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: FINE-MAPPING OF QTGW2, A QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS FOR GRAIN WEIGHT IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript described detection of total of 27 QTLs for grain shape traits and fine-mapping one QTL ‘qTGW2’ by using segregating populations and near-isogenic lines (NILs) derived from across between two indica rice cultivars Teqing and IRBB. Genetic analyses revealed that there were two linked QTLs of ‘qGS2’ and ’qTGW2’ on the long arm of chromosome 2. The authors narrowed the candidate chromosome region of the one QTL ‘qTGW2’ within 105-kbp. This study clearly indicated importance of small effect QTLs involved in genetic architecture for quantitative traits such as grain shapes and yield components in rice. However, the authors should revise several descriptions in this manuscript.
Experimental design: Experimental design is suitable for getting the author's conclusion in this manuscript. However, the authors should revise several points described below.

1) L.94-97. The authors should describe names of the two crossing parents Teqing and IRBB to develop original RILs. And, the authors should describe the number of plants of W1 populations and the remaining eight populations.

2) L.213-217. The authors carried out QTL analysis in the Z2 population to confirm the ‘qTGW2’ region. However, you can find several plants having recombination between Tw35293 and RM266 in the Z2 population. If you check recombination points of each plants, you could delimit and narrow the present candidate QTL region about half length.
Validity of the findings: 3) Although heritabilities of grain shape traits are generally higher than other agronomic traits, you should evaluate other agronomic traits such as heading date and plants height among the ZH1, ZH2, ZH3, HY2, HY3, Z1, Z2 and Z3 populations. If the authors observed no differences for other agronomic traits in the segregation populations, you should describe it at the Materials and Methods or the Results sections in this manuscript.

4) L.164-165, Table 1 and Figure 2. As you mentioned, the region on the terminal end of chromosome 2 showed larger genetic effect than other QTLs. However, several remaining QTLs also showed large genetic effects, for examples, QTLs on chromosomes 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12. The authors should also describe some discussion of these QTLs in the text.
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: FINE-MAPPING OF QTGW2, A QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS FOR GRAIN WEIGHT IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English writing of Hui Zhang et al manuscript is professional and clear. In this MS, the previous research of grain weight traits in rice was described thoroughly, and the relevant literatures were cited properly. The structure of the article meets the requirements of the journal’s requirements, and the relevant figures and tables corresponding to the results of the article were presented in the article. The results of MS can explain the scientific problems concerned by the author and other potential readers in some extent.
Experimental design: The research topics of the MS fall in the journal’s scope and aims. The experimental design was well described and a rigorous analysis of the results was conducted in MS. The QTL qtgw2, which affects grain weight, was fine mapped by the authors, and the results enriched the genetic analysis of grain weight traits.
However, there are several points in materials and methods section need to be improved.
1. In the section of “field experiment and trace measurement”, the author has repeatedly described the number of samples with term 'approximately', which is not appropriate. The exact number of samples should be given.
2. In the section “DNA marker analysis”, the type and quantity of molecular markers should be described in details. Information of the molecular markers used in study shall be provided as supplementary materials.
Validity of the findings: qTGW2, which was identified by the authors, was not previously reported, and it affected both grain length and grain width. Furthermore, the author narrowed the region of qTGW2 loci within a 103kb interval and further analyzed the annotation genes in the region. The author provides sufficient data to ensure the reliability of the results, and conducted a good discussion on results.
Additional comments: 1. The description in lines 86-91 should be modified. These sentences should demonstrate the purpose and significance of this study more than list the results.
2. Line190-191, ‘The IRBB52 homozygous lines were clustered towards to the high-value region, and the TQ homozygous lines were in the low-value region’, this sentence does not show the intended means, especially for the term of ‘high value region’ and ‘low value region’.
3. Some minor writing and grammatical errors should be carefully corrected. Line 108 'namely' should be 'named'.


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: FINE-MAPPING OF QTGW2, A QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS FOR GRAIN WEIGHT IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author has well answered all questions I mentioned before, and I think the manuscript is suitable for the Peer J. While, the revise is still required to improve the manuscript quality by correcting some minor writing errors, such as “P441: BMC Genet should be BMC genetics”.
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: FINE-MAPPING OF QTGW2, A QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS FOR GRAIN WEIGHT IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript clearly revised by the authors based on the previous my comments. Author’s responses are reasonable for me. I understand and agree with the author’s responses.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: FINE-MAPPING OF QTGW2, A QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS FOR GRAIN WEIGHT IN RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing of the MS is professional.The literature references are correct, and the results  reach the self-containted level for the relevant results.
Experimental design: The research topic of the MS fall in the scope of the journal.
The  methods used in MS are performed via a high technical standard and the results obtained are meaningful for understanding of rice grain.
Validity of the findings: The conclusion of the paper has been fully stated, which can answer the scientific questions concerned by the authors and potential readers.
Additional comments: All my concerns have been revised.


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: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Literature references, no sufficient field background/context provided.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Major comments:

Alot of work has been done in fish regarding b-glucan and organic acids effects on fish. Moreover, the experimental approach is very similar to a myriad of studies on all types of immunostimulants in fish. So, the authors should try to demonstrate that their approach gives an additional novelty to what has already been assessed in fish immune stimulation, otherwise it will be another one of these similar studies:

1-Skov, J., Kania, P. W., Holten-Andersen, L., Fouz, B., & Buchmann, K. (2012). Immunomodulatory effects of dietary β-1, 3-glucan from Euglena gracilis in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) immersion vaccinated against Yersinia ruckeri. Fish & shellfish immunology, 33(1), 111-120.
2- Yılmaz, S., & Ergün, S. (2018). Trans-cinnamic acid application for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): I. Effects on haematological, serum biochemical, non-specific immune and head kidney gene expression responses. Fish & shellfish immunology, 78, 140-157.
3- Yılmaz, S., Ergun, S., Çelik, E. Ş., & Yigit, M. (2018). Effects of dietary humic acid on growth performance, haemato‐immunological and physiological responses and resistance of Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss to Yersinia ruckeri. Aquaculture research, 49(10), 3338-3349.
4-Yilmaz, S., Ergün, S., & Yıgıt, M. (2018). Effects of dietary FARMARIN® XP supplement on immunological responses and disease resistance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture, 496, 211-220.
5- Yılmaz S, Ergun S, Yigit M, Çelik EŞ. (in press). Effect of combination of dietary Bacillus subtilis and transcinnamic acid on innate immune responses and resistance of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss to Yersinia ruckeri. Aquac Res. 2019;00:1–14. https ://doi.org/10.1111/are.14379
6-Baba, E., Acar, Ü., Yılmaz, S., Zemheri, F., & Ergün, S. (2018). Dietary olive leaf (Olea europea L.) extract alters some immune gene expression levels and disease resistance to Yersinia ruckeri infection in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fish & shellfish immunology, 79, 28-33.
7- Adel, M., Pourgholam, R., Zorriehzahra, J., & Ghiasi, M. (2016). Hemato–Immunological and biochemical parameters, skin antibacterial activity, and survival in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) following the diet supplemented with Mentha piperita against Yersinia ruckeri. Fish & shellfish immunology, 55, 267-273.
8- Acar, Ü., Parrino, V., Kesbiç, O. S., Lo Paro, G., Saoca, C., Abbate, F., ... & Fazio, F. (2018). Effects of different levels of pomegranate seed oil on some blood parameters and disease resistance against Yersinia ruckeri in rainbow trout. Frontiers in Physiology, 9, 596.
9- Dehghan, F., Vazirzadeh, A., Soltanian, S., Karami, A., & Akhlaghi, M. (2016). Mortality rate and immune responses of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) infected with Yersinia ruckeri subsequent to feeding on diet supplemented with Ducrosia anethifolia essential oil. International Journal of Aquatic Biology, 4(5), 340-344.
10-Şahan, A., Duman, S., Çolak, S. Ö., Çinar, E., & Bilgin, R. (2017). Determination of some hematological and non-specific immune defences, oxidative stress and histopathological status in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fed rosehip (Rosa canina) to Yersinia ruckeri. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 17(1), 91-100.
11-Zeraatpisheh, F., Firouzbakhsh, F., & Khalili, K. J. (2018). Effects of the macroalga Sargassum angustifolium hot water extract on hematological parameters and immune responses in rainbow trout (Oncohrynchus mykiss) infected with Yersinia rukeri. Journal of applied phycology, 30(3), 2029-2037.
12-Farsani, M. N., Hoseinifar, S. H., Rashidian, G., Farsani, H. G., Ashouri, G., & Van Doan, H. (2019). Dietary effects of Coriandrum sativum extract on growth performance, physiological and innate immune responses and resistance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) against Yersinia ruckeri. Fish & shellfish immunology, 91, 233-240.
13-Bulfon, C., Bongiorno, T., Messina, M., Volpatti, D., Tibaldi, E., & Tulli, F. (2017). Effects of P anax ginseng extract in practical diets for rainbow trout (O ncorhynchus mykiss) on growth performance, immune response and resistance to Y ersinia ruckeri. Aquaculture research, 48(5), 2369-2379.

Should be detailed as  "...................Various reports have been published on the use and effects of various dietary additives for O. mykiss exposed to Y. ruckeri pathogen. Among these addititives ............................................... are the most salient ones (1-13), with reference to resistance of rainbow trout against Y. ruckeri. However, different than the present study, none of these earlier reports presented .........................."

Line 270: You infected the fish with Yersinia ruckeri. Relevant references should be added and discussied. You can see in line 68 balloon.

Line 275-286: Where is the in vivo studies ? in vivo studies should be discussed.
You can see below:

Acar, Ü., Kesbiç, O. S., Yılmaz, S., Gültepe, N., & Türker, A. (2015). Evaluation of the effects of essential oil extracted from sweet orange peel (Citrus sinensis) on growth rate of tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) and possible disease resistance against Streptococcus iniae. Aquaculture, 437, 282-286.
Baba, E., Acar, Ü., Öntaş, C., Kesbiç, O. S., & Yılmaz, S. (2016). Evaluation of Citrus limon peels essential oil on growth performance, immune response of Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus challenged with Edwardsiella tarda. Aquaculture, 465, 13-18.
Kesbiç, O. S., Acar, Ü., Yilmaz, S., & Aydin, Ö. D. (2019). Effects of bergamot (Citrus bergamia) peel oil-supplemented diets on growth performance, haematology and serum biochemical parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish physiology and biochemistry, 1-8.
Lopes, J. M., de Freitas Souza, C., Saccol, E. M. H., Pavanato, M. A., Antoniazzi, A., Rovani, M. T., ... & Baldisserotto, B. (2019). Citrus x aurantium essential oil as feed additive improved growth performance, survival, metabolic, and oxidative parameters of silver catfish (Rhamdia quelen). Aquaculture nutrition, 25(2), 310-318.
Vicente, I. S., Fleuri, L. F., Carvalho, P. L., Guimarães, M. G., Naliato, R. F., Müller, H. D. C., ... & Barros, M. M. (2019). Orange peel fragment improves antioxidant capacity and haematological profile of Nile tilapia subjected to heat/dissolved oxygen‐induced stress. Aquaculture research, 50(1), 80-92.
Rahman, A. N. A., ElHady, M., & Shalaby, S. I. (2019). Efficacy of the dehydrated lemon peels on the immunity, enzymatic antioxidant capacity and growth of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Aquaculture, 505, 92-97....................................................................................................
You can see more study at https://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?hl=tr&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2019&cites=11700966083561767066&scipsc=&q=Citrus+peel+aquaculture&btnG=&oq=Citrus+peel+aquacu


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: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Literature references, no sufficient field background/context provided.
Experimental design: Experimental designed well.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The introduction is relevant but must include new references. The discussion, in the light of results and knowledge, is relevant.
Acar, Ü., Parrino, V., Kesbiç, O. S., Lo Paro, G., Saoca, C., Abbate, F., ... & Fazio, F. (2018). Effects of different levels of pomegranate seed oil on some blood parameters and disease resistance against Yersinia ruckeri in rainbow trout. Frontiers in Physiology, 9, 596.

Baba, E., Acar, Ü., Yılmaz, S., Zemheri, F., & Ergün, S. (2018). Dietary olive leaf (Olea europea L.) extract alters some immune gene expression levels and disease resistance to Yersinia ruckeri infection in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fish & shellfish immunology, 79, 28-33.

Acar, Ü., Kesbiç, O. S., Yılmaz, S., Gültepe, N., & Türker, A. (2015). Evaluation of the effects of essential oil extracted from sweet orange peel (Citrus sinensis) on growth rate of tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) and possible disease resistance against Streptococcus iniae. Aquaculture, 437, 282-286.
Baba, E., Acar, Ü., Öntaş, C., Kesbiç, O. S., & Yılmaz, S. (2016). Evaluation of Citrus limon peels essential oil on growth performance, immune response of Mozambique tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus challenged with Edwardsiella tarda. Aquaculture, 465, 13-18.
Kesbiç, O. S., Acar, Ü., Yilmaz, S., & Aydin, Ö. D. (2019). Effects of bergamot (Citrus bergamia) peel oil-supplemented diets on growth performance, haematology and serum biochemical parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish physiology and biochemistry, 1-8.


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: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 'no comment'
Experimental design: 'no comment'
Validity of the findings: 'no comment'
Additional comments: This paper describes an investigation of the effects of feed additives on survival after experimental infection with Yersinia ruckeri. The paper is concise and to the point, the writing is clear, and the methods used are appropriate. In all, this is a nice piece of work that is of interest and potential use to the aquaculture industry.
I have just a few very minor questions/comments for the authors to consider.

Line 65: effect of four prebiotic feed supplements on fish growth….
Line 94: I don’t see a mention of what the water temperature(s) were for this study. This is an important parameter especially for the Yersinia ruckeri challenge portion of the study.
Line 97: (595 uj/cm) close brackets
Figure 1: I think you should plot the unchallenged control here. I see that this control was done.


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

Input:
Title: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally this is an interesting work associated with the way to increase the survival of fish against Yersinia septicemia.
Experimental design: The authors preforemed their works in a good experiemntal design.
Validity of the findings: It is worth of furher processing of publication.
Additional comments: I think authors have a look at more recent data associated with the butyrate acid published in some journals such as Fish and Shellfish Immunology (2018 and 2019). It may worth to use such data for more validating of their data.


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: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 5

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The article has not much data. The results part has too much explanation of the challenge result. The author should present data in a concise way.

2. I don't see information about the dose of the supplements. This should be clearly indicated in the article.

3. Normally, "Growth (%) " is presented as "weight gain (WG)"
Experimental design: The experimental design is OK.
Validity of the findings: The article doesn't include much data. Only growth performance and challenge data were included. Most of the data were negative. Although the difference between control and treatment was significant by hazard ratio analysis, this is not a typical way to analyze mortality data in fish experiment. The author should think about the dose and feeding duration.
Additional comments: This manuscript doesn't include enough solid and positive data for publication. The results can be presented in a much more concise way.


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: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 6

Output:
Basic reporting: Kasper et al have shown that Citrus Flavonoids, beta-Glucan and Organic Acid Feed Additives Decrease Relative Risk During Yersinia ruckeri O1 Biotype 2 Infection of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Experimental design: However, 1,Why evaluate the use of these four feed additives, and what is the relationship among these additives. 2,The group receiving the beta-glucan + OA supplement was found to have a statistically significantly lower FCR, but the beta-glucan group. Therefore, it is necessary to study whether OA plays a major role. 3, No attempt to explain why additives enhance disease resistance.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: All suggested corrections or additions have been made by the authors.
Experimental design: Experimental designed is enough.
Validity of the findings: The findings of the study is sufficent
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: CITRUS FLAVONOIDS, Β-GLUCAN AND ORGANIC ACID FEED ADDITIVES DECREASE RELATIVE RISK DURING YERSINIA RUCKERI O1 BIOTYPE 2 INFECTION OF RAINBOW TROUT (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 'no comment'
Experimental design: 'no comment'
Validity of the findings: 'no comment'
Additional comments: The authors have responded to my comments satisfactorily


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF A NEWLY DEVELOPED ELDERLY-CONSTIPATION IMPACT SCALE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well written paper with a language that makes it easy to follow. The concept of Quality of Life is addressed in the introduction, as well as in terh aim of the abstract and the conclusions. However, the connection to the concept apart from that is not explicit. If QoL is supposed to be in focus as an outcoem measurment, it needs to be described and explained in further details in order for the reader to understand the concept better here.
The structure, with the use of figures and tables are relevant (se comments below) and the data is shared.
Experimental design: ¤  The aim was to develop and validate a culturally sensitive scale. To me, this implies that the scale should be cultural sensitive in a more general sense. However, from my reading, I understand that the authors thought that already existing scales were mostly developed in Western countries. Consequently regarded unsuitable for a population from Asian countries, and therefore the research project developed a scale more suitable for an Asian population, more specifically  a Malaysian population. To me, then the scale is perhaps not culturally sensitive in a broad sense, but more restricted to a certain population, and still could be regarded as a culturally specific scale, but for another population. What do you think about this?

¤ Quality of Life (QoL) is addressed in the introduction, and seems then as a focus for the impact of constipation. However, the connection is not so explicitly visible in the rest of the manuscript, or in the instrument variables.      It seem as if the impact is more on daily life in general than on QoL.  Some of the items are more about the constipation itself or the prevention and management of it, and not on the impact on elderly people.  The connection to QoL is in a way mostly implicit. If QoL is to be the core outcome, the concept is in need of some further description in the background, perhaps defining the understanding of the concept in order for the reader to understand the findings.

¤ The aim does not focus on QoL either, it is described in a much broader sense as “impact of chronic constipation on elderly people”. However, it is stated slightly different in the abstract: “effect of chronic constipation on quality of life among the elderly”. I suggest that the aim should be stated exactly  the same in both places.

¤ The sampling procedure of the participating 470 elderly persons need to be described in some more details. They came from community settings, but from how many settings, and how they were invited is not described in details. Further, how many elderly persons were approached and assessed regarding chronic constipation to end up with the 470. Now some information is provided under the heading item generation, but it would be better to have a section in the method about sample and data assessment.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: ¤ The labelling of the factors could be discussed in some cases. Examples given, there are three items reflecting fear in the factor Anxiety. Fear and anxiety are different phenomena. Fear is related to a known or understood threat, whereas anxiety is a reaction followed from an unknown, expected or poorly defined threat. Also the first item in the factor is more about fear than anxiety since it is so focused. TI suggest that you think through the labeling of the factors one more time.
¤ Provide a reference to figure 1 and 2 in the main text to direct the reader.

¤ Figure 1.  Why do  you not describe the whole process description by adding the resulting restructruing after the CFA, ending up with 22 items in 7 factors? In a way, it depends on where you plan to have the figure in the text and if you "only" want it to describe the process up to the final analytic stage. Consider the suggestion, it gives a nice overview for the reader. Also, it could benefit from being a bit smaller in size.

¤ Table 2 Preferably you should have presented how each item loaded on the different factors in the exploratory factor analysis., not just for the one where you placed it.  A suggestion, flip the columns and rows displayng the items on the rows sorted by the factors been identified and have columns, first for each factor, followed by communalities and Cronbach's alpha values for the factor. You can address in the text that all  those variables had communality values over 0.30

¤ Table  1. A minor detail: the %-figures for sex do not match on the first decimal when you compare the table and the text on row 222.

¤ Figure 2.
-	Are all information in the right place?  Did not all items have measurement errors? E.g. item r2-values for e19/F5a, e24/F7b and e25/F7a are either missing or non-existent.
-	Further, the factor loadings display two pieces of information for F1d, F7b and F7b which makes me wonder if some of those figures are representing item r2-values instead.
-	Could the factor labels be displayed in the figure so that the figure  can stand on its own?
¤ A discussion could have been held about the fact that some items were kept in the model despite low factor loadings (<0.6) or low r2-values (<0.4).  I guess it is because the fitness indices for the model already achieved a required level.


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: PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF A NEWLY DEVELOPED ELDERLY-CONSTIPATION IMPACT SCALE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and with a clear English.
I suggest to authors to improve the title of the manuscript. The factor structure of an instrument is only a part of the instrument development. To offer readers a wider comprehension of the scientific work presented in the manuscript, I suggest to authors to  include in the title words such as "psychometric evaluation" or "development".
The article structure is suited to journal recommendations. I have a few concerns about results' session: it is only 34 raw long and its quite short when compared to other parts of the manuscript. My suggestion is to explain more how and why the authors removed 13 items.
The references are up to date and pertinent to the context described. Some citations are not respecting the journal norms, therefore authors should be careful to follow the chronological order of references in the manuscript text.
Experimental design: The research question and the methods session of the manuscript are described in details.
I raise only a few questions to the authors.
The instrument is addressed to the elderly, but your sample includes people aged 60 and above (raw 128). The international literature defines "aged" people starting from 65 years old and in some cases starting from 75 years old. The authors need to explain why they made such a choice.
On raw 139-140 the authors state :"The aim was to involve a heterogeneous population that allowed for the detection of differences in scores across the new scale". In the manuscript they do not present any data about the construct validity of the instrument. I should expect some initial hypothesis like: people referring  slightly severe constipation might present lower scares on the scale while people presenting severe constipation might have higher scores. Further, on the results session I expected to find information about the construct validity of the instrument.
It is not quite clear to me why authors have chosen the sample characteristics presented in Table 1, for example educations, employment and if there is any relation between these factors and the constipation. I suggest to include in the methods session some more explanations about this. Moreover, how do authors measure general health status?
Validity of the findings: The findings are interesting and well described and discussed. I have no further comments on it.
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: PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF A NEWLY DEVELOPED ELDERLY-CONSTIPATION IMPACT SCALE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has now  been  developed according to previous given comments from reviewers and editor.
Experimental design: No further comments
Validity of the findings: No further comments
Additional comments: No further comments


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF A NEWLY DEVELOPED ELDERLY-CONSTIPATION IMPACT SCALE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors accepted the suggestions of the reviewers and now the manuscript results more fluid.


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: GENETIC DIVERSITY AND SNP’S FROM THE CHLOROPLAST CODING REGIONS OF VIRUS-INFECTED CASSAVA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The report is clear, unambiguous, and well-written. The introduction provides almost comprehensive informations on the background to show the context of the research. I suggest to add in this section some informations about chloroplast genes involved in plant-virus interactions.
The literature is generally well referenced and relevant. Hovewe, ininitials of names have been left in some references (lines 56, 66, 77).
I also suggest to add some more recent literature on the subject of the study.
The figures are relevant, well labeled and described.
The gene names should be written in italics (line 185-189).
Experimental design: Research question is well defined. However, I have some comments.
In line 107 the authors said „Complete chloroplast genome sequences are useful tools for improving our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships between closely related taxa and the evolution of plant species…”. Hovewer, recent studies have successfully proven that cpDNA non-coding sequences were more effective in illuminating phylogeny of land plants than cpDNA sequences frequently used in phylogenetic studies (e.g. Xu C, Dong WP, Li WQ, Lu YZ, Xie XM, Jin XB, et al., Front. Plant Sci. 2017;8:15. 10.3389/fpls.2017.00015 pmid:28154574). Moreover, in line 241 the authors said „Previous studies reported an extraordinarily limited global chloroplast diversity of cultivated cassava (Bredeson et al. 2016)”.
Therefore, use of such research approach in my opinion is debatable and thus impossible to achieve the research goal.
How was the selection of the material for the study made? Why the numbers of samples are not equal and why only a few uninfected plants have been included in the experiment?
Validity of the findings: The Results and discussion section is actually limited to describing the results. In my opinion, information from cassava and / or cpDNA similar studies should be added. This will make the discussion more valuable.
Line 245: „… there was no direct relationship between cassava chloroplast diversity and the natural infection of a determined virus species, suggesting that the chloroplast might not work as a good molecular marker for virus-resistance in cassava.” This statement is speculative. Should be verified by analysis of other cpDNA regions.
Additional comments: In summary, I consider manuscript valuable and for future work this is perhaps a thorough starting 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: GENETIC DIVERSITY AND SNP’S FROM THE CHLOROPLAST CODING REGIONS OF VIRUS-INFECTED CASSAVA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: the work is a coherent development of the results obtained, however, they do not fully coincide with the research hypothesis.
the cited literature is well selected, the chapter "introduction" contains all necessary information and introduces the reader to the scope of the issues raised in the work.
the article structure is correct.
Experimental design: the purpose of the research is clearly defined. The authors write that "The goal of this study was to evaluate the genetic diversity of cassava chloroplast coding regions from plants naturally infected with viruses from different varieties collected in the field in East Africa." however, the context of the work shows that the results obtained should be helpful in obtaining virus-tolerant varieties. in my opinion the purpose of the work should be more specific, or the manuscript should not contain such theses.
the research material is well selected, but should be supplemented with genotypes previously characterized as resistant, they would be the basis for identifying regions specific for plant resistant  or tolerant  to viruses - such data could be used by breeders to select varieties.
what was the key of line selection - reference sequences? whether these forms were resistant or represented a wide range of genetic diversity?
the research methodology is well described and does not raise any objections
Validity of the findings: The research material was crop forms mostly infected with viruses. description of results and discussion focus only on the analysis of genetic similarity and its relation to the geographical distribution of the analyzed genotypes. in my opinion there is no reference to the possibility of identifying regions specific for resistant or sensitive forms and the possibility of using these results in practical breeding.
the discussion is very poor. The authors discuss the results obtained with only one publication (Bredeson et al. 2016) on almost identical topics, which excludes the innovative nature of the conducted research. perhaps the role of chloroplasts in the plant's response to a pathogen attack should be discussed in more depth, and the obtained results may refute or support the thesis.
Additional comments: the work should be rewritten. it would be more valuable to highlight differences between resistance and sensitive genotypes than focusing on a simple genetic similarity analysis


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: GENETIC DIVERSITY AND SNP’S FROM THE CHLOROPLAST CODING REGIONS OF VIRUS-INFECTED CASSAVA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The report is clear and well-written. My suggestions were taken into account. I have no comment
Experimental design: Research question is well defined. My suggestions were taken into account. I have no comment.
Validity of the findings: The Results and discussion section is now well-written. My suggestions were taken into account. I have no comment
Additional comments: In summary, I consider manuscript valuable and for future work this is perhaps a thorough starting 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: GENETIC DIVERSITY AND SNP’S FROM THE CHLOROPLAST CODING REGIONS OF VIRUS-INFECTED CASSAVA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: the authors referred to the reviewers' comments and corrected the manuscript. in my opinion the manuscript may be published in its current form
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: -


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

Input:
Title: FILAMENTOUS CYANOBACTERIA PRESERVED IN MASSES OF FUNGAL HYPHAE FROM THE TRIASSIC OF ANTARCTICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is basically well written and structured. See specific comments below and on the attached pdf.
Experimental design: This manuscript is within the scope of the journal. It provides novel insights into the microbial communities of terrestrial peat forming ecosystems of Antarctica that have taught us much about Triassic plant anatomy and forest structure in recent decades.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are valid and the material has not been "over interpreted" as might have been tempting for such a curious association of cyanobacteria and fungi within matted leaf laminae. Three hypotheses are presented to account for the fungal - cyanobacterial association.
Additional comments: This manuscript documents the first Mesozoic cyanobacterial fossils from Antarctica. They are uniquely preserved in fungal hyphal masses within a leaf-rich permineralized (silicified) peat.
The new record makes a significant addition to the biotic content and palaeoecology of Antarctic permineralized peats, which have yielded extensive data for the reconstruction of vascular plants and fundi over several decades. The documented association between the fungus and the cyanobacterium is intriguing. The authors raise three hypotheses to explain the fungal-cyanobacterial association ranging from chance co-occurrence in the peat matrix to an obligate lichen-like association. Although, they do not find conclusive evidence to support any one or other of these hypotheses, the strong apparent linkage between the two organisms suggests some mutually beneficial relationship.
Specific comments:
1. The paper is well written. I have marked up a few items on the attached pdf as suggestions for improving the punctuation and grammar.
2. Somewhere early in the text, the authors should clarify that the term trichome refers to the central column of cells and that the term filament refers to the trichome and its surrounding sheath. This may be obvious to specialists on cyanobacteria but will not be obvious to most. In a few cases through the manuscript, the terms trichome and filament almost appear to be used interchangeably.
3. The age of the permineralized peat given in the introduction (240 Ma = late Middle Triassic) is slightly at odds with that given in the Materials and methods (Middle or Late Triassic). This just needs some simple rephrasing of the Introduction.
4. The references are in good order. I have listed a couple of additional references on the attached pdf that might be relevant to this study.
5. Cyanobacteria are rare or virtually unknown from other woody (forested) permineralized peats. However, they are quite common in ancient sinter deposits and commonly form matted fabrics – see references mentioned on the attached pdf and other papers by Malcolm Walter and Jack Farmer. Could this provide some evidence for the Fremouw Peak peats being influenced by ancient thermal spring systems?
6. The illustrations are good considering the limitations of the preservational quality of the material. The interpretative drawings are a useful complement to the study. I think Fig. 2C needs some additional explanation. The reticulate patterning is distinctive and I have seen something similar to this feature before in fossil wood. Does this feature represent a reticulate mass of hyphae (in which case each hypha would be very small at a few microns width) or does it represent a single hypha with a reticulate wall ornamentation (in which case the hypha would be quite large at around 25-30 microns width).


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: FILAMENTOUS CYANOBACTERIA PRESERVED IN MASSES OF FUNGAL HYPHAE FROM THE TRIASSIC OF ANTARCTICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The language used throughout the manuscript is generally clear and unambiguous. The fossil descriptions are as thorough as the preservation allows and the authors make it clear when they are speculating on the features or ecological roles of the cyanobacterium. The discovery of this fossil is placed in an appropriate context and shows a sufficient familiarity with the literature. The figures are clear and generally well-labeled and described within the text and figure captions. As this is a descriptive paper, there was no raw data to view other than the images presented. This is a self-contained manuscript and does not appear to have been cut from a larger related study.

With that being said, I do have a few suggestions for improvements, clarifications, removal of extraneous words, and fixes for typos/errors.

Line 168: The authors reference a black arrow in Figure 4G, but Figure 4G does not exist in this manuscript. Update this to reference the appropriate figure.

Figure 1: Although the it is fairly self-evident that the arrows indicate the location of the Fremouw Peak peat locality, it would be good to add that to the figure caption.

Figure 2E: The figure caption implies that there are two arrows in the figure, but there is only one in the image.

Line 70: I would replaced "produced" with "discovered" or something similar. "Produced" implies that you are creating the evidence of cyanobacteria when that is not the case.

Line 202: I wonder if there is a better way to indicate the range of sheath widths for Palaeolyngbya kerpii. At first read, I though this was an arrow and checked the reference to make sure it was a greater than symbol. Perhaps it will look better when typeset for the journal, but it may be more readable with a space after the en-dash if the editors approve.

Lines 225-228: This sentence reads a little awkwardly and could be improved.

Lines 63-64: Central should not be capitalized in the locality description. The authors did this correctly elsewhere in the manuscript. It also seems unnecessary to give the CTAM abbreviation since it is not used in any other place in the manuscript.

Line 26: Change "and" to "or"

Line 33: Instead of "As to whether", just begin the sentence with "Whether"

Line 50: Remove "strikingly"

Line 72: Remove "very"

Line 260: I would say "were destroyed"

Line 263: Remove the comma
Experimental design: As this is a descriptive paper, there is no traditional experimental design or research question. The significance of the discovery of this cyanobacterium and how it fills a knowledge gap in the ecology of organisms preserved in permineralized Mesozoic peat is stated by the authors.  The methods used to prepare and image the specimens are both appropriate and standard for microorganisms preserved in this manner. The preparation methods are described in enough detail that anyone with similarly preserved fossils would be able to prepare and image their specimens in the same manner.
Validity of the findings: The results, in terms of the description of the cyanobacterium, are well done and thorough. When the authors speculate about certain structures, the preservation of the fossils, or the place of the cyanobacterium within the ecosystem, it is clearly identified and certainly within reason. The discussion and conclusion sections clearly link back to features described in the results.

Lines 262-267: I'm not sure that those studies of cyanobacterial biomass in modern peat ecosystems support the idea that cyanobacteria were rare in the Fremouw ecosystem. Even if cyanobacteria were a small percentage of the total biomass, it doesn't explain why no other algae or bacteria have been described from the locality. If cyanobacteria were only 4% of the total biomass, that still represents a large population of cyanobacteria that is not seen in the peat, without even considering the lack of fossils from algae or other bacteria. These lines seem like an unnecessary critique of the "cyanobacteria everywhere hypothesis". It would be a more valid critique if there were other microorganisms found throughout the peat.
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: FILAMENTOUS CYANOBACTERIA PRESERVED IN MASSES OF FUNGAL HYPHAE FROM THE TRIASSIC OF ANTARCTICA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This revised manuscript, documenting the first Mesozoic cyanobacterial fossils preserved in fungal hyphal masses within a leaf-rich permineralized (silicified) peat, is well written, succinct and represents a novel finding from the Triassic of Antarctica. The authors have effectively responded to all the reviewer comments and adjusted their manuscript accordingly. I can find no additional points of disagreement or need for elaboration of contraction of the text. Enlargement of Fig. 2C clarifies the morphology of the fungal masses. The references are appropriate and the illustrations effectively convey the message of the text. The only changes I would make are entirely cosmetic and, in some cases reflect personal grammatical preferences. They include:
Line 80. I would change “…described in Harper et al…” to “described by Harper et al.” Saying “described in” implies it was described inside the authors.
Line 83-84. I would hyphenate “low-sinuosity” as this is used as a combined adjectival modifier for braided streams.
Line 85. I would change the position of the hyphen to “trough cross-bedded”
Line 231. Change “fossil” to “fossils”
Line 288. I suggest adding a comma either side of “therefore”
Experimental design: The research is within the scope of the journal. The research objectives are clearly outlined and appropriately investigated.
Validity of the findings: The results are clear, well presented and the interpretations are supported as far as possible given the constraints of the fossil preservation.
Additional comments: This is a well-presented paper and makes a solid contribution to Antarctic palaeobiology.


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: FILAMENTOUS CYANOBACTERIA PRESERVED IN MASSES OF FUNGAL HYPHAE FROM THE TRIASSIC OF ANTARCTICA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made all of the requested changes that improve the clarity of the language, improve the clarity of figures, and have also added additional literature references.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: The authors have adequately addressed all reviewer comments related to their findings and  interpretations.
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: CIRCADIAN PREFERENCES OF BIRDWATCHERS IN POLAND: DO “OWLS” PREFER WATCHING NIGHT BIRDS, AND “LARKS” PREFER DAYTIME ONES?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see general comments
Experimental design: see general comments
Validity of the findings: see general comments
Additional comments: My main impression is: So what? The study would be well suited as a school-leaving thesis, and the results are in no way exciting. The conclusion ends as usual: "The presented results ... open the door for further, more advanced studies." Why haven't you already done exactly that in this work?
Intr: Many of the statements in the introduction are very vague and superficial. Mixing of professional and non-professional motives and goals.
Meth: Data collection: "At 00:00 hour on the 19 February 2019 the first author sent an e-mail questionnaire to 433 Polish ornithologists - I feel reminded of a sketch by Mr. Bean.
[Annoying and sloppy: In data collection n is 433 - in Summary n=443.]
Pseudo-correctness: l 114-119.
Results: only 32% of the questionnaires were returned. Why so few? Did the respondents find the questionnaire too lapidary?  - Eleven complaints: Where is the significance of the analysis (icl. statistics)? - favourite bird species: the broad spectrum of 204 species simply cannot be interpreted. Many observers are open-minded for all birds.
Discussion: also not impressive. Reference l 225 chance the reference into: Randler et al. 2016) - What should a sentence like "The white stork is a Polish icon and is very often considered as the most Polish of all birds" mean? Phew.  - l 241 - 250: too vague. - Be careful in mixing (cultural) aspects of bird "people" and aspects of general culture (e.g., role of crans in art). - Final sentence (l 259) "obsessive recreationalists" is a negative wording. I would clearly prefer "passionate". -- These are only a few selected objections.
Conclusion: Apart from my subjective impression and criticism, the work is, formally speaking, correct. A tiny brick for the large building of life sciences.


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: CIRCADIAN PREFERENCES OF BIRDWATCHERS IN POLAND: DO “OWLS” PREFER WATCHING NIGHT BIRDS, AND “LARKS” PREFER DAYTIME ONES?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and clearly structured.
Relevant literature is broadly covered.
I have a few questions concerning the raw data (see general comments for the author).
The text is merely descriptive, any hypotheses are missing!
All supplemental material should be in English.
Experimental design: The manuscript covers original primary research. The research question is clear and fills a knowledge gap.
There might be a bias in the choice of the persons which received the questionnaire (see general comments for the author). Was this group really representative for Polish birdwatchers, e.g. regarding sex and age?
Validity of the findings: See comments for the author.
Additional comments: The results and disappointingly also the discussion focus very much on a few, purely descriptive aspects. Aren’t there any aspects concerning methods (e.g. what do the results mean for mapping or counting birds) or possible applications in conservation (e.g. in management or ecotourism)?

Some minor comments:
Line 53: „necessarily“ instead of „necessary“
Line 76: Different financial resources and certainly time availability will affect the circadian behaviour (which might differ from the circadian preferences). Why weren’t these aspects covered by the questionnaire?
Line 94: Choosing participants from e-mail addresses in publications only could have caused a bias since many enthusiastic birdwatchers never ever publish a single line!
Line 115: According to the methods participants were not asked for their academic degrees and jobs. Where were these derived from?
Line 143: The proportion of male respondents is pretty useless without knowing the proportion of males/females in the group of persons who received the email with the questionnaire. Accordingly the statement “that watching birds is still more popular among men than women” (line 208) is not supported by the information and data given here.
Lines 198: Detailed results (e.g. the percentages) need not to be repeated in the discussion!
Line 211: Though I appreciate the increasing trend to watch birds in females, too, the word “pleasing” is a needles appraisal.


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: CIRCADIAN PREFERENCES OF BIRDWATCHERS IN POLAND: DO “OWLS” PREFER WATCHING NIGHT BIRDS, AND “LARKS” PREFER DAYTIME ONES?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: problems cleared, revision OK
Experimental design: problems cleared, revision OK
Validity of the findings: problems cleared, revision OK
Additional comments: The ms is OK now - despite some personal reservations.


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

Input:
Title: CIRCADIAN PREFERENCES OF BIRDWATCHERS IN POLAND: DO “OWLS” PREFER WATCHING NIGHT BIRDS, AND “LARKS” PREFER DAYTIME ONES?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I expected a "major revision" of this manuscript to make it of interest for a broader readership. Regrettably, only minor changes were made.

For example, I hoped to find a broader discussion on the practical value of this study in monitoring and conservation. There are heaps of literature on the pros and cons of using citizen-science data in these issues. As the authors wrote "it is important to know if their behaviour may subconsciously influence their records." How? Why don't they discuss this in more detail instead of adding just two sentences without any references to the discussion?
Experimental design: As said in my first review, I doubt that the questionaire is representative.

The authors only "... believe that this group was very representative ...., and at least covers the most active birdwatchers..." I myself know many birdwatchers personally that collect a lot of data but never have published a single line. At least I expected some discussion on this issue.
Validity of the findings: see 2
Additional comments: This is still a very descriptive manuscript with little practical or scientific value.


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

Input:
Title: CIRCADIAN PREFERENCES OF BIRDWATCHERS IN POLAND: DO “OWLS” PREFER WATCHING NIGHT BIRDS, AND “LARKS” PREFER DAYTIME ONES?
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no changes required
Experimental design: no changes required
Validity of the findings: no changes required
Additional comments: Dear Authors,
Very interesting research, I think it should be published. Despite that it is only correlative analysis, It bring a lot of new information for develop large scale monitoring scheme.
Line 21: why such research is needed, please explain
Line 78-79: as well as collecting large scale monitoring data based on birdwatchers
Line 219 - 220: please add, how many people
Line 251: and it's easy to spot especially for beginners birdswatcher
Line 280-281: Please add some references based on data from Poland


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: EXPRESSION PATTERNS AND THE PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF THE EMILIN/MULTIMERIN FAMILY MEMBERS IN LOW-GRADE GLIOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript was written in technically correct English but needs a lot of proofreading such as line 58-61, line 78-79, line 117 (Figure title is not clear, language problem), line 145-149 (formatting is not consistent throughout the main test).
Some figures are low resolution: Figure 2, Figure 7.
Experimental design: The authors did not provide the essential information in the material section for the readers to understand how different criteria were set and how statistical significance was determined. Without such information, it’s hard to reproduce the finding. Examples include:
1)	Line 101-109, what was the statistical method used to test the significance.
2)	Line 156-162, the method section is not well described what analysis was used to explore the co-expression and interaction.
3)	Line 174-176, no information about what criteria were used to select the co-expressed genes.
Validity of the findings: The authors performed a lot of bioinformatic analysis without spending enough time explaining the data in the results section which leaves the readers with confusion. Examples include:
1)	 line 90-91, In this section, the authors stated in some datasets, the expression levels of EMILIN3. MMRN2 are upregulated, while in some other datasets the expression of the same gene is lower. This controversy cannot lead to the conclusion that a significantly higher expression of EMILIN/Multimerin family members was found in Brain and CNS Cancers in multiple datasets.
2)	Line 126-127, data shown in Figure 6 cannot demonstrate the hypotheses stated by the authors
3)	Line 136-138, not enough data interpretation to support the conclusion.
4)	Line 172-180, this is an overstatement. The authors did not clarify what does the data indicate and there is no connection between the data presented here and mechanism.
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: EXPRESSION PATTERNS AND THE PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF THE EMILIN/MULTIMERIN FAMILY MEMBERS IN LOW-GRADE GLIOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this work, the authors used bioinformatics tools to analyze the expression levels of EMILIN/Multimerins in low-grade glioma and evaluated their potential value as prognostic biomarkers.

English language needs improvement as further elaborated in general comments.
Experimental design: The aim of the study is well-defined and the methods used are appropriate.
Validity of the findings: Overall conclusion are well stated and supported by the results shown.
Additional comments: 1)	On lines 77-79, authors write “...Compared to normal tissues, the results from TCGA dataset and Beroukhim dataset indicated that EMILIN3 was also significantly up-regulated in Brain and CNS Cancers.” which contradicts the statement written on subsequent lines 82-83, “In contrast with normal tissues, Beroukhim dataset and Bredel research was founded that significantly lower expressions of EMILIN3 in Brain and CNS Cancers”. Also, no values are reported for EMILIN3 in Table 1 for the Beroukhim and Bredel datasets. Authors should clarify this.
2)	On lines 227-229, “…Our results show that there are significant positive relationships between EMILIN/Multimerins expression level and infiltration level of B cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, neutrophils, macrophages, and dendritic cells…”. Significant positive relationships seem like an overinterpretation of the results as several of the members have only weak association as seen in the results presented in Figure 7 and Table 3, with little association with CD8+ T cells in particular. Strong association is only observed for MMRN1 with neutrophil and dendritic cells.
3)	On lines 241-243, “…Then we mined five co-expressed genes, which were also found that these genes significantly correlated with EMILIN/Multimerins and can predict the prognosis in LGG patients.…”. Authors should add the names of the 5 genes here. Is there any indication from previous literature of a link between these genes and LGG. If so, authors should add to that in discussion.
4)	Manuscript needs significant proofreading as there are spelling (ex: “distict” on line 91) and grammatical mistakes (ex: …As it “was shown” in Figure 1… on lines 71-72; …we observed “highly” increase … on line 76) at several places in the manuscript. Overall, English language needs to be improved as well, to give a few examples:
a.	It is not clear what authors want to convey on lines 138-139, ‘…The incidence of genetic alteration was strongly related to cancers since we used the online cBioPortal tool to analyze the genetic alterations of EMILIN/Multimerins in LGG.…’.
b.	On lines 143-144, there appears to be an incomplete sentence, “The results of the correlation between genetic alteration and prognostic worth of these members in LGG.”
c.	Lines 104-105 repeats in a slightly different wording what is already stated on lines 101-103.
5)	Abbreviations used without first defining it, for ex: DFS on line 36.
6)	Missing reference for statement on line 43-44, “The previous data have already highlighted LGG have high heterogeneity in terms of pathological, molecular features and prognosis.”


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: EXPRESSION PATTERNS AND THE PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF THE EMILIN/MULTIMERIN FAMILY MEMBERS IN LOW-GRADE GLIOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, this is a very nice article, there are many studies about EMILIN/Multimerin family members, but little is known about their function in GBM. This paper firstly introduced the expression level of EMILIN/Multimerin family members in Pan-cancer. Then they described the showed the correlation of EMILIN/Multimerin family members with LGG grade and patient survival. More interesting, they investigate the interactions and “driver-passengers” relationship between EMILIN/Multimerin family members and others potential genes in detail. There are only minor comments that I would have. Some more recent research article should be discussed in this paper before publication.
Experimental design: More database should be considered.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Overall, this is a very nice article, there are many studies about EMILIN/Multimerin family members, but little is known about their function in GBM. This paper firstly introduced the expression level of EMILIN/Multimerin family members in Pan-cancer. Then they described the showed the correlation of EMILIN/Multimerin family members with LGG grade and patient survival. More interesting, they investigate the interactions and “driver-passengers” relationship between EMILIN/Multimerin family members and others potential genes in detail. There are only minor comments that I would have. Some more recent research article should be discussed in this paper before 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: EXPRESSION PATTERNS AND THE PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF THE EMILIN/MULTIMERIN FAMILY MEMBERS IN LOW-GRADE GLIOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: Authors have addressed all my concerns. However, the manuscript still lacks in professional English with many spelling and grammatical mistakes. I would recommend publishing the manuscript provided authors proofread and correct for mistakes in English. Also please update Table 1, as the correction (missing datasets for EMILIN3) that authors indicated in the "Response to Reviewers" file is not included in the Table 1 of revised 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: RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES IN THE FINE-GRAIN STRUCTURE OF ANT-PLANT NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript needs work to create a clearer story. Important information left out (relating to variables) required. I.e. Invasive status is used as a variable to explain variation of pairwise interactions, though why this was included as a variable and how it could be important should be explained.
Experimental design: Methods require more detail -  no information on how nectar volumes were obtained or how species dominance hieracharchy scores were obtained. Furthermore details lacking on how vegetation along the 6x 1km tracks was observed - all plants?, or restricted to plants of a certain height, surveyed every transect walk? etc.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Consistent grammatical errors throughout manuscript.

Line 330 - States detailed visitation frequencies recorded in Table 2. Table 2 does not display this information.


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: RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES IN THE FINE-GRAIN STRUCTURE OF ANT-PLANT NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This report refers to the manuscript "Relative contribution of ecological and biological attributes in the fine-grain structure of ant-plant networks" by C. Díaz-Castelazo and V. Rico-Gray. The authors investigate a variety of mechanisms potentially shaping the structure of an ant-plant interaction network, particularly with regards to its fine-grain structure. The authors described a nested network and found that habitat heterogeneity is the major factor shaping both the macro and "fine-grain" structures of the network.  The work addresses a general question of broad interest for those studying the structure and dynamics of ecological networks. The generality of the research question, combined to a very robust dataset that for tropical ant-plant interactions make this article a potentially relevant contribution.  However, I have several concerns regarding the quality of the text. The manuscript has many long and complex sentences, which are often unintelligible. This problem is particularly critical in the Introduction and Discussion sections. It affects the flow of ideas, the conceptual accuracy, and makes it difficult to follow the general reasoning that relates the questions, methods, results and conclusions. As a consequence, it is also difficult to assimilate the take-home messages. In addition, I have a few other concerns about the study design and the validity of the findings, which are detailed later in my report. Therefore, in my opinion, the paper fails to properly communicate its background, results and impacts and, for this reason, cannot be accepted for publication at this point. For these reasons, I have decided to recommend a major revision.

I am a non-native English speaker and, therefore, I am certainly far from being the best person to provide Grammar-related advice to the authors. However, I would like to emphasize that the paper needs a detailed proof-reading to improve the English language usage. In what follows, I indicate other general problems and potential solutions that I hope will help the authors to improve their manuscript.

(1) The Introduction should be rewritten to properly introduce the research questions to a broader audience, which is not necessarily familiar with the jargon, concepts, and theory of network ecology. For example, in the second paragraph of the Introduction (Lines 88-105), the authors list process that arguably account for nestedness in mutualistic networks, without even defining nestedness. Nestedness is only briefly (and incompletely) defined at the 4th line of the Abstract. Please introduce the nestedness concept using a more detailed explanation, referring to works such as Almeida-Neto et al. (2008, Oikos 117: 1227-1239). Also, the list of processes accounting for nestedness is redundant with the processes listed in the first paragraph as drivers of the more general notion of network organization. I believe that the flow of ideas would be more intuitive if the text first state that ecological networks exhibit non-random structural patterns subsequently indicate which structural patterns are most recurrently found in different types of mutualistic networks (e.g., nestedness and modularity) and, finally, introduce the mechanisms that arguably account for each pattern. Another point to be considered in the new version of the Introduction is a more detailed/organized explanation of what is the "fine-grain" structure of the network, and the candidate processes accounting for it.

(2) The text would also benefit from the replacement of several sentences that are too long, too complex, or simply unintelligible. In order to improve the flow of ideas, replace those sentences by shorter and properly concatenated smaller sentences. For instance, you could edit the long/complex sentences listed below. Please notice that this list is not extensive and other long/complex sentences should be rephrased accordingly.
	(2.1) Lines 74 - 76. Split the sentences.
	(2.2) Lines 89-93. This sentence is central in the Introduction, as it summarizes the mechanisms that can lead to nestedness. However, it is not correctly written. Split and/or rephrase the sentence.
	(2.3) 97-101. Split the sentences and provide more details to introduce the concept of "fine-grain structure", which is a key idea for the article.
	(2.4) 106-110. Split the sentences.
	(2.5) 131-135. Split the sentences.
	(2.6) 352-355. Split the sentences.
	(2.7) 375-381. Split the sentences.
	(2.8) 382-386. The sentence is too long and difficult to follow.
	(2.9) 386-391. Split the sentences.
	(2.10) 391-395. The sentence is too long and difficult to follow.

(3) Grammatical problems are recurrent throughout the text and should be fixed. One of the most recurrent grammatical problems is the incorrect use of commas at several instances (e.g., at the first line of the Abstract and at Lines 228 and 371). Other types of grammatical issues also occur (e.g., Line 75). Many other grammatical problems appear and, once again, I strongly suggest a detailed proof-reading aiming to improve the English language usage.

(4) The authors use the expression "potentially mutualistic networks" throughout the text, although the reason for that is explained only in the Discussion. Please move such an explanation to the Introduction.
Experimental design: (5) The text would benefit from the addition of equations to define the metrics, such as "species strength" and d' ("specialization of each species").

(6) At line 230, please clarify what you mean by "... a more meaningful measure of network complexity".

(7) The authors state that "... the fact that no compartment existed within the network and its high nested structure render the formal modularity analysis unnecessary" (Lines 225-227). I cannot agree with this statement. Nested networks can hold variable degrees of modularity, and can even be strongly modular (Fortuna et al. 2010, Journal of Animal Ecology 79: 811-817). Therefore, the detection of a nested structure "per se" cannot be used as a justification for not performing modularity analyses. In addition, according to the analysis that I performed using the dataset provided for review and the same software used by the authors (Modular, Marquitti et al. 2014, Ecography 37: 221-224), I detected a low degree of modularity, which is not different from the expected under the null models (Q_B = 0.30, P_Null_1 =0.87, P_Null_2=0.65, after running 100 null models). P-values here are used as a reference to evaluate whether observed modularity depart from the expected under theoretical benchmarks, namely the Erdos-Rényi model (P_Null_1) and the null model 2 of Bascompte et al. (2003, P_Null_2, see Marquitti et al. 2014, Ecography 37: 221-224). Therefore, the authors’ description of this network as "no-modular" (e.g. Line) can be misleading. All instances of "no-modular" and "non-modular" should be properly rephrased. I suggest that the authors perform and report the modularity analyses, as they should not be time-consuming and would improve the characterization of this ant-plant network.
Validity of the findings: (8) A major problem of the Discussion is the lack of a clear delimitation between inferences and generalizations that arise strictly from the paper results and those that are actually references to other studies or speculations. For instance:
	(8.1) The discussion opens with the idea that the "super-generalist" species that form the core of the interactions within the nested network are "fundamental components of the maintenance of convergence" (Lines 352-353), which is an idea arising from the theoretical work by Guimarães et al. (2011, Ecology Letters 14: 877-885). However, such idea is not contextualized for the study system, for example, by illustrating what "convergence at the community level" means for this network and how "the addition and persistence of more specialized species" would take place for the case of these ants and plants.
	(8.2) As the authors state at different instances that core ant species provide biotic defenses to the plants, I would like to see more references supporting the discussion of this point, which is not directly addressed by the study. A strong feature of this study system is the availability of natural history knowledge for ant species. I feel that a more in-depth discussion of this aspect would greatly improve the paper, as the authors are probably quite familiar with the studied myrmecofauna.  For instance, the role of Camponotus species as major players in the network core is clearly relevant... but what about the rest of the rest of the ant species? What features of Azteca sp. 1 and Paratrechina longicornis make them core species? In addition, is it possible to think of generalizations relating social features of ant species and the fine-grain structure of this type of ant-plant mutualistic network?

(9) At Line 357, please clarify what you mean by '... plants "depend" more on ants for maintaining network structure...'

(10) Although the authors properly refer to the seminal work of Vázquez et al. (2009) as a key reference to discuss the processes driving the structure of mutualistic networks, I suggest that they also incorporate ideas from more recent works discussing the processes shaping ecological networks, such as Poisot et al. (2015, Oikos 124: 243-251).
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: RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF ECOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES IN THE FINE-GRAIN STRUCTURE OF ANT-PLANT NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is, in general, quite difficult to read. The authors have used extremely long sentences (one covering 15 lines!) and this tends of obscure their points. Moreover, some seemingly important points are vague (e.g. lines 94-100) and difficult to interpret. There is also a fair amount of repetition. For example, lines 131-137 in the introduction appear almost verbatim as lines 473-479 in the conclusion, and lines 76-79 are extremely similar to the abstract. The whole article would benefit from a change to clearer, simpler, and more concise sentence structures. Such a revision would also likely help the authors to spot and remove repetitions.

Aside from these general issues of readability, several areas of the study need greater clarification and/or support. I will give these line-by-line:

Lines 85-87: The statements that species with higher interaction frequencies have A) higher numbers of links (does this mean degree?), B) possibly higher abundance, and C) are potentially better competitors,  need more support. I would like to see at least one citation per claim. The relationship between interaction frequency and degree especially is counterintuitive since I would expect species to specialize on a limited number of highly profitable links rather than continually adding links as interaction frequency increases.

Lines 92-93: Please give some details on how forbidden links could affect nestedness.

Line 116: What are the "important effects" of extrafloral nectaries on network structure? What aspects of structure do you mean?

Lines 118-119: What's the difference between "network-level" and "community-level"? To me these are the same.

Line 127: Please give some more detail about the social recruitment behavior of ants for those of us without strong entomological backgrounds.

Lines 165-169: It's not clear how you're planning to define network structure. I think it would make your manuscript much clearer to introduce your definition of structure earlier. From the rest of the introduction, I'd expect nestedness to be a major focus but this does not seem to be the case.

Line 308: Please add more details on vegetation associations to the methods. At the very least, I would like a table making explicit which vegetation types are "open" and "closed".

Line 323: It's a little confusing to present the second NMDS axis first.

Lines 369-370: It's very unclear what this means.

Line 388: What is a "high foliar rate"?

Line 427 and elsewhere: You mention that seasonality is important, but I didn't see anything in your analysis to back this up. More details needed.

Line 444: Abundance is also missing from your analyses.

Line 503: If you want to end with the possibility of coevolutionary cascades, it would be helpful to add some context for this to the introduction.
Experimental design: The raw data used in this study represents a phenomenal amount of work and will be a rich addition to the field of network ecology. However, there is a lot of room to improve the presentation of the analyses used on this excellent data.

The authors mention seasonality and abundance in their discussion,  but not in the methods and results. These should either be removed from the discussion or explicitly added to the methods and results.

The authors' decision to remove infrequent interactions also needs more justification. Weak links can be important in maintaining community stability (for example), so they may be important. Removing these links is also very likely to change the network structure. Perhaps the results for similar analyses including all links could be provided in an appendix.

It is also not clear exactly which measures of network structure the authors are interested in and why. The introduction is largely focused on nestedness, but it seems that the authors then included all available network measures provided by Bipartite. It would help readers to follow the results and discussion if a more thorough definition (and some indication of its importance) was provided for each network structural property.
Validity of the findings: It is not clear whether the authors' claims about the importance of abundance and seasonality are speculation or not. It is difficult to judge the validity of the other results based on the NMDS figure provided. A table or plot of network structural properties over space/time would be very helpful (the authors could highlight a few properties of special interest). In the NMDS plot, some visual differentiation between plant and ant species would aid interpretation.
Additional comments: The authors have created an excellent dataset, but their article as it currently stands is difficult to read and interpret. If the authors can clarify their work, adding more details where appropriate, I am confident that this will be a valuable contribution to network ecology.