2)” Please use a proper v-dot here, and throughout the manuscript. I appreciate that this may happen at the proofing stage.

Introduction

•	Line 58: “Temperature ramping rate can…” Suggest pluralize ‘rate’.
•	Line 84-85: “Depending on the microclimatic exposure, the physiology of insects can modify” Strange, overly passive sentence. Suggest “The physiology of insects can be modified by the microclimate they experience” or similar.
•	Line 85-87: “Yet, the right predictions about the future are narrow by our limited understanding of eco‐physiological mechanisms and their interactions with evolutionary processes”. Awkward wording, also not clear what predictions (about what?) you are referring to here. Suggest “Predicting XXX in changing climates is made difficult by our limited upstanding of the of eco‐physiological mechanisms and evolutionary processes underlying thermal phenotypic plasticity” or similar?
•	Line 93-94: “The adult can travel a long distance and can adapt to different environmental conditions including inland Australia”. Please clarify and describe this adaptation? Is this local adaptation, or are you referring to plasticity here?
•	Lines 88-102: While I appreciate some species life-history details, this paragraph can be shortened, and re-arranged to emphasis the details provided in its last two sentences. Your reader will be interested in the thermal biology of these species, along with some basic details of its life cycle, but probably not development times, number of instars, or event its changing diet over development.
•	Line 103-110: This paragraph is verbose, and even grandiose in places, suggest you need shorter, declarative statements. You should also align this section with the aims of your work – how are you planning to use your estimates of metabolic rate? I would keep this in the context of why eco-physiologists measure temperature-metabolic rate curves (and less generic statements about cost of living, energy theory, etc.). In places the grammar needs to be corrected and clarity improved (e.g. “…with numerous variables that can be pull out and compared” might be better stated as “Metabolic rate is a complex trait with several sources of variation such as X, Y, and Z” or similar. Also parts of this section are paraphrased in your discussion.
•	Line 111: “Metabolic rate can respond quickly to changes in ambient temperature, activity and body mass;” I agree with you about temperature and activity, but I don’t think saying the metabolic rate “responds quickly to changes in body mass” is accurate. While metabolic rate does indeed depend on the size of the animal, growth is generally slow relative to changes associated with temperature and activity.
•	Line 123-127: Why are you describing gas exchange patterns when you don’t discuss discontinuous, or continuous gas exchange in this manuscript? I appreciate that there are events that happen in gas exchange during thermolimit respirometry in response to temperature, but this isn’t really the same as discontinuous or continuous gas exchange patterns, which are primary about the opening and closing of spiracles? Also you don't describe the gas exchange pattern of your insects until discussing adults in the discussion - what was the pattern of larvae and pupae? How did you account for gas exchange patterns when extracting VCO2 data?
•	Line 134-137: It’s not immediately clear why knowing the metabolic rate of different life stages is helpful in the context of applied pest management. I think you can do more to link these two concepts here.
•	Line 141-142: ‘across key life-stages’ What makes a life stage key? I would argue they are all key to the insect. Suggest just changing this to “across three life-stages”.
•	Line 148-149: “…it also sets the temperature and exposure time according to the body mass and surface area of the insect” Not clear to me what you mean by this. I don’t believe thermolimit respirometry specificaly adjusts the temperature or exposure time in relation to the surface area of the insect? Also, be careful about how you describe thermolimit respirometry in places, for example, I would argue that the advantage of the fact that “ CTmax can be identified directly from respiratory and or activity data” is that is in an objective estimate.
•	Line 157: “We predict that because CTmax is highly plastic, larvae and adult of H. punctigera, which are exposed to the many microclimatic conditions on host plants surface, would have a higher metabolic rate and CTmax than pupae” Not clear to me how you reach this prediction – aren’t your animals reared under laboratory conditions, so not exposed to these variables (and thus no opportunity for phenotypic plasticity)? You even seem to acknowledge this in your discussion (Lines 316-317). I would also argue that the fact pupae have lower metabolic rates has less to do with microclimate or plasticity, and more to do with the physiology of metamorphosis.
•	Line 161-163: “we predict that because insects are plastic in their responses to temperature, the metabolic rate among the life stages would be lower at the ecologically relevant condition compared with the stress conditions.” It isn’t clear to me how this prediction is relevant to your study. You aren’t assessing plasticity at all, but measuring immediate responses to temperature of animals reared under identical conditions in the laboratory. Your ‘stress conditions’ are high temperature and your ‘ecologically relevant conditions’ are lower temperatures. Temperature has an overwhelming effect on the metabolic rate of an ectotherm due to thermodynamics, so of course metabolic rate will almost certainly increase regardless of plasticity or stress. I think you need to revisit these predictions to make sure that you can address them in the context of your study.
•	Line 164-165: “because of the differences in activity or physiology between male and female” What differences? Why? Suggest doing more to justify this prediction, or at least, describing these differences in your paragraph about the species life history.

Materials and methods

•	Line 175: “Moths were left for 72 hours to allow for mating, and then for fertile eggs to be laid.” It’s not clear to me if this is parallel structure in your writing (i.e. you are describing two periods of 72 hours, a single period of 72 h with both mating and egg laying, or a period of 72 h followed by some indefinite period of egg laying after this 72 hours). This is not a pressing matter in the methods, but I suggest “We left female moths to mate and lay for 72 hours…” or similar might be more clear.
•	Lines 180-181: “…artificial diet.” You introduce artificial diet at this line, and again at line 182, but don’t describe that it is a soybean diet or provide a reference until line 183. Suggest moving up the soybean description and references to the first mention of diet at lines 180-181.
•	Line 183-184: “…UNE…” suggest using the full name and country (i.e. University of New England in Australia) at first mention for an international audience that may not necessarily be familiar with the institutions in Australia!
•	Line 188: “….(Mettler Toledo XP 404S, made in Switzerland)…” Suggest removing ‘made in’ and providing the details of location (e.g. Town of XXX, Switerland). Also, missing a space between value and units on this line (i.e. ‘0.1mg’ should be ‘0.1 mg’).
•	Line 189: “…larval assay…” This wording is a bit awkward. Suggest this might be better stated as “We used fifth instar larvae in our experiments because they were available” or similar.
•	Line 189: “Average live body mass….” Suggest adding an article at the start of this sentence (i.e. “The average live body mass…”).
•	Line 195: “…so for ecologically relevant purposes, the larvae were fed…” This caveat is probably fine, although it may be a bugbear for some respirometry users/readers. I think the most important thing is that you: (1) mention the caveat (which you’ve done); and (2) make clear that all measures of metabolic rate are confounded by the specific dynamic action (roughly, the cost of digestion) of the larvae. So you aren’t really measuring resting metabolic rate, as it is typically defined,  and need to be clear about that. While pupae generally have a lower metabolic rate than other life stages, this difference will be even greater if larvae are feeding. You'll need to be very careful about any comparisons to measures from your larvae.
•	Line 198: “Thermolimit respirometry protocols followed standard protocols”. Suggest “We used standard thermolimit respirometry protocols” or similar to avoid awkward repeating here.
•	Line 200: “…pushed into two scrubber columns:”. Suggest making clear these are in sequence.
•	Line 209: “The temperature was ramping…” The tense is a bit awkward here. Suggest, “We warmed insects from 25 degC to 55 degC at 0.25 degC min-1 over 140 minutes” or similar.
•	Line 222: “…drift-corrected for baselines…” This is the first mention of baseline recordings. I suggest explaining these a bit (e.g. “We drift-corrected our recordings to baseline recordings from an empty cuvette made XX min before and after each trail” or similar). How did you control chamber switching? Based on past work from your group I think you are recording from the empty cuvette by manually adding/removing the insect from the same cuvette as the baseline, rather than a multiplexor or similar? Including a sentence like the one I describe above could improve clarity.
•	Line 222 and 217: “Test animal…”, “…test organism…” (and elsewhere) maybe just “…insect…” works well in this cases?
•	Line 225 “…was measured at these three temperature points…” Was this the same recordings as the thermolimit respirometry? I believe it is based on context, but I think you should watch the ambiguous use of the word ‘measured’ here. Suggest “V-dotCO2 data were extracted at three temperatures…” or similar
•	Line 226-227: Suggest these lines could benefit with some reference to microclimate conditions for the region?
•	Line 236: I appreciate that it’s impossible to detect the inflection point of ADS-residuals channel for immobile pupae. However, I’m curious how similar your estimates of CTmax are between VCO2-ADS and the activity-ADS approaches for your mobile larvae and adults. Please consider including these data for larvae and adults, even if only in the supporting material.
•	Line 244: You are now referring to metabolic rate rather than V-dotCO2 in your writing. I think you need to make a brief declarative statement (e.g. “We considered our measures of VCO2 as a proxy for metabolic rate…” or similar) at the start of your ‘Data analysis’ section to connect these two concepts.

Results and Figures

•	Line 258 and elsewhere, including figure axes labels: “…(ml h-1)…” You need to subscript ‘-1’ in ml h-1 (i.e. ‘ml h-1’) here and throughout this ms.
•	Line 259 and through results: “…(F=225.17)…” Suggest including degrees of freedom with your F and t statistics.
•	Line 259 and Figure 1: ‘…overall VCO2…’ This is from the overall integral the CO2 trace for the entire thermolimit respirometry recording, correct? I’m not sure if this is the best way to compare the metabolic rate between life stages of an insect, particularly because this measure will be dependent on the Q10 (thermal sensitivity) of metabolic rate. Why not only analyze the temperature-metabolic rate curves (e.g. Figure 3) instead, as you do starting at line 270?
•	Line 260: “84% lower than adults…and 86% lower than larvae…” Please double-check these percentages as they are very similar. Figure 1 and line 261 (describing a 23% difference between adults and larvae) leads me to believe that the difference in metabolic rate between larvae and pupae should be greater than the difference in metabolic rate between adults and pupae.
•	Figure 1: Consider rearranging the order of your x-axis such that the life stages appear in order of time (i.e. Larvae, Pupae, Adults) rather than alphabetically. I appreciate that R (and some other statistical software) orders factors alphabetically by default but this is usual easy enough to reorder. In the y-axis label, V-dotCO2 needs the dot, ‘2’ needs to be subscripted, and ‘-1’ needs to be superscripted. Correct figure caption “over complete ramping period” to “over the compete ramping period”, and “box plot with” to “box plots with”.
•	Figure 2: “…in the absolute difference sum (ADS) residuals…” needs to identify what the ADS residuals are of (i.e. V-dotCO2). Correct figure caption “box plot with” to “box plots with”. Consider rearranging the order of your x-axis such that the life stages appear in order of time (i.e. Larvae, Pupae, Adults) rather than alphabetically.
•	Figure 3: ditto several of my comments for Figures 1 and 2.
•	Figure 4 and Figure 5: In the y-axis label, V-dotCO2 needs the dot, ‘2’ needs to be subscripted, and ‘-1’ needs to be superscripted.
•	Line 271: “…temperature effect on mean VCO2 was high in adults and larvae compared to pupae…” This is hard to infer from Table 1 as you haven’t reported any Q10 values, also the data presented in Figure 3 makes me believe that thermal sensitivity of metabolic rate is much greater among adults than larvae or pupae.
•	Line 273-275: “For every 1°C increase in temperature, the was a 0.056 ml h-1 increase in V̇CO2 in adults, 0.037 ml h-1 increase in larvae and 0.007 ml h-1 increase in pupae.” Providing a rate increase like this suggest that metabolic rate increases linearly with temperature, which isn’t the case. Generally Q10 is a better descriptor as it considers the non-linear effects of temperature.
•	Results, generally: You include body mass as a covariate but never describing whether it had a significant effect on metabolic rate or not (until the discussion). If it did, consider plotting mass-specific metabolic rates (ml h-1 g-1) in your figures.
•	Results, generally: Why are your estimates of overall VCO2 (Figure 1, Figure 5) much lower than those reported for your temperature-VCO2 curves (Figure 3, Table 1)? This is confusing: please clarify how these measures of VCO2 were calculated, if you mean for them both to be measures of metabolic rate (see comment above for Methods), and clarify why they are different.

Discussion

•	Lines 357-363: This is introductory material, not material for a discussion. Also, some of this information is clearly paraphrased from sentences in the introduction.
•	Lines 368: “Body fat tissues” should be “Fat body…”, if you are referring to fat body in insects.
•	Lines 377: “…but in our case, size was not significant.” This result is not described in the results section.
•	Lines 385-386: “only a few studies looked at that at different temperature points” I disagree with this statement. The effect of temperature on metabolic rate (including in insects at different temperature points!) has been looked at by many, many studies.
•	Line 389: “Table 1a”. There is no Table 1a. Suggest ‘Table 1”?