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: METABOLITE PROFILING OF ENDOPHYTIC STREPTOMYCES SPP. AND ITS ANTIPLASMODIAL POTENTIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. English language usage needs additional revision before publication
2. Figures are improved, but figure 3 in particular still has lots of illegible data labels and extraneous text
3. In supplementary table 1, these compounds still need to be designated as "potential compounds" as they were not identified unambiguously
Experimental design: 1. As noted in my original review, the authors do not actually describe how metabolomics was used to PRIORITIZE a particular extract (section beginning wine 246). They describe how metabolomics was used to analyze extracts, but it's not clear how this analysis led them to particular compounds of interest, or what their criteria were for identifying particular interesting compounds.
2. Throughout, the authors assume that they are observing [M + H]+ ions but some could very well be M + Na, or other adducts.
Validity of the findings: 1. As described in my original review, I'm concerned that compound identities proposed from mass spectrometry data in this paper are highly speculative and many could be incorrect in the absence of analyzing MS/MS or isotopic pattern data (or NMR or other analytical methods). The putative nature of these compound IDs is now noted in the discussion, but extensive space is devoted to discussing particular putative compounds, which doesn't seem appropriate given how speculative the IDs are.
2. I remain concerned that the explanation for antibiotic production in a particular growth phase at the beginning of the discussion is not supported by any data in this paper
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: METABOLITE PROFILING OF ENDOPHYTIC STREPTOMYCES SPP. AND ITS ANTIPLASMODIAL POTENTIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I have read the revised version of the manuscript and the point-by-point rebuttal provided by the authors and I feel that most of the comments and suggestions have been well transferred in the current version of the manuscript. However, the resolution of provided figures are very poor. For example, please see figure 3 . It would be difficult for PeerJ readers to read the content of figure 3.


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: METABOLITE PROFILING OF ENDOPHYTIC STREPTOMYCES SPP. AND ITS ANTIPLASMODIAL POTENTIAL
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: While improved, there are numerous issues with English language usage throughout.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: As mentioned in my previous reviews, the authors' assignment of specific compounds based on their metabolomics data is highly speculative. I don't doubt that these compounds are the closest match between their m/z values and compounds in the databases used (Dictionary of Natural Products and Metlin). However, a similar m/z value is scant evidence for assigning a compound and I think it is highly likely that many, if not most, of their putative compound assignments are incorrect. I think this is especially likely because most of the putative compounds mentioned in the text are not known to be bacterially-produced molecules, but rather are known to come from plants, bacteria, or synthetic sources.

I do appreciate that the authors have revised the language in the text to note that these are putative compounds, not definitive assignments. I also appreciate that the authors have noted that definitive identification will require MS/MS and NMR (lines 317-318).
Mention of compounds in lines 293-300 should be revised to note that these are putative compound assignments.

The authors state that supplementary table 1 has been revised to label the compounds instead as "potential compounds," but I do not see the change on the version of supplementary table 1 provided with this revision. The change should be made.

Finally, as noted in my previous reviews, the amount of space dedicated to discussing literature on putatively assigned compounds seems inappropriate given that these might not be the actual compounds after all. My specific recommendation would be to remove the paragraph from lines 301 through 316 (but keep the final sentence of the paragraph about compound identification by MS/MS and NMR).
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: METABOLITE PROFILING OF ENDOPHYTIC STREPTOMYCES SPP. AND ITS ANTIPLASMODIAL POTENTIAL
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: I have read the revised version of the manuscript and the point-by-point rebuttal provided by the authors. Overall, I recommend the manuscript for publication.


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

Input:
Title: PREDICTING MAXIMAL OXYGEN UPTAKE FROM A 3-MINUTE PROGRESSIVE KNEE-UPS AND STEP TEST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Q. Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout
A. No. This work requires improvement in English

Q.Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
A. Yes

Q. Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared
A.Yes

Q.Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
A. Yes
Experimental design: Q. Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
A.Yes

Q.Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
A. Yes

Q.Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
A. Yes

Q.Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
A. Yes
Validity of the findings: Q. Impact and novelty not assessed. Negative/inconclusive results accepted. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
A.

Q.All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
A.

Q.Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
A.
Additional comments: This article requires improvement in English. Also it is strongly recommended to reorganize the article. Also, validation of the model should be performed in much more detail.

Abstract
- Line 26: I believe you excluded "BMI" for the second model.

Introduction
- Needs to be reorganized.
- Paragraph 2 should be rewritten. Before mentioning sub-maximal methods, you should clearly state the current gold standard for measuring maximal oxygen uptake.

Materials & Methods
- Line 96: You did not recruit 166 participants. I believe that is the number of participants after the exclusion. Please state the number of participants you have recruited.
- Line 128~130: Please state the reference for this exclusion criteria. Also, please mention how many participants were excluded according to this exclusion criteria.
- Line 147~150: Again, how many samples were excluded according to this criteria?
-Line 151: This should be in the result section.
Line 160~162: You should apply the predicted residual error sum of squares (PRESS) statistic for cross-validation method.

The model and features should be analyzed in more detail. Please provide following.
- Correlation matrix between features and VO2 max.
- Constant error (CE) and standard deviation for subgroups (i.e. Female, male, old, young, high VO2 max, low VO2 max, etc.)
- Bland-Altman plot

Discussion
- Discussion should be more about your study.
- Please reorganized the section for better readability.


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: PREDICTING MAXIMAL OXYGEN UPTAKE FROM A 3-MINUTE PROGRESSIVE KNEE-UPS AND STEP TEST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The structure of the article is good. The tables and figures are relevant.

Overall the article is well written, but some sentences are unclear.

Some claims are not supported by adequate references

see specific remarks  in the general comments
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and the experimental design is meaningful. Sufficient information is provided to replicate the study

The statistical analysis is relevant. I particularly appreciated the use of train and test sets to validate the model.
Validity of the findings: Given the large sample size and the valid statistical analysis, the findings seem valid and solid. Conclusions are supported by the results
Additional comments: General remark: VO2 should be written with a dot on the V to indicate that the value is a flux and not a volume. Ask for the editor for a correct display in the final version.

Abstract: HR0 HR3 and HR4 not defined. The word limit of PeerJ is 500. Please give a better introduction to show background information.

L 46 please add reference to support your claim
L 53 sentence unclear CRF cannot “measure” something
L 55 Not clear what subalgorithms and nonmotion algorithm are (definition or references)
L 61-63 Not sure to understand the meaning of the sentence. Do you mean that both direct measurements and indirect estimations are useful health outcome predictors? please clarify
L 66-67 Please add references
L 72 What is R? Please define.
L 106-107. Do you have a reference about the bioelectrical impedance analysis?
L 126-128. Is this definition of VO2 max supported by validation studies? Please add references.
L 150 please support this claim with a reference
L 184 Such precision on age (two digits) is not necessary
L 186 and Table 1. If you randomly selected a test set from the whole set, by definition, the train and test sets are similar. No need to present both sets separately, and no need to test for similarity: any significant results would be a type I error. See for instance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5947842/ for further information.
L 188-193. Were the results obtained from the test set? Please clarify and repeat here the sample size (N=?)
L 206 What were the results of the study of Nes et al.? If your aim is to compare your results with other study, please briefly comment on study’s outcome.

Table 2. Please indicate the sample size

Figures. Please add the sample size


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: PREDICTING MAXIMAL OXYGEN UPTAKE FROM A 3-MINUTE PROGRESSIVE KNEE-UPS AND STEP TEST
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Q. Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout
A. No. This work requires improvement in English

Q.Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
A. Yes

Q. Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared
A.Yes

Q.Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
A. Yes
Experimental design: Q. Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
A.Yes

Q.Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
A. Yes

Q.Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
A. Yes

Q.Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
A. Yes
Validity of the findings: Q. Impact and novelty not assessed. Negative/inconclusive results accepted. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
A. Yes

Q.All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
A. Yes

Q.Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
A. Yes
Additional comments: Table 2 and Table 3. These tables should include all dataset, not just training set.

Table 4. Delete PRESS value. Press SEE and Press R2 is enough.

Also, please check English with native speaker of English and provide certificate if possible.


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: ASSOCIATIONS WITH MONETARY VALUES DO NOT INFLUENCE ACCESS TO AWARENESS FOR FACES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the manuscript is quite well written, and the authors did an excellent job of thoroughly analyzing the data and presenting the work.

One thing that could be added in the introduction is to point out the differences between two related but different experimental techniques: binocular rivalry and CFS, since findings from both are discussed. This might help explain the seemingly discrepant findings discussed in the introduction and discussion.

Figure 3 is very nice--it shows lots of data and it’s great that individual participants’ responses are shown. However, it takes some work for the reader to get oriented to it. Not sure what could be done to improve that. Maybe highlighting the difference between the two axes (low vs high reward/punishment)? One minor suggestion is having the same quantities (eg 500, 1000) marked on the x and y axes.

Raw data
I’m not sure how the final raw data will be made available, but Including a readme.txt file would be helpful to orient people downloading the data. For instance, QueryTrial values are described in the reviewer portal, so make sure that information is available for readers.

Including the analysis code would be helpful if possible (code from R, SPSS, etc). This would aid interested readers in reproducing the same computational results described in the paper. See https://kbroman.org/steps2rr/ for more info.

Including the trial number variable in the dataset would be helpful so people could reanalyze the first half vs second half analysis described in the manuscript.
Experimental design: The authors did an excellent job with very thorough analysis of their data, and look at it in multiple ways. Well done!

One omission is how they determined the sample size. A sample size of n=24 is fairly small for current practices in many areas of psychology (Button et al., 2013; though many vision studies have few participants). Especially in the context of null results, this should probably be discussed. One example of this is that one outlier seemed to dramatically change one of the findings they report. Ideally a power calculation would be performed ahead of time to determine sample size.
Validity of the findings: The analysis seems careful and thorough. Well done!
Additional comments: Overall this is a well done study that should published once some minor issues are dealt with.

One thought question is how powerful were the monetary pairings? Did participants really believe they would be compensated differently depending on the face shown? Were they compensated that way?

It sounds like only 4 facial identities were used in the study--one for each value. These faces were then shown, many time: 96 in the pre-conditioning phase, 64 times in the learning condition, and 96 times in the final post-conditioning phase. Is it possible that the 64 repetitions of each face dulled or habituated the affective impact of the faces?


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: ASSOCIATIONS WITH MONETARY VALUES DO NOT INFLUENCE ACCESS TO AWARENESS FOR FACES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are several sections that are a little ambiguous and could be clearer:
-  Line 149, "They were further informed that they would receive or lose the amount of money depicted in each trial" – this sentence is ambiguous.
- Line 329, Could you expand a little on the paper that does show an effect of instrumental conditioning using monetary values? This paper seems particularly relevant, and so having further discussion of it would be helpful.
Experimental design: Some aspects of the design could be more fully justified.
 - Line 145, why 75% reinforcement rate?
Validity of the findings: Results:
- Why were median values selected, rather than means? Given that RTs don't tend to be normally distributed this makes sense, but the analysis is on the change scores. It would be helpful to have some justification, just as previous studies have tended to opt for mean values.

- Does accuracy in conditioning sessions predict RTs in CFS? I just wondered if the people who were least likely to respond correctly to the conditioning query trials were clustered in their RT data. I don't think this can explain the findings, but it might be helpful to show that.

- I understand why the change in response times are calculated – these are the critical measure. However, given that change scores can sometimes be deceptive, I would really value having (in supplementary materials?) the original scores for each condition. This will have no impact on the results/conclusions, it's just for transparency.

Discussion:
 - Line 344, an additional possibility would be to check that the conditioning paradigm elicits a behavioural response in a conscious (control) paradigm. Have the authors considered this?
Additional comments: This paper is well-written and interesting. The response-distribution and Bayesian analyses work very well in addressing the research questions. I do have a bit of a question over the suitability of the conditioning procedure (and the lack of an additional condition showing behavioural effects using this procedure), but I think the study is an interesting addition 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: ASSOCIATIONS WITH MONETARY VALUES DO NOT INFLUENCE ACCESS TO AWARENESS FOR FACES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The Authors of the study report behavioral data of a breaking continuous flash suppression (bCFS) task run on face stimuli that were paired with high- and low-monetary reward/punishment in a conditioning phase placed between a pre- and a post-conditioning phase. The hypothesis being tested is that learning the association between face identity and high/low reward/punishment may bias pre-conscious processing of face images changing their power to break into consciousness.
The results show that: 1) higher explicit ratings of participants’ motivation to learn (both positive and negative) high vs low monetary reward/punishment identities; 2) efficient learning of identity monetary value; 3) no effect of monetary value on bCFS RTs; 4) no effect of monetary value in the first or last part of the bCFS; 5) no effect of monetary value for any decile of condition-specific RTs.
The Authors interpret these finding suggesting that the classical conditioning procedure may not be strong enough to facilitate pre-conscious face processing needed to break into consciousness, or that the effect may be linked to identity recognition which happens after the stimulus has been detected.
The Authors properly describe the literature and clarify their hypotheses in the introduction and accurately discuss the results by also providing good interpretations of the lack of effects. Language is good, figures are clear (except Fig 3 see below) and the raw data are provided.
My concerns regard the way data are analyzed, and the fact that no personality measures were recorded making it hard to say whether the lack of effects is there because participants may vary on relevant personality trait that may interact with reward/punishment sensitivity.
I am confident that the Authors may solve these issues in one round of revisions.

Introduction, line 83: Please expand on the literature showing that monetary associations have an impact on conscious perception, and that they have a behavioral relevance, or state clearly that this is not known.

Line 133: correct “Participants’ task was indicate” in “Participants’ task was to indicate”.

Please cite relevant experiments that have shown that the procedure described at line 161 produces a relevant behavioral effect on pre-conscious processing. Since there is no effect for pre-conscious identity recognition, the lack of effect may be attributed to the fact that the procedure is not effective on pre-conscious processing in general, not for face identities in particular.

Line 133: correct “Participants’ task was indicate” in “Participants’ task was to indicate”.
Experimental design: Why only 4 identities? I guess this decision was based on the need to repeat the identities a number of times to reach a good learning, but what if the association is to easy and eliminates the effect of positive/negative and high and low monetary value?

Line 162 please state that a wrong response for faces associated to positive monetary values would imply no benefit.

Line 194-197: it is not clear why the Authors are correcting for 18 comparisons. These are run on different data (2 conditions per decile since they separate positive and negative conditionings). Is the problem that the deciles are correlated? Please explain.

Please clearly state that the analyses described at line 198 were run only on the index described first, and not the deciles. Or do differently otherwise.
Validity of the findings: I am not sure what is the benefit of the removal of the outlier described at line 237 and whether this post-hoc procedure has any theoretical background. I would either avoid running and reporting this or choose a criterion to eliminate outlier individuals before running the analyses.

What is the proportion of missed (i.e. not answered) trials during the bCFS blocks? Is there any difference between positive and negative identities in response accuracy during the conditioned bCFS session? I am asking this to try and understand whether, although the query trials show that identities were recognized above chance during the conditioning phase, there might be a different level of learning for positive and negative identities which may have impacted the RTs.

I seem to understand that negative identities were potentially associated to punishment wile positive ones were associated to a potential benefit for the participant. This makes both positive and negative items relevant for participants in the query blocks, but potentially different for people who want to avoid punishment and those who aim at positive rewards (put aside that positive rewards seem to increase the motivation of their participants as expected from background knowledge in the literature). Did the Authors measure individual’s sensitivity to monetary reward/punishment or other psychological trait/state that may have impacted their sensitivity to these dimensions?
If not, as it seems, what about using for this purpose individuals’ response criterion during the conditioning phase?

Do, by any chance, positive and negative identities or high-positive, low-positive, high-negative-low-negative (per each participant) differ in terms of RTs of bCFS before the conditioning? This is not shown since the Authors report the Post-Pre difference to isolate the effect of the conditioning, but baseline differences may have masked its effect.

Is there any RTs difference between positive and negative conditioned identities when the post-pre index is computed on high and low averaged together? And between high-positive vs high-negative and low-positive and low-negative ones? These are not tested. Why are positive and negative items analyzed separately both in the t-tests and decile analyses?

Figure 3 is poorly described, and I am not able to fully understand it. I ask the Authors to provide a better description of it in the text and legend.
Additional comments: See above.


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATIONS WITH MONETARY VALUES DO NOT INFLUENCE ACCESS TO AWARENESS FOR FACES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors thoughtfully addressed the reviewer comments.
Experimental design: The authors thoughtfully addressed the reviewer comments.
Validity of the findings: The authors thoughtfully addressed the reviewer comments.
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: ASSOCIATIONS WITH MONETARY VALUES DO NOT INFLUENCE ACCESS TO AWARENESS FOR FACES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The authors have diligently addressed all of my previous concerns. I think the manuscript is suitable for publication.


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATIONS WITH MONETARY VALUES DO NOT INFLUENCE ACCESS TO AWARENESS FOR FACES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: The way the response criterion was computed is problematic. Could they provide a reference for the usage of the criterion in your design? The Authors are using both reward and loss accuracies together while the formula for the criterion asks for hits and false alarms. I think they need to extract a bias for positive and a bias for negative items by using the formula on reward and loss conditions separately and then compare the two values. In reward trials hits are defined as the ability to correctly recognize reward-faces, while false alarms are trials in which loss-faces are wrongly recognized as reward ones. In loss trials hits are defined as the ability to correctly recognize loss-faces, while false alarms are trials in which reward-faces are wrongly recognized as loss ones.

Accuracy analysis is showing individual’s aggregated values for positive, negative, high and low conditions together. This limits the possibility to evaluate whether some of these conditions had a different accuracy than the other.

For the second, and last, exploratory analysis the Authors computed accuracy in different conditions but it is unclear how this was used to calculate the RTs. Are RTs weighted for the individuals’ accuracies?
Validity of the findings: Two issues are not clear to me, one concerns the actual instruction that was given to participants regarding their final payoff, the second one concerns the effects of the conditioning procedure. I am reporting these two comments to try and improve the clarity of the methods (1) and to ask the Authors to comment on a possible reason for not finding any effect of positive and negative conditioning over aware detection of faces (2).
1) Instructions to participants concerning their payoff.
The Authors first state that “Participants were instructed to passively view the stimuli and to memorize the association between the faces and the monetary values as well as possible. They were further informed that the monetary value depicted in a trial would be counted towards their overall payoff.”. They then say that in this phase (i.e. the conditioning phase) the gain/loss amount to zero, i.e. “Since unbeknown to participants each monetary value was presented equally often, the outcome for this part of the conditioning phase amounted to zero.” and conclude by saying that “Thus, participants’ outcome was solely defined by their accuracy in the query trials (see below).”.
Some lines later the Authors say that “Participants were informed that monetary reimbursement for their participation in the experiment would depend on the accuracy of their choices during these query trials. After the experiment, participants indeed received the amount of money that they accumulated during the conditioning phase”.
So, did participants thought that their payoff was “passively” obtained by looking at the pairings in the conditioning phase or due to their ability to recognize the pairings in the query trials? While the first case would be based on classical conditioning, the second is based on participants’ performance. I believe that query trials were necessary to test whether the associations were learnt, but linking the payoff to participants’ accuracy in these trials might have switched the associations from positive and negative payoffs (for reward- and loss-faces, respectively) to positive/positive ones (for recognized reward- and recognized loss-faces, respectively), see the second point. Thus, since participants’ accuracy was very high from beginning, all the faces had a “positive” value and no difference is found.

2) Effects of the conditioning procedure.
When describing the actual rule for gaining/losing money in query trials the Authors say “More specifically, a correct assignment of a monetary reward to the respective face would yield an addition of +2 € or +0.1 €, respectively, to their payoff. A wrong response to faces associated with reward did not result in a monetary gain.”. This means that “reward-faces” did not harm participants’ payoff.
“For faces associated with a monetary punishment, participants had to assign the correct monetary value to avoid a monetary loss. This means that a correct assignment of -2 € or -0.1 € to the respective face did not yield a monetary gain or loss. However, if a participant assigned a wrong value to a punishment-related face, this resulted in a loss of -2 € or -0.1 €, respectively.”.
Thus, in query trials participants could either gain money (if correctly associating identities to gain/loss) or avoid losing money (if correctly associating identity to losses). Those are two positive outcomes for both reward- and loss-faces and may have cancelled any effect of the conditioning, se my previous point.
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: ASSOCIATIONS WITH MONETARY VALUES DO NOT INFLUENCE ACCESS TO AWARENESS FOR FACES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: I thank the Authors for answering to my points.
In relation to their response:

"The reviewer asks what participants believed their payoff was dependent on. In the current version of the manuscript, we clarify that participants were made to believe that their payoff would depend on both, the monetary values that they passively viewed and their accuracy in the query trials (ll. 193ff): “Thus, participants expected that their payoff was dependent on both, the passively viewed pairings of monetary values and faces as well as their performance during the query trials. Note that in case of negative values participants had to respond accurately to avoid monetary losses during the query trials.”"

I guess this was done 1) to make high-valued faces more relevant in the passive viewing phase (as they implied larger gain/losses for the participant), and 2) to have participants paying attention to all stimuli in query trials (as higher accuracies imply more money) to understand whether the associations were properly learnt.
I think the Authors need to explain the rationale of their (two different?) instructions.

I believe that the manuscript should now be accepted provided the Authors include a sentence to explain this point.


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: FORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP PROFILE OF ELBOW FLEXORS IN MALE GYMNASTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The academic language was very good and abstract was very well constructed.

However, it would be nice to check the space after/before the parenthesis in the introduction part as well as the underlined word Line 75. What was the idea to compare between Judo and gymnasts?

Table 1 and 2 should it be p< 0.001 instead of 0.000?

What did mean for "b, p-value " in the Table 1?

Why the number of the participants in each group was not similar for Table 1 and 2?

Please identify the tested movement on Table 2 ....F-V elbow flexion?

Did the value in Figure 3A being an average for all which should be in the Fig3B?
Experimental design: The study focused the structural and muscle function adaptation on gymnasts which the results gains in on these questions and methods was indeed easy to follow and all measures were provided the reliability.

However. there are still unclear some points.

Was there the same investigator in all measurement?

 Line 138 shouldn't be BB and brachialis muscle at this MT measurement point as the same as  (Miyatani et al. 2000)? and from that study, why this study did concern using CSA to normalize F instead of MV?

Why the MVC task was set at 40 deg for both elbow flexion and extension? Shouldn't be at the optimal angle?

Why the dynamic contraction task was done only for EF?
Validity of the findings: Result, it would be interesting to present the value of EMGMVC or submax perhaps in the Table1.

In the statistic part, the pearson r correlation was used, but why in the result the R2 was presented. Please clarify.

The report of F0, V0, Pmax, F-V slope should be partly presented in the result part.

The second last paragraph of discussion, Is there any document for EF in the relation of muscle fibre type and RFD?

Perspective, please check the "and" after the citations.
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: FORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP PROFILE OF ELBOW FLEXORS IN MALE GYMNASTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: - The introduction while interesting should be clear and concise and be hypothesis driven to allow the reader to see the basis of your hypothesis. At present this could be improved. For example, in lines 70-76, authors must indicate what can explain these contradictory results.

- The authors need to clarify the purpose of the study.

- The methods need to be pristine so that the study can be replicated.

- A session describing the experimental design can help readers. In addition, this session may present the interval between the evaluations and the order that they were carried out.

- Why was the study conducted only with men?

- Why were reproducibility measures performed only for muscle thickness?

- The practical applications are for the coach or end user and needs to be clearer and more to the point.

- The discussion needs to reflect what you found, how it relates to the literature and then what it means physiologically.

- Authors should avoid speculation at the conclusion of the study.


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

Input:
Title: FORCE-VELOCITY RELATIONSHIP PROFILE OF ELBOW FLEXORS IN MALE GYMNASTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments.
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: The authors responded to all my comments accordingly and considerably improved the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE OF THE DISTRESS TOLERANCE SCALE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A HISTORY OF NON-SUICIDAL SELF-INJURY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors conducted a test of measurement invariance of the Distress Tolerance Scale across status of non-suicidal self-injury among university students in Australia. Overall, the paper is well-organized and the writing is clear throughout. I just have a few comments for the authors:

Introduction
1.	Was it absolutely necessary to discuss measurement invariance findings on self-report measures of alexithymia (lines 141-154)? Readers might feel a little distracted from the main flow of the discussion on existing literature.
2.	I understand that the single focus of this paper was on measurement invariance of the Distress Tolerance Scale, however, it might be more enlightening to offer a little background on other significant correlates of non-suicidal self-injury in the Introduction section or Methods section, such as depression, distress, etc. However, I would like to hear the authors’ arguments on not including or discussing other significant correlates of NSSI.
Experimental design: 1.	Can the authors provide explanations as to why there was minimum discussion on demographic information of the sample such as academic performance, annual family income, or lifestyle factors? It would be nice to include such information in Table 1.
2.	Majority (74.7%) of the sample were females, which might be of concern as to if findings on measurement invariance of the DTS would apply more to females rather than males?
3.	It would also be nice to include information on the normality indices of the sample such as skewness and kurtosis, as well as information on internal reliability coefficient of the DTS.
4.	Factor loadings of item 6 and item 14 seemed a bit low.
Validity of the findings: Sufficient discussion on findings and limitations.
Additional comments: no further comment to add.


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: MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE OF THE DISTRESS TOLERANCE SCALE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A HISTORY OF NON-SUICIDAL SELF-INJURY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: a.	Overall, the current manuscript used clear, grammatically correct English. Still, some clarification is warranted as detailed in the Validity of the Findings.
b.	The manuscript seems to include relevant prior literature.
c.	The structure of the manuscript appears appropriate.
d.	Raw data was shared.
e.	The relevant results being reported appear appropriate based on the described analytic strategies.
Experimental design: a.	Research question appears to be clearly defined. Nonetheless, some clarification on the study rationale is warranted as detailed below under Validity of the Findings.
b.	Methods warrant some clarifications including handling missing data and analytic strategies addressing partial measurement invariance (MI). Please see the details below under Validity of the Findings.
Validity of the findings: a.	The finding is novel. However, the current conclusion warrants caution due to some missing information (e.g., investigation on the reasons for low Cronbach’s alpha, strategies to address partial MI), as detailed below.

Title
-	Specifying the study sample would be helpful for readers. For example, authors could say ‘college students’ as opposed to ‘students’ to indicate that the sample was comprised of young adult individuals.

Introduction
-	Line 125-154: These two paragraphs discuss potential issues arising when using scales without established MI among those with NSSI. While the authors did a nice job presenting specific examples, it is not clear what poses concerns in utilizing scales without established MI. Despite a brief summary of potential implications in lines 138-140 and 150-154, the current argument is limited. Why is using scales without established MI problematic above and beyond statistical concern? What are the consequences of using those scales in understanding NSSI? What are the clinical implications? Why is it crucial to establish MI in the DTS?
-	Line 156: There is a typo in “NSIS”.

Materials and Methods
-	Participants and procedure: Please provide information on race, ethnicity, and school year if such information is available. Was any information on the history of mental illness available? If so, please provide it. Also, please provide demographic information by group (i.e., NSSI vs no-NSSI).
-	Line 204-205: Authors refer to two analytic models as “higher-order factor structure” and “first-order four-factor structure,” which do not correspond to the model labels in Table 2 and Figure 1. Please use consistent language.
-	Line 213: Citation “Brown 2015” is missing in the reference.
-	Line 215-226: The paragraph describes the procedure of MGCFA and the criteria. However, the information on the groups in comparison is missing.
-	Line 220-221: What do you mean by “both models”?
-	Overall, how was the missing data handled (e.g., the proportion of missing data, imputation method, the assumption underlying missing data)?

Results
-	Line 234: The models are referred to as “higher-order model and the lower-order four-factor model” which do not correspond to the labels in Table 2, Figure 1, and previous sections. Please use consistent language.
-	Line 237-238: Authors explain the modification indices. I would recommend explaining this procedure with appropriate citations in the Data Analysis section so that readers can understand why the authors made this decision.
-	Line 264-266: In testing MI, scalar invariance was not supported and the items were investigated. Authors state that there was a response tendency to item 10 such that the NSSI group tended to respond by agreeing more. However, reviewing the shared data, a similar response tendency was found in items 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 15 among those with a history of NSSI. What was the rationale to pick item 10 only to vary? Related, the Cronbach’s alpha is very low for the Appraisal subscale (0.69) which is composed of items 9, 11, and 12 including item 10. Please provide a clear rationale/strategy in handling the partial scalar invariance in the Data Analysis section. For example, the following reference might help:
o	Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. O. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456
-	Lines 262-268: Authors state that “full metric and residual error” was supported. I am not sure if the term being used is following the conventional terms of MI research. Typically, the terms ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ MI are used as opposed to ‘full.’ I would recommend reconsidering using the term ‘full’ in the Results and Discussion section. Additionally, the residual error invariance in the current data is contingent on the partial scalar MI model. Authors may want to be cautious when reporting the results of residual error invariance.

Discussion
-	In general, I would expect to see some discussion on the low Cronbach’s alpha in the Appraisal subscale, that might have contributed to partial scalar MI.
-	The current conclusion should acknowledge the partial scalar invariance and the residual error invariance that is contingent on the partial scalar invariance.
-	Line 318-320: This sentence carries important clinical implications in appraisal style among individuals with NSSI. However, related to my first comment on low Cronbach’s alpha in the Appraisal subscale, I recommend the authors to investigate the items in the Appraisal subscale at the analysis stage so that this sentence is supported.
-	Line 328-330: This sentence is unclear. What do you mean by ‘in terms of its content in comparison to other items’? Can you expand more on what it means with ‘previously thought to influence interpretation’?
-	Line 332-333: Authors state that they used the strictest test of invariance, referring to the chi-square difference test. What is the reference to support this sentence? In my understanding, the chi-square test is sensitive to sample size, which is the reason why other indices such as CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR are used according to Chen, 2007.

Tables and Figures
-	Table 1: Readers would benefit from the descriptive information from the full sample. Please also double-check minor typos in the decimals in the column reporting t values as I noticed some typos when I ran the same analysis using the shared data.
-	Table 2: Please use consistent language when labeling models (e.g., Second-order factor model or higher-order factor model as stated in the text body).
-	Table 3: What does “M” stand for? When referring to each model, the term “Full” seems misleading.
-	I would recommend having a supplemental table comparing the mean and SDs of each item in DTS in both the total sample and two subsamples.
Additional comments: The current manuscript examines the measurement invariance (MI; configural, metric, scalar, and residual error) of the 15-item Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS). The study sample was comprised of college students (N=531). The history of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) was self-reported. Two analytic approaches were implemented. First, two models (higher-order and first-order model) were tested among the total sample and two subsamples (history of NSSI vs no history of NSSI) in order to identify the best fitting model. Second, the first-order model was selected to test MI in the aforementioned two subsamples. Results supported configural and metric invariance. However, the results supported partial scalar invariance and residual error invariance contingent on the model of partial scalar invariance. The authors conclude that the 15-item DTS reflects group differences in NSSI. Together, this is a well-written manuscript with an important contribution in clarifying the potential measurement issue in DTS in assessing the level of distress tolerance among individuals with and without NSSI history. Nonetheless, some major methodological clarifications are warranted.


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: MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE OF THE DISTRESS TOLERANCE SCALE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A HISTORY OF NON-SUICIDAL SELF-INJURY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article “Measurement invariance of the Distress Tolerance Scale among students with and without a history of non-suicidal self-injury” (#53519) clearly and effectively describes the process of analysis of the factor structure of the aforementioned scale, and explores its measurement invariance among these groups of students. The literature review provides adequate background on the concepts relevant for the research and on the instruments used, showing conceptual accuracy and the pertinence of its aims. The article is very well structured and organized, respecting the standards proposed by the journal. It is also well written, with clear and technically accurate discourse that respects professional standards. The figures and tables are relevant, well-labelled and have enough quality. Raw data is supplied. Through this we can calculate the descriptive statistics of individual items to assess their kurtosis and skewness. However, it could be useful for readers to include this additional information in a table. Important results for the two aims proposed are presented and adequately discussed.
Experimental design: The research presented conforms to the journal’s aims and scope and it very clearly defines its aims. The article clearly argues how the research fills a knowledge gap in the area, clarifying the use of the Distress Tolerance Scale according to the factorial structure chosen by researchers. Therefore, it provides evidence for the potential of the scale’s use with a first-order four factor structure, since it may provide “a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of key elements underlying distress tolerance and its relationship with psychopathology and behaviours such as NSSI” (lines 309-311), avoiding simplistic interpretations of results. Moreover, it evidences satisfactory levels of measurement invariance for students with and without NSSI, which supports the psychometric properties and value of the scale and its potential usefulness for further understanding these behaviours. However, the strategy used to achieve full residual error invariance could be considered by some to be debatable. Indeed, this level of measurement invariance is not common in psychological measures and results could be considered sufficient without resorting to this strategy. Ethical standards seem to have been respected since ethical approval was obtained, authors present how participant consent was obtained, and participants received information about self-injury upon completion of the survey (line 181). The article provides adequate information on the statistical analyses performed, showing high technical standards, as well as rigorously detailing procedures.
Validity of the findings: The research is useful for the scientific area, providing support for this scale’s psychometric properties, distinguishing uses of the scale in its two versions, and arguing well for the added value of the First-Order Four Factor Model. Moreover, it also provides support for its use among students with and without NSSI through measurement invariance, finding that students with NSSI show lower levels in specific subscales, which can be valuable for future research. Conclusions are consistent with the aims proposed and results obtained, acknowledging limitations and how future research could provide further support for hypothesis (e.g. assessing measurement invariance in clinical samples (lines 348 – 352).
Additional comments: This article is an example of a sound, interesting and useful piece of research and we suggest acceptance.


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: MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE OF THE DISTRESS TOLERANCE SCALE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A HISTORY OF NON-SUICIDAL SELF-INJURY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed each comment by providing sufficient rebuttals or revisions.


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

Input:
Title: MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE OF THE DISTRESS TOLERANCE SCALE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A HISTORY OF NON-SUICIDAL SELF-INJURY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: All of my comments have been adequately addressed.
Experimental design: All of my comments have been adequately addressed.
Validity of the findings: All of my comments have been adequately addressed.
Additional comments: All of my comments have been adequately addressed.


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: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors reported a series of gelatin-polysaccharide composite hydrogels and evaluated their potential in cardiac applications. The experiments are well-designed, and the results can support the conclusions of the authors. Overall, the quality of this manuscript is quite good. So, I think it can be accepted after some minor revisions.
1. A schematic diagram should be added to make the audience understand the idea of this work easier.
2. The quality of Figure 2 is rather poor. The authors should futher improve it.


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

Input:
Title: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Reported experiments were performed well. However, in the introduction section, authors are advised to write about the previous literature in the development of hydrogel for cardiac tissue regeneration. Title and introduction, and experiments performed were not correlated.
Molecular weight, mannuronic acid/ guluronic acid ratio and other characterization of alginate needs to be mentioned to materials section.
Experimental design: Authors are requested to perform experiments showing suitability of the development hydrogel for cardiac tissue regeneration. With only in vitro cell viability and attachment, it difficult understand how the developed hydrogel will be intended for cardiac tissue regeneration. Authors are required to perform invitro cardiogenic differentiation.
Additionally, cell migration/penetration inside hydrogel needs to performed, as the hydrogel is intended for tissue regeneration. Z-stacking in confocal microscopy could provide the same.
In vitro degradation studies show, composite hydrogel gets degraded in 2 hour. How's the cell culture experiments were performed? This experiment needs to discuss properly.
Gelation time for each hydrogel could be tabled for essay understanding for the readers.
Validity of the findings: Authors needs provide reason for selecting 4:1 ratio for gelatin and chitosan/alginate.
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: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: In this study, to detect the properties of composite hydrogels for cardiac tissue engineering in vitro, the authors developed five different hydrogels, including chitosan hydrogel, alginate hydrogel, microbial transglutaminase-crosslinked gelatin (mTG/GA) hydrogel, chitosan mTG-crosslinked GA (C-mTG/GA) hydrogel, and alginate mTG-crosslinked GA (A-mTG/GA) hydrogel. Then the authors assessed enzymatic degradation property in vitro, swelling capacity, and mechanical property of all hydrogels. In order to test the growth and adhesion of adipose-derived stromal stem cells (ADSCs) on the hydrogel surface, the cell morphology of ADSCs after inoculation in five hydrogels was observed by immunofluorescence staining. Calcein acetoxymethyl ester/propidium iodide (calcein-AM/PI) technology was used to measure cell viability. Besides, methyl tetrazolium (MTT) was used to test the cell proliferation. At last, the authors researched the cytoskeleton staining. This study suggests a unique approach to modernizing myocardial infarction (MI) through the composite hydrogel, and the authors also showed some significant results from the developed hydrogels on MI treatments. However, there are still a few issues to be clarified prior to the publication of this manuscript.
1. As shown in Table 1, the swelling capacities of mTG/GA, C-mTG/GA, and A-mTG/GA hydrogels are higher than those of chitosan and alginate hydrogels. In order to make this manuscript clearer and more significant, the authors should clarify if the swelling capacities would affect the security or efficacy of tissue engineering, and what is the exact relationship.
2. The authors chose the collagenase type I and trypsin to degrade the materials. However, as the materials used for cardiovascular applications, the authors didn’t explain why. As far as I know, the most common site of trypsin should be the small intestine.
3. Although the authors did the enzymatic degradation test, those hydrogels will be used for cardiovascular applications, should the authors further study the platelet agglutination. The reviewer thinks that If these materials are not entirely degraded before forming new blood vessels and cardiomyocytes, once platelets gather on these materials, they can cause a myocardial infarction.
4. Whether the specific physical and chemical properties of these composite hydrogels need further elaboration, such as transmission electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra, and so forth.
5. As for cell viability and cell proliferation test, the authors gave us the results that cells in the mTG/GA, C-mTG/GA, and A-mTG/GA hydrogels behaved better than those of chitosan and alginate hydrogels. However, the authors didn’t explain a clear reason or give your conjecture.
6. In the discussion section, the authors should use your own opinions rather than quoting others.
7. The layout of pages 24 and 24 needs further refinement.
8. The recently published review or research articles should be discussed in the revision, for example, Trends in Biotechnology 2020, 38 (6), 579-583; Biomacromolecules 2019, 20 (4), 1478-1492; Advanced Science 2018, 5 (5), 1700527; ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2019, 11 (9), 8725-8730.


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: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have developed composite hydrogels composed of gelatin and polysaccharide (chitosan or alginate) for tissue engineering applications. The enzymatic cross linking and simple method of development make the hydrogels attractive to take it further. The effort with which the paper is written is appreciated where the authors have considered to write each section in detail. However, some major revision has to be done to make this manuscript publishable. Please consider the points below:
1.	The authors have used the term “we” in many places. I recommend rewriting the manuscript in passive form.
2.	There is a need to do English language and grammar correction.
Experimental design: 1.	The title of the manuscript is misleading. The authors have titled “cardiac applications”, but the manuscript does not contain any experiments to prove the same. Differentiation experiments have to be done to claim the applicability of the material in cardiac tissue engineering.
2.	The experiment of enzymatic degradation is done only for 2h and the results showed that most of the gel degraded in this short span. How will the authors use this gel for long term experiments? Authors should test for improved enzymatic crosslinking by altering conditions such as time, temperature etc so as to reduce fast degradation.
Validity of the findings: -No Comments-
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: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors have revised their manuscript carefully according to all reviewers' comments. I think this version is acceptable for publication.


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

Input:
Title: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comments
Experimental design: Authors had performed in vitro degradation studies under non-cellular enzymatic condition. Authors need to perform the degradation studies based on hydrolytic and Cell-mediated degradation for a long duration. This would help the readers to better understand the degradation properties of the developed hydrogel.
Validity of the findings: No comments
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: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The revision is ready for publication.


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

Input:
Title: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comments
Experimental design: 1. Authors have performed enzymatic degradation for the prepared hydrogel. However, for tissue engineering application perspective, authors need to perform hydrolytic and cellular degradation for a better understanding of the degradation profile of synthesized hydrogel. It could be performed based on the cited literature in your rebuttal letter. They are
[1] Mazzeo MS, et al. “Characterization of the Kinetics and Mechanism of Degradation of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Laden Poly (ethylene glycol) Hydrogels.” ACS Appl Bio Mater 2019 2:81-92. 10.1021/acsabm.8b00390
[2] Yang G, et al. “Enzymatically crosslinked gelatin hydrogel promotes the proliferation of adipose tissue-derived stromal cells.” PeerJ 2016 4:e2497. 10.7717/peerj.2497
Discuss the degradation behaviour of the hydrogel in detail.

2. In one of the author's responses, the authors mentioned: "Observation and cytoskeletal staining showed that the cells grew and spread in the flat, and no obvious cell migration/penetration was observed". As the prepared hydrogels were intended for tissue engineering application, authors need to study the ADSCs survivability by embedding inside hydrogel materials.
Validity of the findings: No comments
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: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comments
Experimental design: No Comments
Validity of the findings: No Comments
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: PREPARATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GELATIN-POLYSACCHARIDE COMPOSITE HYDROGELS FOR TISSUE ENGINEERING
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript could be accepted for publication
Experimental design: Nil
Validity of the findings: Nil
Additional comments: Nil


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

Input:
Title: THE MONTANE TREES OF THE CAMEROON HIGHLANDS, WEST-CENTRAL AFRICA, WITH DEINBOLLIA ONANAE SP. NOV. (SAPINDACEAE), A NEW PRIMATE-DISPERSED, ENDANGERED SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the paper would benefit from some careful editing of the text – including last paragraph- and I have made some comments below which I hope will help.

Basic reporting was good- the paper reads well with appropriate background and literature. I have some questions/ editorial comments:
L 107  What project? IPA’s needs a bit more explanation- UK’s PlantLife
L 109- don’t need surviving
L115 remove repeat ‘being’
L 125 add d to place (placed).
L 132 remove capital P from phylogenetics; add the to Sapindaceae?
L 142 five not 5
L 148 should this be highest known? Cameroon has had more recent intensive collecting  than eg Nigeria.
L 190 remove the word was  ..instead described in ..
L 189 Should YA (Yaunde) be defined, same with K (Kew) (same with other herbaria in L 192, L 200, L 201
L 212 remove brackets from (Cheek.. instead (2009)
L 225 – Table 1? (not table 1).
L 266 Deinbollia sp. And Deinbollia cf pinnata?
L 362 remove the ‘the’ following 1970s
L 367 -370 not very clear Rephrase- Moreover, observations of putty nose monkeys (Cercopithecus nictitans) feeding on Deinbollia at Ngel Nyaki (Gawaisa 2010) were of the primates in the crown of trees, so more likely…
L 386 could add- Putty nose monkeys also eat the leaves and flowers of Deinbollia (Gawaisa 2010; Hutchinson 2015)
L 379-386 could be written as follows: More numerous and so probably more effective at seed dispersal of Deinbollia are putty-nosed monkeys (Cercopithecus nictitans). Gawisa (2010) reported that at Ngel Nyaki Deinbollia fruit ranked third in preferred fruits of C. nictitans during February and March, and fifth in January.  Hutchinson (2015) has shown that males in particular show a preference for Deinbollia seeds in the rainy season (Hutchinson 2014). Seeds are both swallowed, passing  through the gut (average 2 per faecal sample) and sucked and spat by the putty-nosed monkeys  (averaging 5 seeds per spitting event) (Chapman et al 2010). An experiment comparing germination time and success among Deinbollia seeds which had been defecated, spat and hand-cleaned found that gut passage had a significant beneficial effect on germination rates. A higher proportion of defecated seeds (60–70% ) germinated than spat (c. 40%) or hand –cleaned (c.35 %) seeds, and the defecated seeds germinated on average a few days earlier than non-defecated seeds (Chapman et al., 2010).

L 393 ….three months of the study (Matthesius et al )
L 411 412 Have you checked JDC 3550
First para of discussion, could you add the Memecylon described by Stone?  Douglas Stone, in his research to improve the Memycylon genus phylogeny has said “ We now know that the Ngel Nyaki species should be placed in Memecylon (sect. Afzeliana Jacq.-Fél). HMC-744 clearly represents a new species, but further study of flowering & fruiting material is needed before it can be formally described and named. The new species is a small tree (about 15 metres tall) growing in Ngel Nyaki forest.”
 L 499-504 There is a large block of forest in the Gotel Mountains, which are within the 6000km 2 Gashaka Gumpti National Park. InThere is approximately 40 square km’s of forest round Dutsin Dodo and Gangirwal mountain.   In   Chapman & Chapman 2001 this is not made clear as in this book the forest is described in sections based on species composition (and to some extent altitude). On a visit in 2000 we surveyed the forests which is where these data come from.
The data from Ngel Nyaki has all been funded under the umbrella of the Nigerian Montane Forest Project- so if that name could be included somewhere- maybe acknowledgements- would be appropriate.

References
Gawaisa G.S. (2010) The Role of Putty Nose Monkey (in forest regeneration of a montane forest ecosystem of Ngel Nyaki forest reserve, Taraba State, Nigeria) (Linnaeus, 1766). PhD thesis Federal Universitty of Technology, Yola, Nigeria /Nigerian Montane Forest Project.
Hutchinson K. (2015) Diet of Cercopithecus nictitans| and investigation into its potential to act as a surrogate disperser in disturbed Afromontane forests. MSc Thesis University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Experimental design: Hypothesis is clear and method of testing appropriate. Conclusions are well stated and concise.
Validity of the findings: I have full confidence in the validity of the findings. Data presented,  sources explained and given.
Additional comments: In this contribution, the authors test the hypothesis that the tree species previously referred to as Deinbollia sp. 2 is a distinct, previously undescribed species, which they have named as D. onanae. The authors have assessed D. onanae as Endangered (IUCN 2012 criteria), and include valuable information on its ecology. I believe the authors have made a convincing case for this new species and provided ample, detailed evidence for there being a new species, likely a sister species of D. oreophila. This is a most valuable piece of work, worthy of publication in PeerJ. As explained in the paper, the flora and fauna of this diverse ecosystem are under intense threat from land clearance and fragmentation; it is essential that species be recognised and described before they go extinct- only by knowing what is there can a case be made for their conservation.
I think the paper would benefit from some careful editing of the text – including last paragraph- and I have made some comments below which I hope will help.


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

Input:
Title: THE MONTANE TREES OF THE CAMEROON HIGHLANDS, WEST-CENTRAL AFRICA, WITH DEINBOLLIA ONANAE SP. NOV. (SAPINDACEAE), A NEW PRIMATE-DISPERSED, ENDANGERED SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is very well written. The introduction is well-referenced and provides a thorough background on the genus Deinbollia, as well as the circumstances of the discovery of the new species. The three figures (line drawing, specimen scan and the distribution map) are of high quality, are all relevant and well labeled. However, the raw measurements of the plant parts are not provided.
Experimental design: The methods used by the authors are classic in taxonomy and are well described.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are well stated. One of the merits of this manuscript is that it deviates from the classic taxonomic papers as it provides extensive details about the ecology of the new species.
Additional comments: The montane trees of the Cameroon Highlands, WestCentral Africa, with the Endangered, Deinbollia onanae sp. nov. (Sapindaceae), a new primatedispersed, Endangered species (#54299)

The authors describe a new species of Deinbollia already either recognized as a new species or otherwise misidentified in different parts of its distributional range. The authors provide a very detailed description of the new species and discuss its affinities with another congener that also occurs in high altitude. The conservation status of the new species is assessed following IUCN criteria and an excellent illustration of the new species is also included.
The manuscript is very well written. The introduction is well-referenced and provides a thorough background on the genus Deinbollia, as well as the circumstances of the discovery of the new species. The three figures (line drawing, specimen scan and the distribution map) are of high quality, are all relevant and well labeled. However, the raw measurements of the plant parts are not provided. The methods used by the authors are classic in taxonomy and are well described. The conclusions are well stated. One of the merits of this manuscript is that it deviates from the classic taxonomic papers as it provides extensive details about the ecology of the new species.

The following suggestions and comments could further improve the manuscript:
Line 69 & 70: “It is postulated that this new species is in a sister relationship with Deinbollia oreophila”. The authors should simply say that the new species is morphologically close to Deinbollia oreophila.
The “sister relationship” cannot be postulated on the sole basis of morphology. Carapa oreophila and C. angustifolia that are also the only two species of the genus occurring in altitude in the Cameroon line occur in different clades of the phylogeny.

Line 125: The genus Deinbollia Schum. & Thonn. is traditionally placed in the tribe Sapindeae DC

Line 192: …were seen by one or more both authors

Line 239 &240: “The affinities of Deinbollia sp. 2 may be with the recently described D. oreophila since this species also occurs at altitude in the Cameroon Highlands and both species share numerous”.
See above. Sympatric species are not necessary sister species

Line 341: … Jean-Michel Onana, currently Senior Lecturer in Botany at University of Yaoundé I

Line 146: … Taxonomic Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Cameroon Cameroon (Onana, 2011).

Line 359 & 362: We consider that many and probably most of the smaller of these numerous stems may not be the usually infrequent D. onanae, but the much smaller (0.8–361 3(–5) m tall) D. oreophila which at this altitude, over the border in Cameroon, is vastly more frequent in submontane forest (Cheek & Etuge 2009)
The diameter size class distribution of D. ananae has a reverse J shape at Ngel Nyaki which simply means that this species regenerates well in this locality. Speculating that the smaller stems of this species may belong to a separate species is misleading. We all know that taxonomists are mostly interested in fertile herbarium specimens that are often collected from mature trees, ignoring all juveniles of the same species in the understory.

Line 162 – 165: In contrast, the 1970s the 1 ha enumeration plot at Ngel Nyaki (Chapman & Chapman 2001: 25–26) yielded five stems of “Deinbollia sp.” in the C strata (understorey trees 7–13 m high) with diameter at 1.3 m above the ground exceeding 14.5 cm, of which two exceeded 28 cm and one 40 cm
There is no contrast here. The Ngel Nyaki plot includes all stems with dbh > 1 cm. In this plot, there were 3078 trees, of which only 95 had a diameter > 14.5 cm (4.6 individuals per ha) versus 5 individuals/ ha enumerated by Chapman & Chapman.

Line 367 – 368: observations of animals feeding on Deinbollia at Ngel Nyaki have been made using binoculars of primates trained on the crowns of trees so are,
Not sure what this means

Line 506: “The tree species diversity of the montane forest of the Cameroon Highlands is low (28 species,”
Is this estimate of 28 species based on inventory plots (which dbh cutoff?) or herbarium collections?


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

Input:
Title: THE MONTANE TREES OF THE CAMEROON HIGHLANDS, WEST-CENTRAL AFRICA, WITH DEINBOLLIA ONANAE SP. NOV. (SAPINDACEAE), A NEW PRIMATE-DISPERSED, ENDANGERED SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The article is scientifically sound, follows a perfectly standard format for this kind of taxonomic presentation, and leaves no doubt that the species described is indeed new to science and worthy of recognition. The suggested taxonomic affinities are well supported and testable by further research. There are no systematic flaws or areas for general improvement. I have made mostly very small suggestions on details of the text in the form of sticky notes in the attached PDF. Most are completely self-explanatory, but I will make specific comments on a few:

1. The words "the Endangered," should be removed from the title because they are redundant, with "Endangered species appearing at the end of the title.

2. In the formal diagnosis following line 255, the highlighted series of character states are identical to those with which they are being contrasted; these must be replaced by the correct character states. In general, the diagnosis could be rearranged to place the contrasting states closer to those with which they are being contrasted.

3. The Area of Occupancy is given in the conservation assessment on line 444. The Extent of Occurrence should also be given, even if it is larger than the threshold value for any threatened category. Severe habitat fragmentation was apparently used to assess this species as Endangered despite the existence of six threat-defined locations; the connection of habitat fragmentation with the resulting assessment should be made clearer.

With these minor points addressed the manuscript will be ready for publication.

Roy E. Gereau
Missouri Botanical Garden


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: BEYOND GENE ONTOLOGY (GO): USING BIOCURATION APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE GENE NOMENCLATURE AND FUNCTIONAL ANNOTATION OF RICE S-DOMAIN KINASE SUBFAMILY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Not professional article structure, figures, tables.
Experimental design: Very little experimental design.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty are not enough.
Additional comments: The paper wants to present the evolutionary expansion, gene structure and expression of the rice S-domain kinase gene family. But the article structure is not professional or even a mess, especially the many figures, big and many tables with a mess, without any conclusion pattern. Moreover, there is very little experimental design in the paper with only analysis and data from websites. So the Impact and novelty is not enough.


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

Input:
Title: BEYOND GENE ONTOLOGY (GO): USING BIOCURATION APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE GENE NOMENCLATURE AND FUNCTIONAL ANNOTATION OF RICE S-DOMAIN KINASE SUBFAMILY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the manuscript is well written.
I suggest the authors modify the following sections:
1: Line 83-93, the authors listed 7 different SDRLKs to show their roles in diverse biological processes. But there is no logic transition between them. I'd like to recommend them to condense these sentences according to the roles of SDRLKs. For example, plant defense against pathogens, plant development and so on. That would improve the readability of this paragraph.
2: Line 130, gene structures, protein domains, and subcellular localizations.
3: Line 167, biotic stresses.
4: Line 202-line 206, there is grammar mistake here, rewrite this sentence.
5: Line 243, Our criteria of selecting tandem duplicates is more restrictive compared to the criteria used in other studies.
6: Line 321, italicize  pthXo6 and avrXa27.
7: Line 517, italicize ewst1 mutant.
8: Line 162-165, rewrite this sentence.
Experimental design: The experiments are well designed.
I would like to suggest the authors improve the following sections:

1: Introduce those tissue-specific expression datasets of SDRLKs. For example, E-MTAB-4123 and E-MTAb-2037 both have data from shoot. What kind of plants are they? Do they use similar growth conditions?  E-MTAB-4123 and E-MTAB-2039 both have data from anther. It might be good if the authors can give some background introduction of these data.
2: In line 368, 49 SDRLK family genes were found to be deferentially regulated in response to various strains of Xoo. Is there any known published information about these genes? What are their functions in plant?
3: In the Leaf sheath blight response paragraph ( Line 424 to line 437), a resistant rice genotype 427 MCR010277 (MCR) and a susceptible rice genotype Cocodrie (CCDR) were used.  What are the difference between the two genotypes?
4: In the chilling response paragraph (line 459), what is the temperature used?
Validity of the findings: The authors identified many differential expressed genes regulated by abiotic or biotic stresses. But there is not much explanation about the validity and novelty of this discovery. For example, in line 580, it says 115 SDRLK family genes show differential expression in response to environmental stimuli. There is no introduction of these 115 genes.  How valid is this discovery? Are they all newly identified ones?   In line 643, The authors cited that “One gene from this group, PSRK2 is known to control stem elongation 643 by negatively regulating GA responses (Li et al. 2018)”.  This is great as a way of validation of the analysis. I suggest them provide more published information about them. If it is not available in ricet, information about the orthologs in Arabidopsis will also be helpful to improve the validity of the finding and the conclusion.
Additional comments: Overall, I think the authors did a great job of identifying new genes associated with biotic and abiotic stresses in rice. Experiments were well-designed and performed. Results were well-explained.


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: BEYOND GENE ONTOLOGY (GO): USING BIOCURATION APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE GENE NOMENCLATURE AND FUNCTIONAL ANNOTATION OF RICE S-DOMAIN KINASE SUBFAMILY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: All comments are appended in the section "General comments for the author".
Experimental design: All comments are appended in the section "General comments for the author".
Validity of the findings: All comments are appended in the section "General comments for the author".
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors have carried out the mining of pubic data (genomic and transcriptomic) for exploring and reanalysis of the rice S-domain kinase gene family.
I have the following comments:
1.	Authors have retrieved the data from different publicly available databases and performed their analyses. For example, authors have used the transcriptome data from various resources viz., EMBL-EBI Expression ATLAS, ArrayExpress, and literature survey. I suppose different platforms, tools, and their versions have been previously used in the analyses (original) of the data which the authors have re-used in the present study. I am curious, how do authors justify their results by just visualizing differently analyzed datasets and making their hypothesis over these results? In principle, authors could have re-analyzed the data from different public resources using a common pipeline followed by focusing their analysis on the S-domain kinase gene family. However, authors have just taken the results of previous studies and presented the specific component consisting of the S-domain kinase gene family. Please justify this.
2.	The introduction section lacks the motivation and the knowledge gap which persuaded the authors for this work. Moreover, the discussion section must be in parallel to the introduction section. So, I suggest the authors revise this section accordingly.
3.	Provide either a web link or the reference for a given citation, revise the manuscript thoroughly.
For example, We used the rice genome browser provided by the Gramene (http://gramene.org) (Tello-Ruiz et al. 2018) to investigate gene and transcript models of 144 SDRLK family members.
4.	What are the “short genes” which are removed while pre-processing the data for the analysis? Are these the partial genes?
5.	“We defined genes which share high sequence similarity, and are present on the same chromosomes alongside or have less than five genes in between as tandem duplicates”.
Define the “high sequence similarity” parameter here.
6.	Have the authors used PLAZA 4.5 in the current study? If so, provide the details in methodology.
7.	The conclusion section must be very concise and to the point with a clear-cut inference of the manuscript. Revise it accordingly.
8.	The section “The second dataset, E-GEOD-36272 shows differential expression of 41 SDRLK family ….” has no reference. Please cite the section.
9.	Correct the grammar and language throughout the manuscript.
For example:
a.	… , and the kinase domain is contained on exons 3 to 7 (Stein et al. 1991).
b.	…. lack introns. and out of 91 SD2 type genes 77 have no introns and 18 genes contain 1-3 introns (see Supplementary Table 1).
c.	Recently, crystal structure of SRK9 along with its cognate ligand the S-locus cysteine-rich 9 (SCR9) has confirmed this domain configuration of SRK (Ma et al. 2016) and …
10.	Italicize gene names throughout the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: BEYOND GENE ONTOLOGY (GO): USING BIOCURATION APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE GENE NOMENCLATURE AND FUNCTIONAL ANNOTATION OF RICE S-DOMAIN KINASE SUBFAMILY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: OK.
Experimental design: OK.
Validity of the findings: OK.
Additional comments: The information and results of the two Tables should be not repeated with all the 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: BEYOND GENE ONTOLOGY (GO): USING BIOCURATION APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE GENE NOMENCLATURE AND FUNCTIONAL ANNOTATION OF RICE S-DOMAIN KINASE SUBFAMILY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
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: POSITIVE EMOTION INDUCTION IMPROVES CARDIOVASCULAR COPING WITH A COGNITIVE TASK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction is well written however needs more detail. I suggest that the authors improve the description of the following aspect:

No mention regarding how the author intend to induce positive emotional state. They refer to it in the Method section, but I think that it is important to mention it in the introduction too, to give the reader the idea of what they are going to manipulate and how.

Line 72 – please elaborate better the link between the prefrontal cortex activation – positive emotion – cognitive skills.

Line 95 - considering heart rate variability (HRV) as an alternative to neuroimaging tecniques seems a bit risky. Rephrase it.

The hypothesis need to be more specific:
For example: specify what do you intend with higher performance in the Tower of Hanoi.
The SAM estimate three dimensions: valence, activation and dominance, why authors have hypothesis only on the valence dimension?

Regarding article structure: I would suggest to move the protocol before statistical analysis, after the description of all variable that are going to be tested. The procedure will be clearer to the reader.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined, but the investigation chosen by the authors, employing the Tower of Hanoi to evaluate cognitive skill is not sufficient. The authors, however, report already this as a limitation of the study.

How was calculated the sample size? This information is missing.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Minor comment:
line 266: sexes is sex
pag. 25 table 1 is table 2.
Pag. 27 table 1 is table 3.
ZEMG results would be easier reported in a Table.


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

Input:
Title: POSITIVE EMOTION INDUCTION IMPROVES CARDIOVASCULAR COPING WITH A COGNITIVE TASK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction part could be more concise. Some of the information is distracting and redundant.
Experimental design: L189. Please elaborate more on the details if students know they will get positive/negative intervention beforehand. Does the observer know which one is going to give the intervention? Is the study double-blinded or triple-blinded? These will affect the results.
Validity of the findings: Findings are impressive. However, the sample size and selection might be an issue that has already been discussed in the discussion part. Observer bias based on the prior studies/beliefs could exist, and readers may like to see more comments on this part. The sample selection could make these findings unconvincing as well.
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: POSITIVE EMOTION INDUCTION IMPROVES CARDIOVASCULAR COPING WITH A COGNITIVE TASK
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Well written
Experimental design: Already revised the methodology based on the previous suggestions. Appreciate the clarification of how the investigators and participants were involved.
Validity of the findings: well written
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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF HSF FAMILY IN PEACH AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PPHSF5 INVOLVEMENT IN ROOT AND AERIAL ORGAN DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no
Experimental design: no
Validity of the findings: no
Additional comments: In the manuscript, 18 Hsfs were indentified from peach through the genomic DNA sequences, and their biophysical properties and expression profiles in some tissues and preliminary functional of PpHsf5 in root development were analyzed. The results are some informative, but overall, the paper seems to be so easy, the experiments of functional analysis were not enough to verify the results. So, the following problems must be solved.
1.	According to the results of functional analysis in manuscript, author thought that PpHSF5 may depress root development, so, in the experiment of tissue expression of Hsfs, 18 PpHsfs or at least 6 PpHsfBs should be added, especially in roots, so as to show the specificity of PpHsf5.
2.	Most Hsf are responsive to heat stress, so in the manuscript, 18 Hsf member expression level after heat stress should be added, so as to show the basic expressing characteristics of PpHsf family.
3.	The data of qPCR in Figure 5 seems to be calculated while the expression of Apical was set as 1, if so, the standard error in figure was marked incorrectly, for example the standard error in “Apical” should be 0, all these should be introduced clearly in Material.
4.	In figure7, not only root but also rossete of two transgenic Arabidopsis lines were weak than WT, so it`s necessary to add the phenotypes of more plants together in plate of twoweeks and eight weeks, three plants are not enough to verify the results. How many transgenic lines were obtained? Are all lines single-site insertion or not?
5.	In figure7-C, no PpHSF5 expression can be detected in WT because WT Arabidopsis has no PpHSF5 gene, How did author calculate and get the gene PpHSF5 expression level in two transgenic lines? Which was set as 1?
6.	The qRT-PCR of PpHsf5 expression and length、numbers and activities of Arabidopsis roots both two weeks and eight weeks should all be analyzed, add the experiment of some relative Hsp expression in roots (example Hsp90 et al) of transgenic Arabidopsis lines and WT. There is no experimental data of Semi-RT-PCR to analyze positive transgenic lines of PpHsf5.
7.	Some error should be corrected such as figure 6 : F: Overlay of F and E.
8.	Add the references about plant Hsf of 2019 and 2020.


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF HSF FAMILY IN PEACH AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PPHSF5 INVOLVEMENT IN ROOT AND AERIAL ORGAN DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Tan et al. identified HSF genes from the peach genome and conducted functional assays of PpHSF5 to determine its role in development.

2. The analyses are sound, yet a clearer explanation of the rationale behind certain analysis is needed. For example, Tan et al. didn't explain why they chose to focus on PpHSF5, which is actually an important part of the logic flow.
Besides, I'm not sure I get the point of the intron analysis. I suggest moving Fig 2 to the supplementary materials and delete the first sentence from the abstract as well.

3. The language can be improved presumably with the help of a native English speaker. Present tense is preferred for delivering results, but of course people do both.
Experimental design: 4. It is necessary to define Class A/B/C before using the terms. Alternatively, moving Fig 3B before Fig 3A will be helpful, which is how I get to understand Class A/B/C.
I also suggest making the current Fig 4 the third panel of Fig 3.
Validity of the findings: 5. What was PpHSF5 compared to to obtain the relative expression level in the RT-PCR assay?

6. More detailed captions for Fig 3 and Fig 5 are needed.
Additional comments: It would be great if the discussion part could be shortened. Currently it is quite lengthy (4.5 pages) compared to results (4 pages), yet more of speculations than real solid findings. It would be extremely helpful to add more text to elaborate the logic flow in the results section.


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF HSF FAMILY IN PEACH AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PPHSF5 INVOLVEMENT IN ROOT AND AERIAL ORGAN DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no
Experimental design: no
Validity of the findings: no
Additional comments: 1.	In this study, the authors mainly focused on the effect of PpHSF5 gene on plant growth and development, especially on root growth and development, they gave expression of different organs from ‘Zhongyoutao 14’ and added the transcript profile of 18 PpHSFs during shoot development of ‘Zhongyoutao 14’, but in these results, no any expression of roots, so it`s less relative to later experiments and title. Please add the roots expression of different development stages of ‘Zhongyoutao 14’.
2.	Add the more plants roots phenotypes of two transgenic lines of two weeks
together in one plate and eight weeks, three plants each line are not enough to verify the results, and there is no evidence to prove these plants come from the same plate.