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: STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN THE BONOBO (PAN PANISCUS) TRAPEZIOMETACARPAL JOINT DURING GRASPING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript submitted by van Leeuwen and colleagues presents the results of an interesting study that analyses how the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint morphology influences stress distributions of the joint in five grasping types used by bonobos. In order to do so, they simulate TMC joint articular force distributions using FEA to evaluate stress patterns associated with each one of these different grasp types, using an innovative modelling workflow. The authors state that their models show a high agreement between simulated and expected stress patterns, however, they also found ‘deviating patterns’ that they attribute to morphological differences. I consider that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and of significant interest, but I have also identified a number of issues that need to be addressed prior to an eventual publication. In particular, the ‘Introduction’ section does not adequately review the relevant literature on the morphology and function of the TMC joint in apes; some details about the methods are not fully developed; and the ‘Discussion’ does not contextualise the findings with respect to the relevant literature. Below, I provide a number of ways in which the manuscript can be improved.

Main comments:

Introduction: For decades, an extensively researched topic relates to the evolution of the thumb in apes and humans, having been addressed from several different perspectives. As such, there is a vast corpus of studies that is certainly relevant to this manuscript. Even though I do understand the value of brevity, there are a number of omissions that hinder the purpose of contextualising this study within the broader literature of the area. The introduction of this manuscript does indeed provide some classic and relevant citations (e.g., Napier, 1955; Cooney and Chao, 1977; Napier, 1956, among others), which although important and valuable, are not the only sources of information available nowadays. The radial carpometacarpal (CM) joints include the complex articulations between the scaphoid, trapezium, trapezoid and the first and second metacarpals, and within the CM the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) has received the most attention, both in what regards primate morphology, as well as in clinical studies and as such there are a plethora of studies that might be relevant to your introduction (to name a few additional examples Haines 1944; Tuttle 1969; Kuczynski 1974; Lewis 1977, 1989; Rafferty 1990; Rose 1992, among many others).

In its current form, the introduction and discussion both feel a bit rushed, which is evidenced by a poor literature review. Hence, I consider that the authors should try to improve their introduction by providing additional references and information regarding the importance of the TMC and why it is relevant to study its form and function. This would help you better organise your goals, as well as strengthening the relevance of your study from a biological perspective. In summary, the introduction needs a higher level of detail. I think you should improve the literature review so as to provide more justification and better contextualisation for your study. In addition, you should try to expand on the knowledge gap that is being filled, and how this is relevant from a biological and evolutionary point of view.

Line 54: The authors mention that bonobos, like humans, possess a saddle-shaped TMC joint, which is true. However, it has been also argued that a saddle-shaped joint TMC may be the primitive condition for mammals (Lewis 1977). In fact, across cercopithecoids, the TMC joint is usually saddle-shaped with modest variation in bony morphology (Rafferty 1990). Even in colobines that have a tiny thumb, the TMC joint is saddle-shaped. This means that a saddle-shaped TMC and its similarity to humans is not a good enough justification. What is particularly unique among all great apes and is different with respect to non-hominoid primates, is that their well-developed saddle-shaped TMC joint allows them to have a much greater abduction-adduction mobility (Rose 1992). You could use this information to better justify the importance and relevance of your study.

Line 52: Please explain why only bonobos were studied, and why you did not include any common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to compare results between these sister taxa. As you correctly point out in your abstract, Pan paniscus is a species under-represented in morpho-functional studies despite its endangered conservation status and close phylogenetic relation to modern humans. Please explicitly mention the reasons underlying your decision to exclusively focus on bonobos. It would be also relevant to mention the locomotor and tool use differences between bonobos and chimpanzees.

Lines 64-66:  You mention that your previous research on the kinematics of the TMC joint showed that the bonobo thumb is highly mobile (van Leeuwen et al., 2019). Please briefly expand on this; highly compared to whom? Why it appears that some structural restraints from soft- and/or hard tissue appear to restrict the bonobo’s thumb? etc.

Lines 72: You studied five different grasps (that you named pinch, powerL, powerLE, powerLA, and powerS). Please briefly explain why you decided to focus on these five different grasps in particular.

Lines 72-89:  This may be a matter of taste, but this paragraph could be transformed into explicit hypotheses and organised in a clearer way (e.g., a table).
Experimental design: There are some aspects of the methods that require additional information.

Material and methods:

Specimens: The fact that your sample mixed captive and wild-born individuals may be somehow problematic. A captive animal (which was also raised in captivity) would not necessarily show the locomotor repertoire of individuals that lived in the wild. You should consider assessing for differences across these different origins, as perhaps this factor may explain some of the differences you observed in your results. In any case, a short sentence expressly mentioning this possible issue should be added, as it has been shown that there are differences in the articular surfaces of captive and wild chimpanzees (see for e.g., Lewton, 2017).

•	Lewton, K. L. (2017). The effects of captive versus wild rearing environments on long bone articular surfaces in common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). PeerJ, 5. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3668

It has been shown that bonobos exhibit hand-preferences (e.g., right-hand bias) when performing certain tasks (Neufuss et al., 2017). Can hand-preference and the fact that you mixed left and right arms affect your results in any way?

•	Neufuss, J., Humle, T., Cremaschi, A., & Kivell, T. L. (2017). Nut-cracking behaviour in wild-born, rehabilitated bonobos (Pan paniscus): A comprehensive study of hand-preference, hand grips and efficiency. American Journal of Primatology, 79(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22589

In addition, please explicitly mention that no articular pathologies were observed at the TMC because otherwise those individuals should be removed from the sample.

Methods:

Lines 158-160: You mention that as there is no available cartilage information for bonobos, so you arbitrarily decided to use a thickness value of 0.5 mm, which is somewhat lower than the values reported for the human TMC joint cartilage (Dourthe et al., 2018) in order to account for the relatively smaller bone size. Although a reasonable assumption, this should be tested in a better way, particularly if we consider that among the ‘Critical considerations’ at the end of your manuscript, you mention the fact that you modelled cartilage as a layer with a constant thickness using an arbitrarily defined value. You should run a sensitivity test varying the thickness of this layer (and ideally model cartilage not using a constant thickness), to quantify the effect of the error introduced by this factor.

Line 172: Please provide a reference for your material properties. In addition, what values did you use for bone? Did you model the underlying bone as solid cortical bone? Please provide additional information.

Line 195: Why did you only use the RMSE? This needs to be justified. There is some discussion regarding which metric error to use in these cases. It would be better if you could compare the performance of a sub-set of models using at least one different error metric (e.g. mean absolute error [MAE] or another one), as there might be important differences, particularly when considering your small sample size.

How did you account for size differences in your results? When comparing different models exhibiting size differences it is necessary to adjust the models to a comparable size. There are several ways of answering the question of how performance can be compared so that the effects of size and shape are disentangled (see for e.g. Dumont et al. 2009). Among the most common options are: (1) modify the size of all models so that all have the same size and then apply the same force, or (2) keep the differences in size, and then apply an appropriate force that generates the same effect as carrying out the procedure described in point (1). Please provide additional information.

•	Dumont, E. R., Grosse, I. R., & Slater, G. J. (2009). Requirements for comparing the performance of finite element models of biological structures. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 256(1), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.08.017
Validity of the findings: Results:

How did you compare the results from your FE models? FEA models and their respective results have been usually compared in a mostly qualitative way in functional-morphology, by visually comparing stress or strain distributions (as you do in your Fig.5 where you do not provide the actual range of your MPa values in your von Mises rainbow scale). This qualitative assessment of FEA results has been usually done by looking at contour plots, and it is a straightforward option when the number of models and loading scenarios is small, as well as when the obtained results are distinctive enough (which are two conditions that I do not think necessarily apply to your results). For these reasons, you should explore more quantitative ways to compare your obtained results (see for e.g. Marcé-Nogué 2020 for some options) or other additional alternatives such as techniques that have been developed to conduct statistical inference on smooth biomechanical field data of any physical dimensionality (e.g. statistical parametric mapping; Pataky 2010). Using some of these options would allow you to quantitively evaluate your results, hence enriching your manuscript.

•	Marcé-Nogué, J. (2020). Mandibular biomechanics as a key factor to understand diet in mammals. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordi-Marce-Nogue/publication/348266506_Mandibular_biomechanics_as_a_key_factor_to_understand_diet_in_mammals/links/5ff5995a92851c13feefff87/Mandibular-biomechanics-as-a-key-factor-to-understand-diet-in-mammals.pdf
•	Pataky, T. C. (2010). Generalized n-dimensional biomechanical field analysis using statistical parametric mapping. Journal of Biomechanics, 43(10), 1976–1982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.008

Discussion: Although the discussion properly summarises your findings, there are no references in the whole section. Please contextualise your results with respect to the relevant literature. In particular, since you mention the evolutionary importance of understanding the form and function relation of the thumb in your introduction, you should try to contextualise your results from a biological and evolutionary point of view. This will certainly improve your manuscript, highlight its relevance and would probably widen your readership.
Additional comments: Additional comments:

•	I would recommend mentioning in the abstract that you used finite element analysis (FEA) to carry out your simulations rather than simply saying that you generated finite element models, as a wider readership interested in functional morphology may be more familiar with the FEA concept/acronym.

•	Please include the versions of all the software used in your study (e.g. lines 145, 151, etc.)

•	Although I am aware that the rainbow colour plots have a long history in FEA, using rainbow colour plots can be visually misleading (as it can distort perceptions of data and alter meaning by creating false boundaries between values), as well as being problematic for colour-blind readers. Hence, I suggest altering the colour schemes used in your FEA plots (Fig. 5). See for additional information:

https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/end-of-the-rainbow/
https://root.cern.ch/rainbow-color-map
https://eagereyes.org/basics/rainbow-color-map


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: STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN THE BONOBO (PAN PANISCUS) TRAPEZIOMETACARPAL JOINT DURING GRASPING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This study uses finite element modelling to estimate the areas of stress experienced by the bonobo TMC joint during 5 different grip postures. Overall, this is a robust study including 5 bonobo cadavers; an absolutely small sample size but relatively large and impressive when considering how difficult it is to access great ape cadaveric specimens. The manuscript is very well written, the structure is well organised and clear, and the figures are of excellent quality and relevant to the paper. Overall, I think the study is a welcome contribution to the literature on great ape (including human) thumb and hand function.  I have several comments and questions below, most of which are relatively minor or ask for clarifications about what has been done. However, I have no major concerns with the analysis or interpretation.

The introduction is a little light on citations, particularly of early/primary research, and I have made several suggestions below that could be added, in addition to addition minor edits throughout the manuscript.

line 41:  This general statement should have primary citations, rather than Samuel et al. (2018). I would suggest early papers by Napier and most papers by Mary Marzke (many of these are cited elsewhere in the manuscript already).
57: would be good to clarify that this is mainly tool use in captivity, not the wild.  You could also include Neufuss et al. (2017) on bonobo nut-cracking in wild-born, sanctuary bonobos (which is incorrectly cited elsewhere in the paper)
62: following on above, Neufuss et al. (2017) is not appropriate to cite in reference to bonobo thumb use during locomotion since this paper is about tool use.  Neufuss et al. (2017) in AJPA on hand/thumb use during vertical climbing in chimpanzees (and mountain gorillas) could be cited instead (perhaps this was the paper the authors meant to cite?). Also, the primary work of Tuttle or Inouye (she spoke more directly to bonobos) on knuckle-walking hand postures should also be cited/acknowledged here.
65: change ‘restrains’ to ‘constraints’
76: not clear what is meant by “diverted to the radial, but central aspect of the articular facet”. Is radial or central? Or radial-central?
Figure 2 is very helpful for understanding the different grips. I suggest moving the ‘pinch grip’ image ‘B’ to bottom R in this figure so it is consistent with the order in which the grips are described within the text.
104: change “five functional positions; three types of large diameter power grasps, a small diameter power grasp and a key pinch precision grasp” simply to “five functional grip positions.” and delete the rest since these have already been described in detail in the Introduction.
141:  I think there is a word missing here: “four), one per grasp.” Perhaps it is just ‘and one per grasp’ but it’s not clear.
144: Move ‘triangular’ to in front of ‘meshes’ here. Otherwise it implies the trapezium and Mc1 are triangular.
Figure 3. It is not clear to me what is meant to be represented by the image directly under ‘D’.  This looks like a rabbit in ramakin and chop sticks to me so have no idea what it is included in this figure.
Figure 5 is excellent – very reader friendly and easy to follow!
246: change to ‘individual’ or ‘intraspecific’ variations in morphology.
252: change to “morphology interfere with this…”
268: change ‘Here’ to ‘In this individual,’
Experimental design: I am not expert in FE modelling so cannot critically evaluate all of the methodological details. However, I understand the basics of this method and the basics of what has been done in this study in particular, in part because the methods are described quite clearly.  However, there are some aspects I do not fully understand and have queried below. Some may stem from my own ignorance, but may still be worth clarifying in the manuscript for non-specialist readers.

1. One of the sample specimens is 8 yrs old (while the remaining 4 are adult). Please provide some information in the ‘Specimens’ section about morphological (bone ossification and soft tissue) and behavioural development at 8 years of age in bonobos and why you think it is suitable to include a subadult in the sample. Do you expect this individual to be an outlier in anyway? This is addressed somewhat in the Critical Considerations section, but should also be addressed here.

2. What are the ‘bone landmarks’ referred to in line 147? Are these particular 3D landmarks that were identified on each bone and, if so, what are they? Or is this meant to refer to generally fitting to two articular surfaces together in a way that makes functional sense given that the a saddle-joint articular does not allow for a lot of ‘wiggle room’ in how you can put the two bones together?

3. I have questions about the following statement: “We performed a 2D static force analysis, based on Cooney and Chao (1977), to estimate the magnitude of the resultant force vector applied on the thumb tip. In the static force analysis, the applied force was estimated at 50N, 1/6 of the average bonobo body weight (30kg)…” Where does the 1/6 of body weight come from? Is this because Cooney & Chao estimate a particular load at the TMC joint humans and this load in 1/6 of the average human body mass? Clarity around 1/6 (vs. for example,  ¼ or 1/8) in particular has been chosen is needed.

4. It would be helpful to add to the end of the methods what criterion(ia) are used to determine a ‘successful’ termination. The authors state that “force vector to yield a loaded terminating position that closely resembles the unloaded” but at the start of the results there are measures provided in mm for the successfully terminated models. Was there a range or threshold of ‘acceptable’ RMS errors you were looking for and, if so, what was it?
Validity of the findings: General summary of the results accurately reflects the findings.  The authors provide a clear and honest assessment of what they found, and an excellent discussion of results that did not fit expectations.

1. I would like to read greater clarity about this statement: “Most likely, morphological variations cause the joint to function less like a the universal joint.”  For a non-specialist reader, it would be helpful to clarify what a universal joint is and generally how individual morphological variation might affect this. I know the next paragraph goes into detail about this morphological variation, but this statement is a bit unclear in this initial paragraph.

2. line 271: “During pinch, this aspect may initiate contact before the volar beak. Furthermore, Pp2 is a sub-adult with relatively under-developed joints. The overall morphological landmarks are comparatively smooth and nuanced. This affects the shape of the TMC articular surfaces and appears to influence the interaction between the volar beak and palmar aspect of the trapezium during pinch particularly, plausible causing it to not show the expected stress peaks in the palmar region during this grasp.” Just a few points of clarity needed here. In the first sentence, replace ‘this’ with “asymmetrical dorsal ridge” so it clear what aspect of morphological variation is being discussed. What exactly does ‘underdeveloped joints’ mean and ‘morphological landmarks’? Are the landmarks the same as those referred to in the methods?  What does ‘nuanced’ mean in relation to the morphology exactly? In the last sentence, change ‘plausible’ to ‘possibly’.  Looking at Figure 6, it is clear the epiphyseal fusion is not complete, which I think should be acknowledge somewhere in the manuscript (see comment in Methods above).

3. Related to above, Figure 6 is very helpful in visualising the morphological variation. However, I do have a few questions about this. In Fig 6a, it looks to me like the ‘common’ morphology has a more protruding volar beak than Pp1. Or perhaps this is better described as deeper dorsovolar curvature?

4. line 285: in reference to statement “Mc1 gets caught on the protruding….”. It is clear what the authors mean here, but I think it worth reflecting on descriptions of joint function by Lovejoy and colleagues. Simpson et al. (2018, Anatomical Record) discuss the function of synovial joints (see their pg. 499) in relation to the dorsal ridge in metacarpals and how the ridge does not ‘stop’ the proximal phalanx movement.  I think the same rationale applies here. I don’t necessarily disagree with the author’s interpretations about the TMC joint but think it is worth (re-)reading Simpson et al. and related work cited in their paper, and perhaps just using more careful language about how morphological variation in the joint surface might affect where the joint stress occurs.

5. The Critical Considerations section is well written and excellent addition to the paper.
If the results for some positions for Pp5 had to be excluded and it was not possible to put this cadaveric specimen into the powerL position due to lack of mobility, how might this affect the results of the positions you did include? Did this specimen show signs of osteoarthritis? Or do you feel this reduced mobility was due to soft tissue changes?
Additional comments: Minor additional comments:
1. Abstract: change “The thumb is a crucial structure in primate evolution due to its role in grasping AND THE TRAPEZIOMETACARPAL (TMC) JOINT IS CRITICAL TO ITS FUNCTION” or something similar to avoid using ‘role’ twice.


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: STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN THE BONOBO (PAN PANISCUS) TRAPEZIOMETACARPAL JOINT DURING GRASPING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I congratulate the efforts made by the authors to incorporate (or refute) the comments made by the different reviewers. I am satisfied with the changes they have made as well as with their explanations as to why they decided to follow (or not) the recommendations I provided during the first revision round. I think that the current version of the manuscript has certainly been improved. In particular, the change of emphasis made by the authors is a correct decision, as it helps to further strength the novel methodological aspects of this work.


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

Input:
Title: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF DI-2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE EMISSIONS FROM A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL LEACHATE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Sentences used in this work were too verbose.
2. A lot of repetitions were in the results and discussion, and these two parts should be combined and reorganized.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: This paper lacks of novelty and a lot of similar works have been reported. DEHP in landfill leachate was detected in 3-years periods and PNEC was used to assess the eco-risk of leachate. Only PNEC was calculated, which was not supported. More toxicity test should be employed here.
Additional comments: Line 248-255: These sentences were too verbose and you should come straight to the results.
Line 250-251: The description of PNEC should be put into the method part.
Line 278-281: More explanation should be done here and why DEHP concentrations can significantly differ, even in the same country?
Line 291-295: This work compared DEHP concentrations in landfill leachate from different regions. The explanation is too confusing and inexplicable.

The conclusion is too long and lacks originality.


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: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF DI-2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE EMISSIONS FROM A MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL LEACHATE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic is not specific on what element of risk assessment the author was focusing on. Please incorporate the element that the risk assessment is related to. This is for more clarity to the readers and not make the topic to generic.

Also the Topic should be “potential” risk assessment because actual risk assessment was not conducted to avoid misleading the readers

The introduction was well written with an extensive explanation of DEHP and its potential environmental and health risk if in contact. However, nothing was said on the national strategies and limits of the quantity of DEHP in leachate or ground water posed by the polish or European government.
Experimental design: Line 155, state the meteorological seasons in parenthesis for more clarity

Line 183-185, Why was the instrument changed and what was the difference the author identified while using the two instrument.
Validity of the findings: was written in a proper scientific manner
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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: In this paper, the authors aim to highlight the challenges of EHR  and  genomic  data  sharing.  They also  attempt  to  answer  "Why"  or  "Why not"  the  blockchain  technology  is  suitable  for  genomics  and  healthcare  applications in  detail.

I think overall, the readability of the paper should be improved. There are many issues in verb tense and noun usage with overuse of "the" common from non-native speakers. I would recommend that the paper be professionally proofread.

Content wise, the following revisions are needed:

Subsections should also be numbered

Some sort of publication analysis should be presented early on in the survey with some insight into publications.

In general, more of the info presented should also be summarized in a collection of tables, flow charts or images. These items should be placed inline for reviewers to see in the revised version.

The paper lacks any proper organization in sections/subsections etc this should be addressed

The images given at the end of the paper are all of very low quality, please improve both quality of the image plus the actual presentation of them.

The tables (first column) should also give reference as to where to find more info about the item listed

The references and literature search has missed many papers in EHR and blockchain, see here some examples

Ramachandran S, et al. A Review on Blockchain-Based Strategies for Management of Electronic Health Records (EHRs). In2020 International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication (ICOSEC) 2020 Sep 10 (pp. 341-346). IEEE.

Połap D, et al. Agent architecture of an intelligent medical system based on federated learning and blockchain technology. Journal of Information Security and Applications. 2021 May 1;58:102748.

Srivastava G, et al. The future of blockchain technology in healthcare internet of things security. Blockchain Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy. 2020:161-84.


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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the paper, the authors analyzed some basic solutions in the blockchain. I cannot agree that this paper should be accepted in the current form. The authors focused mainly on older solutions and as a survey, they should analyze mainly the last 2 years (2021 and 2020). Therefore in my opinion this paper is outdated.
Experimental design: Rewrite the paper to the current state of research, focus also on the application in practical solutions with machine learning like federated learning, etc. It is the latest approach in medical blockchains.

Focus also on practical differences between solutions and obtained results. Add some tables/figures to show more details in the literature. Compare the results, make some statistics, etc.
Validity of the findings: Add also more complex detailed discussion about future recommendations and compare your information with a paper:
Blockchain for healthcare data management: opportunities, challenges, and future recommendations, Neural Computing and Applications.
Write what exactly is the difference between your paper to this one.
Additional comments: In the paper, the authors analyzed some basic solutions in the blockchain. I cannot agree that this paper should be accepted in the current form. The authors focused mainly on older solutions and as a survey, they should analyze mainly the last 2 years (2021 and 2020). Therefore in my opinion this paper is outdated.

Rewrite the paper to the current state of research, focus also on the application in practical solutions with machine learning like federated learning, etc. It is the latest approach in medical blockchains.

Focus also on practical differences between solutions and obtained results. Add some tables/figures to show more details in the literature. Compare the results, make some statistics, etc.

Add also more complex detailed discussion about future recommendations and compare your information with a paper:
Blockchain for healthcare data management: opportunities, challenges, and future recommendations, Neural Computing and Applications.
Write what exactly is the difference between your paper to this one.

See these papers from this year:
1) VFChain: Enabling Verifiable and Auditable Federated Learning via Blockchain Systems, IEE Transactions
2) Agent architecture of an intelligent medical system based on federated learning and blockchain technology, Journal of Information Security and Applications
3)An intelligent internet of things-based secure healthcare framework using blockchain technology with an optimal deep learning model, Journal of Supercomputing
4)Multi-modal secure healthcare data dissemination framework using blockchain in IoMT, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing


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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: BASIC REPORTING
The title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the article is well constructed, the experiments are well conducted, and analysis is well performed. The figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled and described.
Experimental design: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
This is a review paper, so no experimental design. However, the discussion is original and the research is within the scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The overview and their proposal for a more suitable technology is highly technical, ethical and logistical.
Validity of the findings: VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS
The introduction is comprehensive. The findings are meaningful. The conclusions are well stated and relevant to the research questions.
Additional comments: This paper was aiming at the challenges of EHR and genomic data sharing. The authors discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the blockchain technology implementation in genomics and healthcare applications. Furthermore, they proposed the general blockchain structure based on Ethereum, which is a more suitable technology for the genomic data sharing platforms.

Editorial Criteria
BASIC REPORTING
The title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the article is well constructed, the experiments are well conducted, and analysis is well performed. The figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled and described.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
This is a review paper, so no experimental design. However, the discussion is original and the research is within the scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The overview and their proposal for a more suitable technology is highly technical, ethical and logistical.
VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS
The introduction is comprehensive. The findings are meaningful. The conclusions are well stated and relevant to the research questions.

Overall, I think this review paper is novel and will be of interest to others in the community of omics data and EHR data sharing. This review paper does an excellent job outlining the urgent need to better manage the genomics data and further discussed the pros and cons of blockchain technology utilization in the field. In general, the work is convincing except some major and minor comments below:

Major Comments:

I’m wondering if it is worth mentioning that one of the key disadvantages of blockchain technology is the inefficiency of storing and querying data. And the computational efficiency is also low compared to traditional centralized databases.

I’m wondering if blockchain-based technologies support cloud computing and  commonly used software services, tools & apps?

The words “data commons”, “data ecosystems”, “data cloud architecture” are really popular in the field of genomics data sharing. And they sound similar and are really confusing to researchers. Do you think it is worth adding those terms and explain a little bit?

Minor Comments:
The Figure 5 is hollow, and it is a little bit hard for the readers to differentiate the colors. I would recommend making it solid, with colors filled in.


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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: - Paper is informal in many paragraphs; the authors must have corrected it.
- English must have improvements
- Recent resources must add to references, for example, 2020 and 2021 papers.
- The introduction section is too short to detail the motivations and challenges of this paper.
- Environmental features should be considered in terms of classification
Experimental design: -It should be compared with previous review papers. And its superiority over previous works should be determined.
-Healthcare environment characteristics must have more detail in this paper; it is necessary to identify the main features of the health care areas, a taxonomy or a framework must have provided, and based on that, the effects of using the block chain to become apparent.   It can  help in  choosing methods in other articles or upcoming developments
- It is suggested that non-functional requirements are categorized, and the effects of using the block chain be illustrated.
-It is suggested that new articles that have been reviewed in recent years be reviewed to determine the advantages of the article over them.
Validity of the findings: - The simulation and implementation part of the article is examined and added to the tables, and converted into graphs if necessary
- The authors must Identify important parameters for evaluating each method or algorithm
- Examples given in the text should be transferred to health-related areas
Additional comments: This article should have a special advantage over other articles or previous reports that can be used later. For this reason, it is suggested that in some cases, the studies be done in more depth and detail and the author's analysis and conclusion be added to 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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
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 and/or rebutted any comments or revisions I had requested in the previous round for this paper.

Authors should proofread paper carefully prior to final 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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper was inproved and it is rady for publication.
Experimental design: Ok
Validity of the findings: Expwrimental section was performed in proporcje way and shows great results.
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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the article is well constructed, the experiments are well conducted, and analysis is well performed. The figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled and described.
Experimental design: This is a review paper, so no experimental design. However, the discussion is original and the research is within the scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The overview and their proposal for a more suitable technology is highly technical, ethical and logistical.
Validity of the findings: The introduction is comprehensive. The findings are meaningful. The conclusions are well stated and relevant to the research questions.
Additional comments: This paper was aiming at the challenges of EHR and genomic data sharing. The authors discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the blockchain technology implementation in genomics and healthcare applications. Furthermore, they proposed the general blockchain structure based on Ethereum, which is a more suitable technology for the genomic data sharing platforms.

Major Comments:

I’m wondering if it is worth mentioning that one of the key disadvantages of blockchain technology is the inefficiency of storing and querying data. And the computational efficiency is also low compared to traditional centralized databases.

Response: Thank you for raising this important point. Blockchain can be very beneficial, but it does not mean that it is going to be a complete revolution. There are still too many pitfalls and improper parts of the blockchain, especially in healthcare management. We completely agree with the intent of this comment. Hence, this important point is mentioned in the revised manuscript. Please see Conclusion chapter on Page 21 of the revised manuscript. The disadvantages of each project are also discussed in the revised manuscript.

Feedback: Thanks for adding it to the revised version. The conclusion session and discussion session looks good to me.

I’m wondering if blockchain-based technologies support cloud computing and  commonly used software services, tools & apps?

Response: Thank you for highlighting the relationship between cloud computing and blockchain. It is very common to use them to support each other. Blockchain is a distributed and decentralized system that works on a P2P network. Also, the smart contract mechanism is using its own virtual machine. When we build a proper design, it is possible to use software tools and/or apps on a blockchain platform. We can consider a blockchain application as a distributed app (Dapp). Recently, interoperability of different blockchain networks is also possible. Thus, it can be mentioned that blockchain-based platforms can support cloud computing or software tools distributedly. Please see the following answer as well.

Feedback: Thanks for the clarification. It totally makes sense to me.

The words “data commons”, “data ecosystems”, “data cloud architecture” are really popular in the field of genomics data sharing. And they sound similar and are really confusing to researchers. Do you think it is worth adding those terms and explain a little bit?

Response: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We believe that discussing these terms makes the manuscript more strengthen. We mentioned them in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript, please see Page 2. We also changed the organization in the revised manuscript and mention the evolution of blockchain technology in the healthcare management field. We discuss data commons and data ecosystems with blockchain timeline too. We believe that blockchain has a potential for contributing to data ecosystems.

Feedback: I strongly agree with you on this. And thanks for supplementing the introduction section. The new structure of the revised manuscript looks clear and straightforward to me.

Minor Comments:
The Figure 5 is hollow, and it is a little bit hard for the readers to differentiate the colors. I would recommend making it solid, with colors filled in.
Response: Authors fully agree with the intent of this comment and all figures are edited in the revised manuscript. Also, we would like to mention that some of the figures are totally changed in the revised manuscript, to address some other comments, e.g., removing stopped projects from the paper.

Feedback: Thanks for the updates for the figures. I also did see the comments raised by other reviewers in terms of the figures. The new set of figures look much more clear and informative. I don’t have any concern for the figures. Thanks!


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: BLOCKCHAIN FOR GENOMICS AND HEALTHCARE: A LITERATURE REVIEW, CURRENT STATUS, CLASSIFICATION AND OPEN ISSUES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: 1. The author should emphasize the advantages of this paper, more specifically, topic that introduced in this paper while not mentioned in other survey should be illustrated.
2. Open Issues must be classified and mentioned in the conclusion.
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: DYNAMIC CHANGES IN MOISTURE CONTENT AND APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL LITTER PREDICTION MODEL IN YUNNAN PROVINCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Forest fire risk prediction is the most important task of forest protection, and the litter moisture content directly affects the occurrence probability of forest fire and a series of fire behavior characteristics after being ignited. The dynamic change and prediction model of litter moisture content is the core content of forest fire prediction. The wet and dry seasons are distinct in Yunnan Province, and the precipitation is scarce during the dry season, the risk of forest fire occurrence is very high. The results of this manuscript have reference value for the forest fire prevention and prediction in dry season and formulation fire prevention strategies in Yunnan Province. The structure, figures, tables are well organized, and the findings are interesting, but more discussion needed. It is particularly necessary to discuss why the litter moisture content is mainly related to the air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed, but weakly correlated with precipitation. Overall, the manuscript needs further modification before it can be accepted for publication.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: 1. Overview of the study area: It would be better to add a detailed study area map in the section.
2. Sample plot setting: Among the four types of forest land, why the number of sample plots in each forest type is different, and the slope position and depth are also different? The criteria and reasons for selecting sample plots need to be explained.
3. In the section of meteorological elements regression model, some sample plots selected relative humidity, while other sample plots use air temperature as the predictor variable. What are the reasons for choosing different predictor variable, and are the results of different predictor variable comparable?
4. Line 223–224, “…… when the LMC value is lower than 33%, it is difficult for forest fires to occur……”, is it not that the lower the litter moisture content, the easier it is to ignite?
5. Section 2.3.1 is mentioned many times in the paper, but the contents of each part are not numbered.
6. The citation format is incorrect in Line 83, 429–431.
7. Why is the broken line not continuous in Figure 3?
8. It is better to use double brackets instead of single bracket for formula numbers.
9. In the note of Table 1, P5 should be Pa5.


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: DYNAMIC CHANGES IN MOISTURE CONTENT AND APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL LITTER PREDICTION MODEL IN YUNNAN PROVINCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Describtion of methods should be improved with more deatils, such as the reason of choosing these meteorological elements to build regression model, the reason of choose the Nelson model, and the reason of choosing the stepwise regression should be added.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This article combined multiple models to predict the litter moisture content, which can provide a certain practical reference for prevention of fire occurrence. The article has reached the requirements of the journal in terms of structure and representation. However, improvements are still needed in many places, and it is recommended to consider the manuscript after further 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: DYNAMIC CHANGES IN MOISTURE CONTENT AND APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL LITTER PREDICTION MODEL IN YUNNAN PROVINCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I started reading the manuscript from Zhang and Tian. It covers an important problem or an area where we are lacking data. However, the manuscript needs a lot of effort. I recommend the authors to seek assistance from a colleague with experience in writing scientific articles. This manuscript needs English editing but also help with the overall presentation of the results. Asking a reviewer for detailed input on this is too much, as this manuscript is actually a draft. The data is interesting and, if they can manage to solve this formal aspects, it may deserve eventual acceptance. It is very far from that stage right now.

Specific comments.
L66 - I disagree with this view. See (Nolan et al. 2016) for instance

L122 - indicate here number of plots and summary of main characteristics
L125 - what did you actually sample? provide indication on particle size, type of material and whether it was suspended o profile.
L135 - if there was water on the samples (rain, dew, etc), data is not valid.
Eq. 1 - delete "%"
L147 - at which height?
L150 - provide summary here
L152 - this is multiple regression, not "element" regression
Table 3 - what is litter type?

Fig. 2 shows that none of the models performed well. Try other methods like (Resco de Dios et al. 2015), Sharples, etc

Tables 3-7 are not necessary. Just present a single table with validation statistics for all models.

Nolan, R.H., V. Resco de Dios, M.M. Boer, G. Caccamo, M.L. Goulden and R.A. Bradstock. 2016. Predicting dead fine fuel moisture at regional scales using vapour pressure deficit from MODIS and gridded weather data. Remote Sensing of Environment. 174:100-108.
Resco de Dios, V., A.W. Fellows, R.H. Nolan, M.M. Boer, R.A. Bradstock, F. Domingo and M.L. Goulden. 2015. A semi-mechanistic model for predicting the moisture content of fine litter Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 203:64-73.


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: DYNAMIC CHANGES IN MOISTURE CONTENT AND APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL LITTER PREDICTION MODEL IN YUNNAN PROVINCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed all my comments adequately and the paper can be accepted. But there are still some spelling errors and common sense questions, please check and modify them carefully.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all my comments adequately and the paper can be accepted. But there are still some minor questions, please check and modify them carefully. There are many comments as follows:
1. L162: This is meteorological elements, not meteorological the elements.
2. In a closed environment, the air atmospheric pressure increases with the increase of air temperature. In an open environment, the situation is opposite. In Line178-179: “The increase of air temperature will lead to the increase of air atmospheric pressure……”. Is your research in a closed environment? There are similar expressions in the following text, please check and modify it carefully.
3. L198: The word “inteoduced” should be change to “introduced”.
4. L618: The first letter of “these” should be capitalized.


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: DYNAMIC CHANGES IN MOISTURE CONTENT AND APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL LITTER PREDICTION MODEL IN YUNNAN PROVINCE
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: MANDIBLE HISTOLOGY IN METOPOSAURUS KRASIEJOWENSIS (TEMNOSPONDYLI, STEREOSPONDYLI) FROM THE UPPER TRIASSIC OF POLAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I found some of the sentences a bit confusing, and have tried to modify /rephrase a few of them. As I am not an English-speaking person, I request the manuscript be thoroughly checked for correct English.
Experimental design: Many terminologies have been used throughout the manuscript, which sometime deviate from the meaning given in standard books and/or are new, at least to me. I would prefer that in the methodology part, if the definitions with proper referencing may be given, so that it becomes easier for the reader to understand. These terms are as follows:
(i) growth marks structure
(ii) Interwoven structural fibres
(iii) LAG and resting lines
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The submitted manuscript provides new information on mandibular histology of Metoposaurus and its implications. Following are one or two comment(s) for further clarity of the manuscript:

(a). The abstract should contain only the salient findings and their implications. It is not necessary to give the reason for examining the two mandibles.
(b). Font size of the scale bars are too small in Figures 3-5. Please keep a uniform font size for the labels and scale bars of figures 3-6. I would also prefer that the two types of Sharpey’s fibres be shown by different types of arrows.

I have attached an annotated MS, with more specific comments. Overall, the manuscript is well written with adequate number of figures, imparting new ideas on the biomenchanical constraints of Metoposaurus mandible, and should be published after minor revision.


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: MANDIBLE HISTOLOGY IN METOPOSAURUS KRASIEJOWENSIS (TEMNOSPONDYLI, STEREOSPONDYLI) FROM THE UPPER TRIASSIC OF POLAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript looks all well written, stuctured and illustrated. Relevant literature is sufficiently covered.
Experimental design: Has been done to standard procedures of palaeoosteohistology. The graphic documentation and description look well and detailed and should make the results well reproducable.

The study would have profited from the inclusion of at least one further reference taxon to put the results for the Polish Metoposaurus in context of other groups taxa. With only one taxon thoroughly studied, the results are difficult to interpret and it is difficult to infer sth. relevant and for a larger group of readers (especially when other aspects of the same taxon  have been studied in detail, again without consideration of a larger reference group).

I would recommend that the authors try to put the results of their detailed documentation somewhat better in the context of previous studies on other tetrapod taxa in the manuscript's discussion section.

(Given that it is PeerJ policy to publish any results/novel data that fill a gap/are relevant for a certain research question, this recommendation and my feeling that the manuscript could be made less "boring" does arguably play no role for its acceptance.)
Validity of the findings: I would agree with the finding of this study that it confirms earlier assumptions regarding  Metoposaurus development, functional morphology and ecology based on other data (or at least is not in conflict with them).
Additional comments: In one place the authors distinguish between resting lines and lines of arrested growth in addition to bone growth marks - what is the difference beween LAGs and resting lines... please add a citation for that.

In the figure captures for the micrographs, it should be added whether specimen photos have been taken under cross-polarized light - sometimes it is not mentioned.


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: ELEVATED SERUM FGF21 PREDICTS THE MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN STEMI PATIENTS AFTER EMERGENCY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Elevated serum FGF21 predicts the major adverse cardiovascular events in STEMI patients after emergency percutaneous coronary intervention

Review
The authors try to verify if FGF21 may be a marker for severity in AMI patients.
And they concluded that over 240 pg/ml FGF21 identifies some higher risk AMI patients.

I have some QUESTIONS regarding the study:

1)	Why they didn’t perform a FUP in patients with stable angina, which was considered by the authors as “control group”? Being a “control group”, they would have the possibility to assess the ROC also in the stable angina group, because the level of FGF21 was not zero in this group. Is it possible to know how many patients have had multivessel coronary disease in this stable angina patients? In this manner will be possible to compare better the two groups of patients.
2)	It is not clear for me way the authors choose to confront only FGF21 level with MACE, neglecting many others important factor with negative prognosis after AMI…
3)	Why the authors don’t try to quantify the dimension of AMI using ECG criteria, as QS aspect by the way. In this manner will be possible to rule out one of important element of MACE, which is the big AMI. Or to assess the correlation of this one with MACE and FGF21.
4)	We do not have also the maximum level of troponin at the moment of acute MI… Why?
5)	In a group of 348 pts with AMI, why we cannot have information about the localization of the AMI. Closure of left anterior descending artery and anterior AMI is quite a different disease comparing with an inferior AMI, in case of closure of right coronary artery… So, the MACE of these group of patients will be different…  Does the localization of AMI correlate with FGF21 and MACE?
6)	Why the authors don’t specify the position of culprit lesion on angiography? Proximal one? Distal one? Does the position of culprit lesion correlate with FGF21 and MACE?
7)	What has been the burden of coronary disease at angiography study? How many patients have had one vessel, two or three vessel disease at coronary angiography?  Does the burden of coronary artery disease in AMI group correlates with FGF21 and MACE?
8)	The authors choose to assess the consequences of AMI performing an echocardiographic exam in the first 7-10 days after the acute event. The phenomenon of post infarction remodeling is a long one and only a single Echo exam, performed after 7-10 days may not reflects it. So, use of Echo as method the evaluate the extension and the gravity of AMI at 7/10 days is not sufficient… Or is too early… Way we cannot see the echo exam on FUP?
9)	In a group of 348 pts with AMI how many patients have had mitral regurgitation? What about the degree of MR? Does the MR correlates with MACE and FGF21?
10)	What about the systolic pulmonary pressure in patients with MACE? Does the pulmonary pressure correlates with MACE and FGF21?
11)	Why they used only left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LV EDD) and only the ejection fraction to assess the degree of LV remodeling and the level of cardiac reserve after AMI. The LV volumes express much better the phenomenon of post myocardial infarction than LV EDD.  Does the LV indexed volumes correlate with MAXCE and FGF21?
12)	The authors have to clarify how LV EDD diameter was measured: in M mode or in 2DE? And in which view: PS Long Axis? PS Short Axis?
13)	Consideration: the cardiac reserve is better expressed by the end systolic diameter, and from the study does not appear that they use this parameter (which is by far more characteristic for reduced cardiac reserve). If the authors don’t assess it, they have to specify why. Does the end systolic diameter correlates with MACE and FGF21?
14)	The same consideration for LVEF: end systolic volumes (indexed) correlates better with a poor cardiac reserve, that EF itself. The authors have to publish the indexed volumes of LV cavity and also the methods of calculation of these volumes: may be Simpson?
15)	Did the authors assess the Left Atrial indexed volumes (in A4C and A2C view)? Does the indexed LA volume correlate with MACE and FGF21?
16)	If they performed the M mode assessment, what about the calculation LV mass by this modality? There is any correlation with MACE? Usually it is considered that the increased LV mass predicts heart failure.  Does, in this group of patients, LV mass correlate with MACE and FGF21?
17)	How many patients in 348 AMI patients presented atrial fibrillation, or other arrhythmias at the onset of AMI? What has been the impact of arrhythmias on MACE and FGF21?

In conclusion

The future of AMI patient depends of the amount of necrosis and the residual ischemic burden. As known, when the amount of necrotic tissue is significant / important, the LV will suffer a phenomenon cavity of remodeling.
Consideration: only EF and LE EDD, assessed after 7-10 days post AMI may not express enough the degree of post AMI remodeling. Based on these criteria, the use of echocardiography exam at 7/10 days after AMI to identify the “bad patients”, is not sufficient and is not a valid solution.
In the group of study, we do not have important information to characterize the entity and the amount of necrotic tissue. Does not influence the amount of necrotic tissue the level of FGF21 and MACE?
The authors must specify the position of culprit lesion, the numbers of ECG derivation with QS aspect, the localization of AMI and to specify the maximum level of troponin at the onset of AMI.
The absence of data regarding LV and LA indexed volumes, mitral regurgitation and pulmonary pressure do not allow to rule out other very important factors in MACE, and confront them with FGF21.
The myocardial infarction is a very complex disease and phenomenon; use of FGF21 only to identify MACE appears as a limited and confounding method.
Presented in this isolated / detached manner, seems that the only element able to identify MACE may be FGF21…
If this is the message / aim, they have to exclude the echocardiography and many others presented data.

Yours
Gheorghe CERIN MD, PhD, FESC
Experimental design: See the BASIC REPORTING please!
Validity of the findings: See the BASIC REPORTING please!
Additional comments: In conclusion

The future of AMI patient depends of the amount of necrosis and the residual ischemic burden. As known, when the amount of necrotic tissue is significant / important, the LV will suffer a phenomenon cavity of remodeling.
Consideration: only EF and LE EDD, assessed after 7-10 days post AMI may not express enough the degree of post AMI remodeling. Based on these criteria, the use of echocardiography exam at 7/10 days after AMI to identify the “bad patients”, is not sufficient and is not a valid solution.
In the group of study, we do not have important information to characterize the entity and the amount of necrotic tissue. Does not influence the amount of necrotic tissue the level of FGF21 and MACE?
The authors must specify the position of culprit lesion, the numbers of ECG derivation with QS aspect, the localization of AMI and to specify the maximum level of troponin at the onset of AMI.
The absence of data regarding LV and LA indexed volumes, mitral regurgitation and pulmonary pressure do not allow to rule out other very important factors in MACE, and confront them with FGF21.
The myocardial infarction is a very complex disease and phenomenon; use of FGF21 only to identify MACE appears as a limited and confounding method.
Presented in this isolated / detached manner, seems that the only element able to identify MACE may be FGF21…
If this is the message / aim, they have to exclude the echocardiography and many others presented data.

Yours
Gheorghe CERIN MD, PhD, FESC


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: ELEVATED SERUM FGF21 PREDICTS THE MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN STEMI PATIENTS AFTER EMERGENCY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written in a clear manner,  conforming to professional standards.
Experimental design: The authors proposed to research the link between FGF21 levels and the risk of MACE in myocardial infarction. The theme is appealing and the authors state in the background section that this relationship has not been previously investigated. However, in the introduction section they cite several studies that have analyzed this subject, so rephrasing the background section would be beneficial. The investigation is rigorous, but there is a discrepancy in the number of patients included in the control group (80) and the STEMI group (348). Even more, the follow-up study was done only in the STEMI group. A patients’ consent translated in english, attached to the original one would be recommended.
Validity of the findings: The findings are well presented and the statistical analysis is solid,  but I would encourage the authors to develop the section regarding the echo findings in relation to the analyzed marker, or to remove 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: ELEVATED SERUM FGF21 PREDICTS THE MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN STEMI PATIENTS AFTER EMERGENCY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: POINT-TO-POINT REPLY TO THE REVIEWER’ COMMENTS

We would like to thank the reviewers for taking their time to review our manuscript. Their comments have greatly helped us strengthened this manuscript and revisions have been made to address the reviewers’ concerns as well as improve on the clarity and focus of the manuscript. Content highlighted in red are the revisions that have been made in the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 (Gheorghe Cerin)
1) Why they didn’t perform a FUP in patients with stable angina, which was considered by the authors as “control group”? Being a “control group”, they would have the possibility to assess the ROC also in the stable angina group, because the level of FGF21 was not zero in this group. Is it possible to know how many patients have had multivessel coronary disease in this stable angina patients? In this manner will be possible to compare better the two groups of patients.
Reply: Thank you very much for reviewer's valuable advice. Because we initially designed the trial to focus only on the prognostic value of FGF21 in STEMI, we did not follow up patients with stable angina. We are very sorry for the confusion caused by the negligence of the experimental design. The coronary angiography data of patients with stable angina have been added to the manuscript by reviewing the case data.

Comment: may be in this case the word “control” is not suitable and has to be changed…

2) It is not clear for me way the authors choose to confront only FGF21 level with MACE, neglecting many others important factor with negative prognosis after AMI…
Reply: We feel very sorry for the confusion caused by ignoring other prognostic factors. Because of the physiological role of FGF21 and our previous studies, we only focused on the relationship between FGF21 and MACE. Other clinical data related to MACE, especially echocardiography data and coronary angiography data have been supplemented in the article.

No comment.

3) Why the authors don’t try to quantify the dimension of AMI using ECG criteria, as QS aspect by the way. In this manner will be possible to rule out one of important element of MACE, which is the big AMI. Or to assess the correlation of this one with MACE and FGF21.
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer, and we apologize for ignoring the ECG data. We will pay attention to ECG data in the subsequent study of AMI.

No comment.

4) We do not have also the maximum level of troponin at the moment of acute MI… Why?
  Reply: All patients underwent physical examination on admission and elbow venous blood was drawn with a gel tube on an empty stomach early the next morning. Because the diagnosis of the patient is clear, we don't test troponin I level frequently. We actually test troponin I every 2-3 days. Based on the dynamic evolution of troponin, in fact, the troponin level we tested on the second day of admission was at the highest level during hospitalization. This was confirmed by consulting the patient’s hospitalization data.

Comment - The problem remains anyway… Bigger will the AMI, higher will be the probability to develop MACE… Doesn’t matter so much if the troponin was not measured in the first o in the second day after AMI…

5) In a group of 348 pts with AMI, why we cannot have information about the localization of the AMI. Closure of left anterior descending artery and anterior AMI is quite a different disease comparing with an inferior AMI, in case of closure of right coronary artery… So, the MACE of these group of patients will be different… Does the localization of AMI correlate with FGF21 and MACE?
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer. By consulting the inpatient data, we have added the data of coronary angiography to this article. Through statistical analysis, we found that culprit artery was not associated with MACE.
Unusual on my opinion... Occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery is a very different clinical picture and disease, as we all know, compared with the occlusion of the right coronary artery… I consider that an explanation in the discussion chapter may be necessary. Probably in this case we have to consider the benefic effect of rescue PTCA probably.

No comment.

6) Why the authors don’t specify the position of culprit lesion on angiography? Proximal one? Distal one? Does the position of culprit lesion correlate with FGF21 and MACE?
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer. By consulting the inpatient data, we have added the data of coronary angiography to this article. Through statistical analysis, we found that culprit lesion site was associated with MACE.

No comment.

7) What has been the burden of coronary disease at angiography study? How many. patients have had one vessel, two or three vessel disease at coronary angiography? Does the burden of coronary artery disease in AMI group correlates with FGF21 and MACE?
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer. By consulting the inpatient data, we have added the data of coronary angiography to this article. In the STEMI group, there were 248 cases of single-vessel disease, 67 cases of two-vessel disease, and 33 cases of three-vessel disease. we found that there was no difference in the number of diseased blood vessels between the two groups, and the number of diseased blood vessels was not related to MACE.

Comment:
Quite unusual… That means that in a period of two years of FUP to have one vessel disease or three vessel disease doesn’t change the prognosis?! In a group of patients, with a mean age of 62y, where 18% of patients has diabetes… How many patient has the criteria for metabolic syndrome? May be a short comment or an explanation has to be take into consideration…

8) The authors choose to assess the consequences of AMI performing an echocardiographic exam in the first 7-10 days after the acute event. The phenomenon of post infarction remodeling is a long one and only a single Echo exam, performed after 7-10 days may not reflects it. So, use of Echo as method the evaluate the extension and the gravity of AMI at 7/10 days is not sufficient… Or is too early… Way we cannot see the echo exam on FUP?
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We chose to perform an echocardiogram on days 7-10 because most STEMI patients will be discharged after 10 days. Due to patient mobility and cost issues, most patients do not initiate a repeat echocardiographic exam. We will pay attention to echocardiographic data in the subsequent study of AMI. In addition, detailed echocardiographic data of the patients during their hospitalization have been added to the manuscript.

Comment: if we don’t have the possibility to follow the patients in Echo, may be this method should be excluded from the study? HOW can identify the Echo in the first 10 days the patients with high risk, if we performed the PTCA in the first 12 hours?
The big problem arises from the fact that you don’t perform another Echo on FUP…

9) In a group of 348 pts with AMI how many patients have had mitral regurgitation? What about the degree of MR? Does the MR correlates with MACE and FGF21?
  Reply: We feel very sorry for the confusion caused by ignoring MR. We have supplemented the data of MR. In the STEMI group, there were 283 patients without MR, 37 patients with mild MR, 12 patients with moderate MR, and no patients with severe MR. In the survival analysis, we did not classify MR, but divided it into presence and absence, and found that MR was related to MACE.

Comment:
Some general considerations and suggestions regarding ischemic MR:
If the AMI is big enough the LV cavity will dilate and a secondary functional mitral regurgitation will develop.
Bigger is the AMI, greater will be the MR.
So, the MR is a very important marker of LV remodeling post AMI.
THIS ASPECT WILL HAVE A NEGATIV IPMACT ON FUP AND MACE.
You’ve mention that the MR was assessed using the Gottdiener & Col. criteria published in J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 17: 1086-119. DOI 10.1016/j.echo.2004.07.013.
I understand / extrapolate that you’ve used the PISA method to quantify the MR.
But I cannot find any criteria in the manuscript to quantify the degree of MR…
A trivial MR has a complete different prognosis compared with a severe MR…
That way on my opinion you have to specify which kind of MR quantification did you used or, at least, WHEN did you take into consideration a significant MR.

10) What about the systolic pulmonary pressure in patients with MACE? Does the pulmonary pressure correlates with MACE and FGF21?
  Reply: We are very sorry for not considering the impact of pulmonary pressure on the prognosis. By consulting the inpatient data, we have added the pulmonary artery pressure data to the article. The cox survival analysis found that the pulmonary artery pressure was related to MACE.

Comment: Looking at the echo date (LVEF and pulmonary pressure) seems that all patients are in a good NYHA functional class… Please specify.

11) Why they used only left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LV EDD) and only the ejection fraction to assess the degree of LV remodeling and the level of cardiac reserve after AMI. The LV volumes express much better the phenomenon of post myocardial infarction than LV EDD. Does the LV indexed volumes correlate with MAXCE and FGF21?
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer. By consulting the patient’s hospitalized case data, we added more detailed echocardiographic data, such as LAD, IVST, LVPWT, LVESD, LVESV, LVEDV and LV mass. Unfortunately, the STEMI patients were basically lying in bed during their hospitalization, and therefore height and weight data were not available, which prevented the indexing of LVESV, LVEDV and LV mass. However, the cox survival analysis found that the LAD, LVESD, LVESV and LVEF were related to MACE.

Comment: row 90, 91 – “Anthropometric Parameters and Laboratory Examination The baseline characteristics Height / Weight of the participants and history of hypertension…”
If you don’t have the Height and the Weight of the patients, I think that the use Anthropometric Parameters it’s a wrong lexical solution and you have to choose another one… Anyway the Height and the Weight of the patients are very elementary parameters to be missed / excluded from a clinical study…
Is it really impossible for you to have such a basic data?

12) The authors have to clarify how LVEDD diameter was measured: in M mode or in 2DE? And in which view: PS Long Axis? PS Short Axis?
Reply: We are very sorry for not providing detailed echocardiographic measurement methods. We have added it in the text. The LVEDD was evaluated in the parasternal long-axis views in the M mode.

No comment.

13) Consideration: the cardiac reserve is better expressed by the end systolic diameter, and from the study does not appear that they use this parameter (which is by far more characteristic for reduced cardiac reserve). If the authors don’t assess it, they have to specify why. Does the end systolic diameter correlates with MACE and FGF21?
  Reply: We are very sorry for not considering the impact of LVESD on the cardiac reserve. By consulting the inpatient data, we have added the LVESD and LVESV data to the article. The cox survival analysis found that the LVESD and LVESV were related to MACE.

No comment.

14) The same consideration for LVEF: end systolic volumes (indexed) correlates better with a poor cardiac reserve, that EF itself. The authors have to publish the indexed volumes of LV cavity and also the methods of calculation of these volumes: may be Simpson?
Reply: We are very sorry for not providing LVESVi and LVEDVi. Unfortunately, the STEMI patients were basically lying in bed during their hospitalization, and therefore height and weight data were not available, which prevented the indexing of LVESV and LVEDV. However, by consulting the inpatient data, we have added the LVESV and LVEDV data to the article.

No comment.

15) Did the authors assess the Left Atrial indexed volumes (in A4C and A2C view)? Does the indexed LA volume correlate with MACE and FGF21?
  Reply: I'm sorry that echocardiography in our hospital can't measure left atrial volume yet. However, by consulting the inpatient data, we have added the LAD data to the article. The cox survival analysis found that the LAD was related to MACE.

No comment.

16) If they performed the M mode assessment, what about the calculation LV mass by this modality? There is any correlation with MACE? Usually it is considered that the increased LV mass predicts heart failure. Does, in this group of patients, LV mass correlate with MACE and FGF21?
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer. By consulting the patient’s hospitalized case data, we added IVST, LVPWT, LVEDD to the article. LV mass was calculated by the formula 0.8*1.04*[(IVST + LVPWT + LVEDD) 3 - LVEDD 3] + 0.6. Unfortunately, the STEMI patients were basically lying in bed during their hospitalization, and therefore height and weight data were not available, which prevented the indexing of LV mass. The cox survival analysis found that the LV mass was not related to MACE.

No comment.

17) How many patients in 348 AMI patients presented atrial fibrillation, or other arrhythmias at the onset of AMI? What has been the impact of arrhythmias on MACE and FGF21?
  Reply: Thank you very much for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer. By consulting the patient’s hospitalized case data, we added the incidence of atrial fibrillation to the article. In the STEMI group, 27 patients presented atrial fibrillation. However, the cox survival analysis found that the incidence of atrial fibrillation was not related to MACE.

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: ELEVATED SERUM FGF21 PREDICTS THE MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN STEMI PATIENTS AFTER EMERGENCY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I consider the manuscript to be written in a clear and unambiguous style, and it respects a relevant structure.
Experimental design: The experimental design respects the ethical standards. The consent in English has been added, and the methods are well described.
Validity of the findings: After revision, more detailed echo parameters were added, and the relationship between FGF21 and MACE is better explained. The fact that the group with SA was not included in the follow-up remains uncorrected, therefore no comparison with this group can me made during this period, but overall the study is well done and the conclusions are well stated and rationale.
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: TURF PERFORMANCE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF NATIVE POA SPECIES TO SUMMER STRESS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The methodic should be rewrite to be more clearer both to the reviewer and the reader.

Scientific background of the topic is well-provided.
Experimental design: In abstract Authors should change time of evaluated years - all experiments refers only to 2017 and 2018, not 2016.

The cytogenetic analysis by FISH before this study indicated the differences in chromosomes and ploidy levels of three native Poa accessions (Fig. 2) - Please explain are these photos used originally or already published in other scientific paper? Manuscript lacks of methods used to obtain photos of chromosome plates. Are these foreign cultivars also polyploids? Manuscript lacks of chromosome plates or cytogenetic information about used 3 commercial cultivars.

Titles of Fig. and 5 should be edited, there are some mistakes or they seem to be uncompleted.
Title of Fig. 4 if Authors are using Hpp abbreviation for Poa pratensis then all species should abbreviated in Fig. 3 to 5.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty in the manuscript is assessed.

Not all underlying data have been provided and should be completed.

Introduction, discussion and conclusions are well stated but should be rewritten. I suggest to expand information about how ploidy levels determine plant size and its potential response to environmental stress. All these information should be addressed to introduction and discussion part after completing the manuscript with cytogenetic information about foreign cultivars.
Additional comments: The manuscript should be completed of cytogenetic data and expanded of ploidy levels information in all proper sections.


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: TURF PERFORMANCE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF NATIVE POA SPECIES TO SUMMER STRESS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript entitled "Turf Performance and Physiological Responses to Summer Stress for NativePoa Species in Northern China" is an exprtmental work in the field of stress physiology, and specifically in this case temperature stress is taken into account.
(1) However, since the authors conducted a microfield experiment in accordance with the assumed experimental system, I wonder on what basis they refer to a single stress factor in the manuscript presented for evaluation.
(2) The text contains a few linguistic disabilities, and as an example I will cite the second sentence of the Abstract, which probably does not start well and perhaps should better be: The objective of the study were to compare ....
(3) There is no formulation of a research hypothesis by the authors in the Introduction
(4) Not all literature citations in the text are reflected in References - lines 269, 300, 331
Moreover, the form of citation in the text is not standardized, e.g. lines 48 and 51 and so on
(5)  Overall the structure of the manuscript is correct , but its content should be corrected.
Experimental design: Research questions are not clearly presented, even if the problem raised in the paper is significant
The experimental setup should be presented a bit more precisely. All the physiological methods used must be briefly described. It is not enough to provide a reference to the literature - the reader cannot be forced to look for information in the literature resources of other journals .
Validity of the findings: The results obtained by the authors are interesting and original. Their significance is local, but they may also be of interest to a wider audience. The problem lies in the difficulty of tracking the data contained in Figures 3, 4, 5. Can you perhaps use colored bars?
The discussion is definitely room for improvement. Discusiion is too long and not very specific.
From the References section, I would remove publications that have a rather loose connection with the topic of the work.
Additional comments: The work certainly has potential, but it should be refined, improved in the sense of clarifying the message. It will be possible if the research hypotheses are initially formulated and in the methodological part the authors specify the plan of the experimental system. I suggest a diagram. Then please shorten the discussion of the obtained results to the most important threads. The quality of the text and its message are important, not the number of pages saved.


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: TURF PERFORMANCE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF NATIVE POA SPECIES TO SUMMER STRESS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well rewritten. It is now much easier to follow every part.

The discussion is much better, data-based and consistent with the findings.
Experimental design: The figures are now much more informative and the methods are properly rewritten.
Validity of the findings: The authors have satisfactorily responded to all my and especially to the other Reviewer's questions and made the necessary changes to the manuscript.
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: TURF PERFORMANCE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF NATIVE POA SPECIES TO SUMMER STRESS IN NORTHEAST CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors wrote Turf Performance and Physiological Responses to Summer Stress for Native Poa Species in Northern China, in my opinion, this represents a very interesting topic, and the manuscript however shows some weaknesses which require a further review and a careful revision of the language through the text.
Experimental design: The design used is well suitable.
Validity of the findings: The results are vailed and may be published.
Additional comments: 1) The cytogenetic analysis by FISH before this study indicated the differences in chromosomes and ploidy levels of three native Poa accessions (Fig. 2) - Please explain are these photos used originally or already published in other scientific paper?

2) There is no formulation of a research hypothesis by the authors in the Introduction.

3) Manuscript lacks of methods used to obtain photos of chromosome plates. Are these foreign cultivars also polyploids? Manuscript lacks of chromosome plates or cytogenetic information about used 3 commercial cultivars.
4) Research questions are not clearly presented, even if the problem raised in the paper is significant.

5) Not all literature citations in the text are reflected in References - lines 269, 300, 331.

6) From the References section, I would remove publications that have a rather loose connection with the topic of the work.

7) References
Standardize references


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: EVALUATING CHANGES IN STUDENT HEALTH, WELLBEING AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE AND DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC RESTRICTIONS IN AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: The authors aimed to describe some changes (before/during the COVID-19 outbreak) among pharmacy and medical students. I would like to congratulate the authors for their effort. However, I believe that the research does not apply for an original manuscript submission, mainly due to its lack of novelty.
The authors present results that are expected and have already been described in previous literature. I do not consider that they add more to the current evidence.
I recommend the authors to consider present their results as a letter to the editor.


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: EVALUATING CHANGES IN STUDENT HEALTH, WELLBEING AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE AND DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC RESTRICTIONS IN AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Well done on a timely and relevant article. In addition, the manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language.
Keywords are missing from the abstract.
Experimental design: It would be interesting to know how lockdown due to COVID19 has influenced student's marks (results), and if it really has an impact on their university performance.
More detail is needed on the survey, including a reference. Was it validated?
Validity of the findings: It cannot be concluded that there have been no changes in food behaviour or energy intake as it is done in the discussion. Maybe It could be worth noting other international studies (e. g. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12061807) that inform about there have been relevant changes of food intake among young people as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The open question was answered by 9 students, 10%, very few to get a conclusion.
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: EVALUATING CHANGES IN STUDENT HEALTH, WELLBEING AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE AND DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC RESTRICTIONS IN AUSTRALIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts. As I mentioned before, I believe that the results are too obvious and have important limitations in the scientific novelty. In addition, due to the small sample size, I believe that most of their results are predisposed to type 2 error, and the only significant results are obvious (eg. decrease in physical activity, changes in expenses, etc.).

Once again, I recommend the authors consider present their results as a letter to the editor.


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: NICKEL STRESS-TOLERANCE IN PLANT-BACTERIAL ASSOCIATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This article deals with the Ni stress in plants and plant-microbial interactions under Ni stress. Below are a few points I noted while reading this article:
Literature relating to the Ni stress in plants, and plant-microbial interactions under Ni stress could be expanded
Figures summarizing the establishment of plant-microbial associations under Ni stress could be included to significantly enhance the presentation efficiency
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Conclusions could be further revised so as to highlight more details regarding research gaps.
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: NICKEL STRESS-TOLERANCE IN PLANT-BACTERIAL ASSOCIATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 'no comment'
Experimental design: 'no comment'
Validity of the findings: 'no comment'
Additional comments: The authors of this review made an excellent job of collecting data on plant responses to heavy metal stresses, mainly nickel, especially in the context of plant-microbe interaction. Therefore, this review may be useful for a wide audience including microbiologist, ecologist and plant physiologist at the same time.

Nevertheless, at the current stage this work needs some major changes, it seems to be the preliminary draft for making the review, and not the review itself. Authors have listed numerous information without placing them in the context or drawing some general conclusions. The structure of this work, which consists of many, often very short paragraphs, reflects itself the nature of such a draft. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies problems, and points out the research gaps and future direction.

The lists of key research questions to be answered should be better highlighted. This review should be more focused on the symbiotic and associative relationships with microorganisms, and interaction with plant growth promoting bacteria under Ni stress, and not the general plant stress responses to Ni.

English language should be improved. It is suggested to use the help of someone with full professional proficiency in English.


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: NICKEL STRESS-TOLERANCE IN PLANT-BACTERIAL ASSOCIATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The revisions incorporated in the manuscript are commendable, the manuscript may be considered for publication.