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: EXPLORING THE DIFFERENTIAL STAGES OF THE PIGMENT METABOLISM BY PRE-HARVEST BAGGING AND POST-HARVEST ETHYLENE DE-GREENING OF EUREKA LEMON PEEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The present manuscript provides some new and interesting information and could be suitable for publication in PeerJ after considering the following comments.
In general, the experiment was well performed and results are clear and according to conclusions.
Experimental design: See comments below.
Validity of the findings: See comments below.
Additional comments: Dear Editor, in the manuscript PeerJ-48058 authors evaluated the chlorophyll and individual carotenoids contents as well as the expression of the genes involved in their biosynthesis and degradation in lemon fruit after bagging during on-tree development or treated with ethylene after harvest. Results show that both treatments were effective on inducing lemon colour changes from green to yellow, due to reduction in chlorophyll and increases in carotenoid concentration, although differences exist on the expression of some genes involved in these metabolic pathways.
The use of ethylene treatment for degreening lemon fruits has been reported in several previous papers, which should be considered in this manuscript, such as the following ones, among others:
- Mayuoni, L., Porat, R.	2011. Postharvest treatments for degreening of 'Villa franca' lemons. HortTechnology, 21(5), pp. 624-627.
- Zhang, P., Zhou, Z. 2019. Postharvest ethephon degreening improves fruit color, flavor quality and increases antioxidant capacity in ‘Eureka’ lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.). Scientia Horticulturae, 248, pp. 70-80.
- Porras, I., Brotons, J.M., Conesa, A., (...), Pérez-Tornero, O., Manera, F.J. 2015. Quality and fruit colour change in Verna lemon. Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality, 88, pp. 215-221.
- Conesa, A., Brotons, J.M., Manera, F.J., Porras, I. 2014. The degreening of lemon and grapefruit in ethylene atmosphere: A cost analysis. Scientia Horticulturae, 179, pp. 140-145.
However, literature about the use of bagging to accelerate colour changes in lemon fruits is scarce, although there is information about other citrus fruit, such as oranges, pomelo, lime, etc. Then, the present manuscript provides some new and interesting information and could be suitable for publication in PeerJ after considering the following comments:
On the other hand, information about carotenoid profile in lemon flavedo and changes during maturation is also scarce, although the following paper should be considered in discussion section:
- Multari, S., Licciardello, C., Caruso, M., Martens, S. 2020. Monitoring the changes in phenolic compounds and carotenoids occurring during fruit development in the tissues of four citrus fruits. Food Research International, 134,109228.
- Line 20: Use italic font for scientific names.
- Line 26: Add reference to support this statement.
- Line 28: Provide reference.
- Line 43: This reference appears as Tanaka and Tanaka in reference ist. Check and correct properly.
- Line 46: Lu and Li, according to reference list.
- Line 49: Li and Van, according to reference list.
- Line 53: Abbreviations for these enzymes are LCYe and LYCb1 in Figure 2. Be consistent, and use the same abbreviation for each one along the manuscript.
- Line 72: What quality parameters were used?
- Line 81: Consider adding “of the 20 fruits for each replicate” after each.
- Line 122: Provide reference for the procedure used to quantify individual carotenoids if available.
- Line 147: n= 3x3 or n=3’?P
- Line 160: It should be better to describe just L*, a*, b* colour parameters instead of chromatic aberration index.
- Lines 168-169: Check this sentence, because the contrary os observe in Fig. 5,.
- Lines 197-198, 205, 220-222: Move to discussion section.
- Line 221: This reference is missing in reference list. Should it be 2018?
- Line 231: Provide reference for colour and pigment in lemon flavedo.
- Line 234: These were not significant, according to Fig. 4.
- Line 238: This reference is missing in reference list.
- Line 239: Consider re-writing as “leading to higher degradation of chlorophyll b to chlorophyll a”
- Line 269: If ZEP was higher in bagging than in ethylene group, higher content of violaxanthin would be expected in bagging group than in ethylene group and the contrary is shown in Table 2.
- Line 288: An increase was also found in carotenoid content.
- Line 360: Move this reference to its correct place, according to alphabetical order.
- Line 370: Add “Serrano, M.” before 2019.
- Head of table 3: Delete “at least” because 3 replicates were used according to line 141.


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: EXPLORING THE DIFFERENTIAL STAGES OF THE PIGMENT METABOLISM BY PRE-HARVEST BAGGING AND POST-HARVEST ETHYLENE DE-GREENING OF EUREKA LEMON PEEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments.
Experimental design: See in 'comments to authors'
Validity of the findings: a)	L. 157-159 – disappearance of chloroplasts; From what we know, chloroplasts do not disappear, they turn into chromoplasts (Rodrigo et al 2013), light microscopy should be replaced by EM.
b)     L. 286-288. This is not surprising. It has been shown in early citrus carotenoid studies,
 that in yellow citrus cultivars ( lemon, white grapefruit),where there is no prominent accumulation of darker pigments, the degradation of Chl exposes the yellow color of the peel. Apparently are not familiar with classic citrus lliteratue
c) L. 234- 236. Why not calculate the Chl a/Chl b ratio to prove this point?
Additional comments: a) More information on the 'bagging' treatment must be provided. Any previous report of this technique with citrus? What is the light and gas environment in the bag? Any ethylene in the bag?

b) A more basic comment:  In my opinion, the 3 treatments represent different stages in the course of chloroplast-chromoplast transformation; the green control at the earliest stage (high Chlase and Pao activity), bagging and ethylene treatments - already degreened (low Chlase and Pao). This leads to a different interpretation of the gene expression data (Fig. 6). Thus, the claim of 'different metabolic pathways' has not been convincingly demonstrated, in my opinion, at least for the chlorophylls.
c) There are  a lot of mistakes in the References.
d) A very thorough revision, perhaps with some experimental work will be required to enable acceptance of this MS for publication.


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

Input:
Title: EXPLORING THE DIFFERENTIAL STAGES OF THE PIGMENT METABOLISM BY PRE-HARVEST BAGGING AND POST-HARVEST ETHYLENE DE-GREENING OF EUREKA LEMON PEEL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In the manuscript PeerJ-48058-R1 authors studied the differential mechanisms of the pigment metabolism on pre-harvest bagged or post-harvest ethylene treated lemons by measuring individual carotenoid content and related genetic expression. In general, the experiments were well performed and the manuscript is clearly written in professional and unambiguous language showing new and interesting information.
The manuscript could be suitable for publication although the following comments should be considered:
Experimental design: - Line 26: It should be Zhang and Zhou instead of Zhang et al. Check this cite along the manuscript.
- Line 59: Luo et al., 2019 is not found in reference list.
- Line 72: Please, clarify if lemon fruits were treated with ethephon or with ethylene. According to line 78, fruits were treated with ethylene at 5 mg L-1. Ethylene is a gas compounds so that concentration applied should be expresses in volume units.
- Line 83: Were samples from control and ethylene treated fruits taken after the 5 d of ethylene treatment?
- Line 103: Ethylene treated fruits were also used for carotenoids quantification. Please, clarity.
Validity of the findings: - Lines 159-160: This information should be moved to discussion section.
- Line 299: Move this reference after Cao et al., 2019.
- Line 328: Move this reference after Heng et al.
- Line 363: Add journal volume and pages.
- Check reference list and write references according to the journal format and use italic forn for scientific plant names.
Additional comments: See comments above.


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

Input:
Title: EXPLORING THE DIFFERENTIAL STAGES OF THE PIGMENT METABOLISM BY PRE-HARVEST BAGGING AND POST-HARVEST ETHYLENE DE-GREENING OF EUREKA LEMON PEEL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Although the principal findings of this report are O.K. , in my opinion the MS can not be published without further revision.
Here are my reservations:
a) Fig. 3. The light micrographs  are of an inferior quality and cannot be published,
as said in my 1st review.
b) Fig 3 has no legend ? When was the photo taken? It seems that it shows fruit with almost no Chlorophyll, but in Fig. 5 the 'ethylene' and 'bagging' treatments still have 50% or more of the Chl.  in the 'control'.
c) Fig, 5. It seems that  the Chl a/b ratio of these  'control' fruits was lower than 1.
This is strange; any previous records of this phenomenon.
d) Assuming that Fig. 5 represents the time point that fruit samples were taken, the fruit were still in the midst of Chl. degradation, so there is no reason to think that the Chl catabolism genes have already finished their role( as stated in lines 262-263). Also not clear why NYC should behave differently than other catabolic genes.
e) Has any attempt been made to evaluate the light and, in particular, the atmosphere in  bagged lemons, any ethylene? data from other fruits are not enough.
In conclusion, while the difference between  'bagging' and 'ethylene' in the Chl. and Carotenoids   metabolism has been demonstrated a lot of things in the Results and in the Discussion need to be corrected.


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: EXPLORING THE DIFFERENTIAL STAGES OF THE PIGMENT METABOLISM BY PRE-HARVEST BAGGING AND POST-HARVEST ETHYLENE DE-GREENING OF EUREKA LEMON PEEL
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please, see comments below.
Experimental design: Please, see comments below.
Validity of the findings: Please, see comments below.
Additional comments: The manuscript has been revised and modified according to the reviewers' suggestions and it could be suitable for publication in its present form.


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

Input:
Title: EXPLORING THE DIFFERENTIAL STAGES OF THE PIGMENT METABOLISM BY PRE-HARVEST BAGGING AND POST-HARVEST ETHYLENE DE-GREENING OF EUREKA LEMON PEEL
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: Re Reviewing MS 48058
Dear Authors / Editor
I have reread your MS. There is one comment I made in my previous review and remains unsettled.
In Fig 3 the BAGGING and ETHYLENE fruits are completely yellow, with no visible Chlorophyll. How can this be reconciled with the data of Fig. 5, where the BAGGING and ETHYLENE fruits still contained  ca. 50% of the Chlorophyll of the CONTROL treatment?
This contradiction must be resolved prior to publication.
It seems to me that, unlike stated in the MS, the photos of Fig. 3 were taken at a later date, when the BAGGING and ETHYLENE fruits finished their color change.
I apologize for not using your Peer J review form.
Sincerely,
Eliezer E. Goldschmidt


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: EXPLORING THE DIFFERENTIAL STAGES OF THE PIGMENT METABOLISM BY PRE-HARVEST BAGGING AND POST-HARVEST ETHYLENE DE-GREENING OF EUREKA LEMON PEEL
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
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: DENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS’ CONCERNS, PERCEIVED IMPACT, AND PREPAREDNESS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Dental health care providers' concerns, perceived impact, and preparedness during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia

Abstract
Background – Please include the study objective.
Method – Please include the variables measured and the specific analysis conducted – what parameters were compared.
Findings – How many clinical and non-clinical workers were recruited? May be better to first report the descriptive variables before the inferentials
Conclusion – does not discuss perceived impact, and preparedness in a COVID-19 pandemic. I guess because it was not measured as this is not in the results.

Introduction
The opening sentence does not introduce the manuscript. This manuscript is about COVID-19  and not coronavirus in humans. Please revise the opening sentence
There is no clear justification for the study. Why is there a need to conduct the study in Saudi Arabia?
There is no theoretical framework informing the study or a conceptual framework that helps one to identify the variables to be studied. Why clinicians and non-clinicians for this study? The introduction is not focused.
Experimental design: Methodology
Please use the STROBE guideline to develop a study methodology. Right now the study methodology is missing. In the absence of this, it is not possible to evaluate the results and discussion
Validity of the findings: In the absence of a methodology, the results cannot be assessed
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: DENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS’ CONCERNS, PERCEIVED IMPACT, AND PREPAREDNESS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Javed et al., Dental Health Care Providers concerns, perceived impact and preparedness during the COVID =019 pandemic in Saudi Arabia.

Manuscript presents results of a survey of clinical and non-clinical facing staff at five hospital University clinics in Saudi Arabia made in fall 2020.  The general purpose was to assess qualitative stress and attitudes of the two groups.  In general this is an informative study if not limited to just Saudi Arabia but the results can be informative in creating communication policies and programs.
Experimental design: Some specific comments are:
•	With a convenience response sample of 320 it would be good to know the total response rate (how many were approach to complete the survey)?
•	Second, it would be reasonable to either plot the distribution of Likert responses to determine homo/heterogeneity of sample responses since the dichotomization approach used and subsequent nonparametric chi-square suggests heterogeneity in the frequency and distribution of scores.
•	While the response rate may vary site to site between the five centers, it would be reasonable to outline if one site had more responses and if that regional site had more news coverage, local outbreak or other local social demographic explanatory variable for the responses recorded.
•	A smaller issue is the use of new media as cited sources (ref 14 and 15) can be problematic as the veracity of these citations is unclear.
•	The references may need to be up dated with the more recent studies indicating low transmission in the dental office setting.

Ren Y, Feng C, Rasubala L, Malmstrom H, Eliav E. Risk for dental healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 global pandemic: An evidence-based assessment. J Dent. 2020 Oct;101:103434. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103434. Epub 2020 Jul 18. PMID: 32693111; PMCID: PMC7368403.

Tysiąc-Miśta M, Dziedzic A. The Attitudes and Professional Approaches of Dental Practitioners during the COVID-19 Outbreak in Poland: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 30;17(13):4703. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134703. PMID: 32629915; PMCID: PMC7370196.

Jum'ah AA, Elsalem L, Loch C, Schwass D, Brunton PA. Perception of health and educational risks amongst dental students and educators in the era of COVID-19. Eur J Dent Educ. 2020 Nov 14:10.1111/eje.12626. doi: 10.1111/eje.12626. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33188555; PMCID: PMC7753269.

Loch C, Kuan IBJ, Elsalem L, Schwass D, Brunton PA, Jum'ah A. COVID-19 and dental clinical practice: Students and clinical staff perceptions of health risks and educational impact. J Dent Educ. 2021 Jan;85(1):44-52. doi: 10.1002/jdd.12402. Epub 2020 Sep 10. PMID: 32914437.
Validity of the findings: In general this is an informative study if not limited to just Saudi Arabia but the results can be informative in creating communication policies and programs.
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: DENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS’ CONCERNS, PERCEIVED IMPACT, AND PREPAREDNESS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Satisfactory
Experimental design: Satisfactory
Validity of the findings: SAtisfactory
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: EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM GRAZING PROHIBITION ON SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MEADOWS IN SOUTHWEST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Most part was clear and professional.

Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Making a stronger explanation for the aim of this study could be better.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Please check the resolution of all figure 1 to 5 are according with the journal requirements (often at least 220 dpi or 300 dpi). Many figures were blurry.

Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
The submission should be ‘self-contained,’ should represent an appropriate ‘unit of publication’, and should include all results relevant to the hypothesis.
Yes.

Coherent bodies of work should not be inappropriately subdivided merely to increase publication count.
Some part could be more concise, please see Minor issues 2.
Experimental design: This study land on aims and scope of PeerJ. Effect of grazing prohibition on soil prosperity and vegetation has been published a lot. However, this study could be another useful example in this field. Methods were described with many details and information. However, there could be an important detail about grazing prohibition period that should be definite. Please see the Major issues 1. Moreover，it is necessary to give a map or sketch of study area, and graph of experimental design with plots.
Validity of the findings: According to this study, the findings were statistically. However, some details could be necessary to confirm that the result was robust. Please see the Major issues 2.
Additional comments: This study was carried out in a national part of China, which located in a typical subalpine meadows and swamp meadows area. Researchers study the effect of grazing and grazing prohibition on soil prosperity and vegetation, which is a valuable experiment in the field of nature conservation.

Major issues.
1.According to previous studies, effect of grazing prohibition on soil and vegetation were different, as you mentioned in Discussion session. One of the most vital factors could be how long grazing prohibition was. Hence, it is recommended that describe more details on grazing and grazing prohibition history. Moreover, compared with previous studies with different grazing and prohibition history could be important and make the ms much stronger.

2.Taking grazing treatment with Before as an example. In the method session, both subalpine meadow and swamp meadow has three plots as replicate. And three 1X1m sampling areas were selected in each plot for soil prosperity samples, that is to say, three samples as replicate in each plot for 0-10cm of soil layer were collected. Hence, there were 9 samples as replicate in three plots for 0-10cm of soil layer. Similar with other soil layer samples from 20-60cm However, there only three raw data for 0-10cm soil layer. Do you mean that the raw data of each 0-10cm soil layer showed in the EXCEL file was mean value of three 1X1m sampling areas? Could you please give a specific and scientific describe in Methods session? Because this is vital to make your ms stronger.

Minor issues
1.I think it is a good manuscript, but could be substantially improved after revision with some additional editing by a native English speaker.

2.L227 to L235 can be described more concise.

pecific comments
L146, “in both subalpine” other than “in subalpine” could be less ambiguity. According to the ms, 6 plots in subalpine and 6 plots in swamp meadow. There were 12 plots in total.

L154 Does “Fifty cm × 50 cm × 20 cm” means “50 cm × 50 cm × 20 cm”？

L144 Could you please give some references that used the same or similar methods as yours?

L176, L178, L180, L187 and L190 The format of equations could not be image. Please check the policy of PeerJ.

L197 SD or SE. should be given, besides mean. Mean ± SD or Mean ± SE.

L204 All “P <” should be “P <”.

L207 All “P >” can be deleted for concise.

L208 and L209 “However” and “but” are not usually used together in the same sectence.

L226 In this session, could you please give some reasons that why P >0.05 were showed?

L278 According to Figs. 2, both pH and soil bulk density had no significant decrease after grazing prohibition, compared to grazing. However, changes of pH showed in Ding & Li (Ding & Li, 2016) that you mentioned in your ms increased, which was not consistent with your result. Hence, please check your references if they were available in your ms. Furthermore, the discussion part of pH and soil bulk density should be revised seriously.

L290 According to Figs. 3, Figs. 4 and Figs.5, many TC, SOC, N, TP, soil available phosphorus, soil hydrolysable nitrogen had significant different between grazing and grazing prohibition. P value should be showed in your ms.

L310 In this paragraph, number of figures should be added to make a better readability of your ms.


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: EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM GRAZING PROHIBITION ON SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MEADOWS IN SOUTHWEST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well prepared, with clear English, literature references, and results presentation. However, I did not see any raw data associated with this MS.
Experimental design: experimental design is quite well. But there is a lack of grazing intensity gradient issue, please see my following comments.
Validity of the findings: Findings were clear, but too descriptive. See my following comments for your consideration.
Additional comments: Zhu et al. conducted a field experiment to assess how grazing prohibition may affect the physical and chemical properties of two types of meadows in southwest china, and they found that short-term grazing prohibition significantly improved soil fertility of the investigated areas. Overall, the topic of this study is quit interesting, as the results of such studies would help us to conserve the degraded grassland due to extensive grazing. This manuscript would be a good contribute to PeerJ, but I have several comments that should be addressed.

1.	In general, this manuscript is quite descriptive, the underlying mechanisms that explain the observed phenomenon were not well addressed. For example, plant biomass and diversity were measured, but what’s their relationships with soil properties? Which plant trait may explain the changes in soil properties? Please link your findings and try to found a mechanism;
2.	In the introduction section, the effects of light grazing were well discussed, but I did not find any more about this in the following section. Actually, light grazing may be a stimulating factor for grassland productivity. But I did not see a grazing intensity gradient in the experimental design; If you have such data, please add. Or discuss this issue in your manuscript.
3.	Also, in the introduction section, please discuss more about the potential mechanism for the positive effects of grazing prohibition on soil properties, not just list the findings of previous studies.
4.	The quality of all the figures were quite low, please use high quality figures. For example, insert emf figures in the word would be very clear.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM GRAZING PROHIBITION ON SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MEADOWS IN SOUTHWEST CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: the material & method part lacks the details of the experimental design and the background of the experimental site.
Validity of the findings: in the result part, the data which showed no significance means no difference, so the results should be re-described.
Additional comments: Comment 1: The significance and importance of this study are not well elaborated in the introduction part.
Comment 2: in line 142, fifty should be 50cm. And how many 50cm*50cm*20cm were sampled in each plot? Please give the detail. And what is the distance between the plots?
Comment 3: the material & method part lacks the details of the experimental design and the sampling. The grazing animal, the grazing intensity, and the grazing system such as seasonal grazing or perennial grazing, all of those should be given in detail in the grazing treatment. And in the grazing prohibition treatment, the detail such as prohibition time, completely grazing prohibition or periodical grazing prohibition should be listed.
Comment 4: in site description part, the vegetation types, dominant species and the species composition in subalpine meadow and swamp meadow should be given respectively.
Comment 5: in the result part, the data which showed no significance means no difference, so the results should be re-described.
Comment 6: The discussion is problematic in that it is poorly organized and lack scientific rigor. The discussion did not take into account the main distinctive results of this study. A large number of other people's research results were enumerated, but it does not have very good explanation and cohesion to the results of this study.
Comment 7: I strongly recommend collaborating with a native English speaker to revise the article to avoid the use of a large number of unnecessary words and sentences which make the article tedious and verbose.


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: EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM GRAZING PROHIBITION ON SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MEADOWS IN SOUTHWEST CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I can see that the authors have tried to revise the MS according to my comments, which were well addressed or answered. I think the current version of this MS is worth to be published.
Experimental design: Much clearer now.
Validity of the findings: Good.
Additional comments: I am happy that the authors have well addressed all my comments, the MS is much clearer and worth to be published.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GIANT SAUROPOD, AUSTRALOTITAN COOPERENSIS GEN. ET SP. NOV., FROM THE MID-CRETACEOUS OF AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language is clear, unambiguous & professional throughout. I have however, made some comments regarding issues that I feel could be further clarified, at the authors (or editors') discretion.
Literature references, background and context are are more than adequate.
The structure of the text, figures and tables is fine. There are minor issues with the figures  (see appended document) that need to be addressed. These should be able to be rectified in a few hours, if that.
Raw data is presented in the tables; I do not know if it is also to ve=be deposited in some online source.
The ms is self-contained.
I think the text clearly meets your standards, although I have suggested minor improvements in the appended document. Even so the text could be published as it stands.
Experimental design: Not applicable: this is a ms based on observation, not experiment.
Validity of the findings: I think the potential impact & novelty are important here, since thesis probably the most significant ms in this field that I have seen, at least in several decades.
Replication in the strict sense is not feasible in vertebrate paleontology, although further field work is recommended.
The data have been provided, and since these are observational data, statistical soundness, etc. are not applicable here.
The conclusions are well-stated, clearly appropriate to the research aims & field discoveries, and well-supported.
Such speculation as is included is clearly indicated.
I do not see that this ms fails to meet your standards in any area. Which, again, doesn't prevent me from suggesting some alterations.
Additional comments: I think this is an exemplary ms, & that the authors have done a very good job. This has not prevented me from suggesting minor alterations, however. The only mandatory ones are those regarding altering the figures.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GIANT SAUROPOD, AUSTRALOTITAN COOPERENSIS GEN. ET SP. NOV., FROM THE MID-CRETACEOUS OF AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The study of Scott Hocknull and colleagues is an exciting contribution about a new sauropod dinosaur from the Cretaceous Winton Formation, Australia. The new sauropod species is the largest yet recorded for this continent. Based on morphological comparisons, the authors suggest a common ancestry for all the Winton Formation sauropods. In addition to valuable information on the new species, the study includes a massive data set of 3D models of the new taxon as well as Wintonotitan wattsi, Diamantinasaurus matildae and Savannasaurus elliottorum. The study also includes a new labelling method with colour reference for the 3D models that helps the observation of specimens with severe taphonomic alterations.
Overall, the manuscript is well-written, in professional language. The Introduction section provides an adequate context, and the Geological Setting shows reliable data on sedimentology, stratigraphy and taphonomy of the principal localities of the Winton Formation. The structure of the main text is correct, although some aspects should be reviewed (see General Comments). The figures are nice looking and have good quality. However, the large number of bone images per plate sometimes threatens clarity, and one must permanently resort to the figure captions to check. It would be much appreciated if the authors increase the labelling of figures, pointing out anatomical characters that are recurrent in the description and comparison. In the Results section, the reference to the figures is scarce. Specifying which part of the plates to see when referring to a particular feature in a taxon (e.g., Fig. 9D, instead of just Fig. 9) would significantly speed up the reading. There are some suggestions about the figures in the General Comments. Finally, the authors' work regarding the 3D models of the sauropods from Winton Formation is remarkable.
Experimental design: The manuscript is consistent with the scope of this journal. The main goal, which is to describe a new species of sauropod dinosaurs, is clearly stated at the end of the introduction. Although not explicit, it is easy to deduce that the new species increases the diversity of sauropods in the Winton Formation. The methodological section is rigorous and contains a large amount of information, which guarantees the reproducibility of the 3D modelling, in addition to the labelling and retrodeformation. I found some paragraphs in the Results and Discussion that could be relocated in the Methods section (see General Comments).
Validity of the findings: The discovery of a new giant sauropod is transcendent for the dinosaur record of the Winton Formation and Australia. The 3D models and their associated new labelling method are interesting contributions that improve the visualization of fossils which undergone severe cracking and deformation. As the authors well point out, the sauropods of the Winton Formation are distributed in several museums, distant from each other, which can make direct observation of the specimens difficult. Although 3D models are not a substitute for direct observation, they will be a handy tool for colleagues around the world who are interested in the taxonomy and systematics of sauropod dinosaurs.
Speculations, such as including all the Winton Formation sauropods in a single and independent clade, are interesting. However, not all of them find much support in the data presented. Perhaps some rework in the Discussion section will improve this aspect (see General Comments).
Additional comments: In general, the information in this manuscript is solid. However, there are some questions and concerns in regards to its structure that should be addressed before it may be considered for publication.

1. Length of the manuscript. Some aspects that could help with the length of the document are a) a stratigraphic column including the positions of each sauropod taxon could summarize much of the text in the Geological Setting; b) avoid repeating descriptions of the taphonomic alterations already mentioned in the Geological Setting; c) the anatomical descriptions in results could be shorter and more direct by de-emphasizing missing characters, the figures and 3D models are very clear regarding the preservation of the material; c) several comparisons in the Results section appear repeated in the Discussion. In the attached pdf file, I marked some paragraphs that could be reduced and/or relocated.

3. Referred material. Some of the referred material is fragmentary and does not present diagnostic characteristics. In particular, the section "Australotitan cooperensis?" mentions specimens that could belong to this new taxon. The specimen EMF109 is represented exclusively by remains of the axial skeleton and, according to the authors, it is still in preparation. As the holotype specimen only preserves appendicular elements, Figs. 31-34, as well as the text referring to them, would be much more useful in the context of an independent investigation based on the specimen EMF109. Something similar occurs with EMF106. The specimen EMF164 seems to be the only possible link between EMF106 and EMF109, and the holotype of A. cooperensis, as it preserves both axial and appendicular remains. However, the axial elements of EMF164 are supposed to be presacral vertebrae. Thus, as long as the authors cannot assign them to A. cooperensis, the discussion on possible similarities of EMF106 and EMF109 with other sauropods of the Winton Formation seems not relevant in the context of the present investigation.

2. Labelling in figures and reference in the main text. Figures showing skeletal elements appear in a generalized way in the main text. I suggest referring to specific sectors of each plate. Some figures are completely devoid of labels (e.g. Fig. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30). They also do not specify the orientation of the material in proximal, distal and dorsal views. Both the labelling and the orientation of the skeletal parts facilitate understanding, especially for the public who is not familiar with the anatomy of sauropods.

4. Body size. The authors emphasize throughout the text the large size of the holotype and the referred materials. As this topic is repeatedly highlighted, it would be essential to have a section in both the methods and the results section, explaining the scatterplots of stylopodial measurements in Fig. 36. Condensing size comparisons into a single section of results would facilitate the discussion. Also, the body size is evaluated at least in three times within the Discussion, in "Comparisons with other large-bodied titanosaurs", "Body size and palaeoecology of sauropods in the Winton Formation", and "Body size of Australotitan cooperensis". The authors could avoid the overlap of information by organizing several of the paragraphs in a single section.

5. Table 11. Authors should make explicit the anatomical or functional significance for a ratio of humerus length to distance between iliac peduncles. A similar case occurs with the "Minimum mediolateral width of humerus/minimum anteroposterior (dorsoventral) width of the ischial distal blade", in Table 9. This type of relationship usually has a morphofunctional basis. For instance, the ratio length of humerus vs length of the femur accounts for a change in limb proportions and, thus, a change in posture. Perhaps the features should be compared individually.

6. Format. Some minor concerns about format include:
a. Use of scientific names. The authors should use a single convention for mentioning the taxa throughout the whole manuscript. The name Australotitan is similar to Austrosaurus. Being abbreviated, these can be confused between each other or even with Andesaurus. Something similar occurs with other species whose generic name begins with the same letter, e.g. D. matildae (Diamantinasaurus), D. sinensis (Dongyangosaurus), D. schrani (Dreadgnouthus). As alternatives, the authors could use the full names or even exclusively use the generic names, something frequent in papers about sauropods, since the vast majority of their genera are monotypic. The only exception here would be Neuquensaurus.
b. References. The literature cited is up to date. I suggested a few, hopefully useful, references in the attached pdf. The citations in the word document are not in plain text. Also, there are some spelling mistakes in the reference list.
c. Figure captions. As I above said, indicating the orientation of some views in the figures or the figure captions would be helpful. Be sure to use the same criteria when mentioning consecutive letters in the figure captions. For instance, C-D in Fig. 13 appears as C & D, and C, D in the caption of Fig, 11.
c. Tables. Flags in Tables 8 and 9 are not all the same. Some like "?+flag" should be explained in the footnotes. Some features do not have data in any columns, so they should be deleted (e.g., last five rows in Table 4).
d. Other specific comments can be found in the attached pdf file.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GIANT SAUROPOD, AUSTRALOTITAN COOPERENSIS GEN. ET SP. NOV., FROM THE MID-CRETACEOUS OF AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is thoroughly written and meets these criteria. I'm not sure if it was a formatting thing but my review copy had two copies of the tables and figure captions. The second set of figure captions had the accompanying figures. However, the one thing I would say about the writing is that the first half of the manuscript seemed a bit too overwritten with the details and could be more concise.
Experimental design: The manuscript fits within these areas for the most part. It does a decent job addressing the recently growing sauropod record from the Winton Formation of Australia with the description of "Cooper" and comparisons (and well-documented figures with 3D models) with the other Australian sauropods. The one thing I wish the authors did do, although they addressed and justified their reasoning, was a phylogenetic analysis of the new sauropod. There are some interesting morphologies they noted that are shared amongst the Australian sauropods and some widespread traits within Titanosauria. However, the only real test of these features (are they really a monophyletic group? where do they fit within sauropoda) is to run an analysis. Now, I do tend to agree on erring on conservative assessments with incomplete specimens, but even incomplete specimens can hold value depending on what traits are preserved and if those traits have good phylogenetic value. The authors do a good job in their comparisons, noting similarities, differences, and checking proposed clade synapomorphies from other studies with the Australian sauropods, but running a phylogenetic analysis would help assess these proposed hypotheses further—and the authors can still argue for preliminary results until better preserved specimens are found. Otherwise, the descriptions and comparison work is decently done, although it could use a few more comparisons in some sections with non-Australian dinosaurs (African sauropods such as Angolatitan and Mnyamawamtuka may be of use since these two are from roughly the same time and part of Gondwana and have comparable elements).
Validity of the findings: I tend to agree with the authors findings. Like I said in the Experimental Design part, I think a phylogenetic analysis would help further their assessment on their proposed hypotheses/conclusions. Otherwise, the figures with the fossils and models help a lot with the comparisons and the measurement tables are robust. I ask, will the 3D models be available for those interested upon publication as supplemental material?
Additional comments: Overall, this is a very thorough manuscript with some suggestions for improvements (also see attached PDF with additional comments and noted errors). I, for one, am excited for an additional Australian Cretaceous sauropod and this manuscript also delivers much detail and plenty of comparative figures with all four Australian titanosaurian taxa. To get to it, here are some of my major comments:

1. The first half of the paper is a bit overwritten. Although the geology and the context is quite important in assessing the four sauropod taxa form the Winton Formation as well as the methodology with the model creation and comparative shortcomings, I feel these sections prior to the actual description can be a bit more concise and less "in the weeds". Otherwise, the attention to detail is appreciated it can just be more direct.

2. Some of the anatomical descriptions (e.g., femur) could use a few more taxa comparisons, some of these are noted in the PDF. There are a couple features mentioned that are present in other titanosaurs so check those couple of comments in the PDF. I would suggest including the African taxa of Angolatitan and Mnyamawamtuka from the middle Cretaceous of African for comparisons outside of Australia since they preserve some elements of interest and roughly the same time period.

3. Some general points with using Mannion 2013 and D'Emic 2012 synapomorphy lists. First, the Mannion study has since gone through updates and expansion the past couple of years, so check out those for any character updates. The D'Emic study is also limited in the number of titanosaurian taxa used, so some caution in interpretation there (that study lacks many titanosaurian subclades that could be of interest here). I would check out other phylogenetic studies such as Carballido, Gorscak, and Gonzalez-Riga lines of studies too for additional synapomorphies since they include more taxa and are more recent.

4. Speaking of phylogenetics, I do tend to agree on erring on conservative assessments on incomplete specimens for phylogenetic analyses but even incomplete specimens can be useful depending on what traits are preserved and their relative phylogenetic utility. I would strongly suggest attempting a phylogenetic analysis and see what the results would be (I think one of the recent Mannion data sets include the three other Australian titanosaurs, so that would be a good one to use). You can still argue for preliminary results due to the incompleteness, but an analysis would further help assess hypotheses on monophyly and placement within titanosauriforms for these four Australian titanosaurs.

5. Finally, so many comparative figures with the Australian titanosaurs! One thing that would help out a lot would be labeling the features discussed in the manuscript onto the figures (traits of phylogenetic importance, especially autapomorphies, any similar/dissimilar traits, etc). The ulna figure has a couple of labels, but the others are lacking.

Otherwise, a thoroughly written manuscript with great (although slightly busy) comparative figures. It may be useful to take some parts of the manuscript and figures and put them into supplemental material, but not necessary... I'll leave that up to you. Best of luck, and I look forward to seeing this published in the future!


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GIANT SAUROPOD, AUSTRALOTITAN COOPERENSIS GEN. ET SP. NOV., FROM THE MID-CRETACEOUS OF AUSTRALIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments.
Experimental design: See general comments.
Validity of the findings: See general comments.
Additional comments: This is the second time I review the manuscript, and now it is publishable almost as is. I'm happy to see that the authors addressed most of the concerns raised in the previous round. The new labellings greatly improved the quality of the figures. I included some minor comments and suggestions in the attached pdf.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW GIANT SAUROPOD, AUSTRALOTITAN COOPERENSIS GEN. ET SP. NOV., FROM THE MID-CRETACEOUS OF AUSTRALIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, I see the authors met most of what was requested of the reviewers and I have no additional remarks on the basic reporting aspect of the manuscript.

Line 2363... "unit" should be "unite".
Experimental design: (1) I am pleased that the authors included phylogenetic analyses and even did a bit more than requested by testing out various scenarios with the data sets. Although, the surrounding tone about conducting the phylogenetic analysis is a bit... dismissive? Reluctant? Pessimistic? These lines stood out to me:

"Undertaking a computational phylogenetic assessment using parsimony methods for the new taxon was not considered useful due to the lack of preserved elements across diverse portions of the skeleton" (lines 1024-1026). (This could be said about a lot of titanosaurian specimens—even specimens in other extinct groups!)

"This poor support reflects our initial reluctance to undertake a computational phylogenetic assessment; however, the resulting strict consensus trees provided some areas for discussion." (lines 1062-1063).

"As evident in the above comparative assessment, phylogenetic analysis of Australotitan cooperensis would be premature until better representative skeletal remains of this taxon are available" (lines 2192-2193). (This could be said about any new fossil specimen!)

I would argue that the analyses were useful overall. In almost every analysis from the Poropat et al (2021) and several of the Royo Torres data sets, Australotitan was recovered as a member of Diamantinasauria despite the low support values of the overall tree (it is a large data set and Poropat et al 2021 reported a very high number of MPTs... >1 million, 171,072, 9621, depending on the analysis they ran). So, it's not so much the limited skeleton of Australotitan, it's just the general nature of this massive dataset and missing data within it that yields the initial ambiguity. Still, running various analyses protocols help alleviate this problem (as seen in those studies and the current study). Furthermore, the resultant topologies from the analyses help bring insight on the characters used in the comparative analysis/synapomorphy-assessment, these approaches are complementary to each other. Again, even limited skeletons can be useful depending on what traits are preserved, and here it appears that Australaotitan preserve enough key traits to suggest it was part of or closely related to Diamantinasauria based on both phylogenetic and comparative analyses in the manuscript.

Also, this line in the synapomorphy assessment discussion:

"However, based on the similarities shared with the other Winton Formation taxa, we
propose that W. wattsi should be grouped with the three other Winton Formation taxa, within Titanosauria." Lines 2403-204.

You propose this, yes, but importantly you also tested this with the phylogenetic analyses... resulting in only a handful of topologies supporting this proposal. Phylogenetic analyses not only produce hypothetical tree(s), they also produce a hypothesis on what traits are basal/derived and synapomorphic/homoplastic which would have some bearing on the comparative analysis interpretations.
Validity of the findings: I have no additional comments about their findings or conclusions.
Additional comments: I am happy that most of what was requested from the reviewers were addressed in the manuscript. I honestly think the addition of the phylogenetic analyses overall helps the study of the new taxon by the authors. The tone surrounding these analyses should not be so dismissive, it is just another tool that we paleontologists have in our tool kit to help build our understanding of these extinct animals.


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: ESTIMATION OF THE PROBABILITY OF DAILY FLUCTUATIONS OF INCIDENCE OF COVID-19 ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The abstract :
	The abstract doesn’t describe the idea and the objective of the study.
	There is no clear summary about the procedure, steps and outcome of the study.
	It needs more details.

Introduction : Needs more details.

Lines: 102-108 needs sentences reconstructions to provide more descriptions

Figures
	- Should be named appropriately: example (Figure 1 : )
	- All figures should be mentioned inside the text

Tables
	- Should be named appropriately: example (Tale 1 : )
	- All tables should be mentioned inside the text

The English language
	The language used is professional throughout the text except the points that was mentioned above and the highlighted lines in (Red color).
	The grammar is observed to be checked throughout the text.
	The construction of sentences is good but needs a final revision for more editing.
	The overall rating is acceptable to some extent.
Experimental design: Materials and methods : In lines 71-72, the expectations of the two independent observations  x_1,x_2  should be equal to get the zero result, I suggest that the author should add this assumption.
Validity of the findings: The study possess a novelty but the author should follow appropriate framing (the problem statement was not clear) to suit the criteria  of the journal.
Additional comments: I suggest that the author should :
- improve the description to provide more justification for the study.
- improve the description mode at lines 30- 65, by expanding upon the knowledge gap being filled to give more justification for the study


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

Input:
Title: ESTIMATION OF THE PROBABILITY OF DAILY FLUCTUATIONS OF INCIDENCE OF COVID-19 ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article represents important progress for the current situation. The work of the authors is very well focused on computing statistics and it could represent a professional framework that can be applied as a "standard" for other directions (related to COVID-19) and researches.
The abstract doesn’t point out the (general) objective and scope of the article. Suggestion: "In this article, we will…, The article will (examine, present, introduce, etc.)". Need to be improved.
-	Line 115: “in table No.1”…Capital “T”
-	Line 137: Capital “F” for “…fig. 3…”
-	Line 141: Capital “T” for “…table 2…”
-	References list should be improved. Nothing from 2020?!
Experimental design: Which tool has been used for computing the distributions (Statistica, IBM SPSS, MatLab, Microsoft Excel?!?!)?
How the analysis of the severity of differences in morbidity and mortality has been computed? The question is: how did you find the probability F_Δ<0.1?
Validity of the findings: Discussion based on the results should be improved as well as mentioning the methods used for computing the distributions. The article will have a more trusted validity for the community once the tools are listed and mentioned in the article.
Additional comments: The article subject is very important and deserves special attention to some of the details, especially about the computations tools used for computing different statistics.
It is very good progress and I strongly encourage you to continue your research by creating and introducing more statistics-oriented software tool analysis. Using the proper tools with respect for statistics, such as STATISTICA, IBM SPSS, MatLab or Excel, will increase the scientific validity and suitability.


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: ESTIMATION OF THE PROBABILITY OF DAILY FLUCTUATIONS OF INCIDENCE OF COVID-19 ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article contains a novelty in its goal and has a clear problem that needs mathematical techniques and tools to be revealed . The abstract needs to refitted to include the goals and  the author work, and should point to the study outcomes.  The results should be more expanded to reflect clear fitting of the  graphs to the presented data , table and graphs. For the statistical analysis , the author should use advanced package to give a deep results of reflection.
Experimental design: The research bounds within Aims and Scope of the journal. The research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap, but it needs more revision to suit the mathematical objectives.

Methods is not described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.it needs to reestablished
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, but data analysis needs more advanced statistical package with more implementation to the reality.
Additional comments: please kindly do the mentioned editting


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: ESTIMATION OF THE PROBABILITY OF DAILY FLUCTUATIONS OF INCIDENCE OF COVID-19 ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: All the observations were fixed and remediate accordingly.
Experimental design: All the observations were fixed and remediate accordingly.
Validity of the findings: All the observations were fixed and remediate accordingly.
Additional comments: All the observations were fixed and remediate accordingly.


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: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE HEALTH PROMOTING BEHAVIOUR FOR BLOATING (HPB-BLOAT) SCALE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
In some places, for example page 2, lines 72-73, references are required.
Authors are advised to use "scale" word everywhere for designed tool; in some places in the article, the word questionnaire is used.
Isn't it better to cite to the reference of "Mplus 8", statistical analysis software for the structural equations modeling in the study?
Experimental design: Methods were not described with sufficient detail & information to replicate:
1- Design of study is sequential exploratory mixed method and it is necessary for the author to explain the study design, sampling method and data collection & analysis plan separately in two phases (qualitative-quantitative).
2- Please correct "Hospital" in this phrase “hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM)” and explain about setting of study.
3- Please clarify on what logic these inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen?  For example; age, past history of GI surgery, and etc. It is very important that investigators not only define the appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria when designing a study but also evaluate how those decisions will impact the external validity of the results of the study (Patino & Ferreira, 2018).
Reference: Patino CM, Ferreira JC. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in research studies: definitions and why they matter. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia. 2018 Apr;44(2):84-.
4- Research strategies and methods for conceptualization and Operationalization must were clearly explained. The theoretical concepts (conceptualization) and its translation into measurable variables (operationalization) need specification. According to Hox and De Jong-Gierveld (1990), there are two perspectives to bridge the gap between theory (concept) and observable variables (operationalization or measurement): i) the theory driven approaches (as dimension/indicator analysis, semantic analysis and facet design methods) and ii) the empirical driven approaches (as content sampling, symbolic interactionism and concept mapping), It is not clear which approach was used by the authors of the article. Please explain this part for the article readers.
References:
Hox, J and De Jong-Gierveld, J.J., eds. (1990). Operationalization and Research Strategy, Lisse (NL): Swets & Zeitlinger
Hox, J.(1997). From Theoretical Concept to Survey Question. In Survey Measurement and Process Quality, eds L. Lyberg, P.P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, and D.Trewin. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
5- It is better to transfer the part in which authors of manuscript, explain the theory of TPB (P. 4, lines 139-146) to the introduction of the article because in the introduction, this theory is discussed as a basis for making decisions in adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors.
6- Was the in-depth interview with the 12 participants qualitatively analyzed? How? In what way? Were the dimensions of behavior, including diet, health awareness, physical activity, stress management and treatment explored by analysis of interviews or by reviewing literature related to the concept you intended to design a scale to measure? It is necessary to explain this part in detail and how to extract the items of initial scale and how the item pool was generated. How many items were obtained from reviewing literature and how many items were obtained from analyzing interviews? How did you make sure the content domain was well developed?
7- Wouldn't it be better to ask the behaviors frequency mentioned in the items, or to ask how often these behaviors were performed instead of severity agreement with the item? Because more in attitude measuring tools, the individual's agreement with the items is questioned. This can lead to bias and respondents expressing their opinions instead of expressing their behavior.
8- How was the content validity index for the scale calculated? Was the average method (SCVI-Ave) or the universal agreement method (SCVI-UA) used? Please clarify.
9- Was the content validity ratio (CVR) not determined for the scale items?
Validity of the findings: 1- Statistical analyzes and the findings are well explained in detail. Just please clarify about deleted items. Mention these items in detail. It is not clear what attributes measured by the deleted items. Didn't removing them from the scale damage the comprehensiveness of the scale’s items to measure the concept of the bloating health promoting behavior? How was this ensured?
2- I suggest that authors add a graph to the article to illustrate the process of item reduction in the research stages and specify on what basis the items were reduced at each stage.
Additional comments: The second paragraph of the discussion is a kind of repetition of the results of factor analysis and needs to be adjusted. Please in limitation of study, also note that the designed scale is applicable to the adult population and cannot be used to assess bloating-promoting behaviors in adolescents and children.


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: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE HEALTH PROMOTING BEHAVIOUR FOR BLOATING (HPB-BLOAT) SCALE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language is good throughout the manuscript. However, some grammatic errors need to be revised:

Line 52: Cronbach alpha values…ranged ‘from’ 0.52 to 0.81
Line 57: Composite reliability of all factors…above 0.60, which indicated…
Line 59: Further validation…delete ‘also’
Line 82: Reword the sentence to ‘mental health problem was observed in 29.2% Malaysians aged 16 and above’
Line 83: risk factor’s’ for AB are eating or dietary habit
Line 120: Delete 'However'
Line 182: ...considered problematic ‘and’ would be deleted
Line 230: change ‘subject for’ to ‘subject to’
Experimental design: Line 147: Please provide the reason for selecting these domains
Line 150: Please provide detailed information about the ‘in-depth’ interview (did you use any questionnaires? What are the questions?...)
Validity of the findings: Line 211: The test for sampling adequacy should be Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test, not Kaplan Maier Olkin test. KMO values between 0.8 and 1 indicate adequate sampling. Since your KMO is 0.732, this is not a meritorious value. Please indicate this point in the discussion section
Additional comments: The authors designed a tool to assess the awareness of behavior among patients with abdominal bloating. They demonstrated the reliability and validity of this tool. However, the authors need to provide more detailed information in the experimental design section.


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

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE HEALTH PROMOTING BEHAVIOUR FOR BLOATING (HPB-BLOAT) SCALE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Please add the interview questions, average time of interviews, and the method for analyzing of the interviews data after line 176.
Please add the method using for reliability in line 208.
Lines 370-373 in discussion are duplication the results of study and can be removed.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for the corrections made.
Looks like your article needs to be edited by a native English speaker. There are some mistakes. For example "From these interviews" instead of "this interview", because you have 12 participants. In the line 184: "Responses of each items were rated in five-point...", instead of "Responses of each items were measured in five-point". "Eigen" and "techniques" instead of "eigen" and "technics", respectively.
"To assess content validity, the content validity indexes for items (I-CVI) and scale (S-CVI) were computed based on the responses of relevancy from invited experts (Lynn, 1986; Polit & Beck, 2006). The results of item’s content validity index and scale’s content validity index based on average method (S-CVI/Ave), for the five expected domains (or factors) in HPB-Bloat were all more than 0.75, a finding which was considered satisfactory (Lynn, 1986)." instead of "To assess content validity, the content validation indexes (CVI) for items and scale were computed based on responses of relevancy from invited experts (Lynn, 1986; Polit & Beck, 2006). The results of item’s content validity (I-CVI) and scale’s content validity ,(S-CVI) for the five expected domains (or factors) in HPB-Bloat were all more than 0.75, a finding which was considered satisfactory (Lynn, 1986)." and others.


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: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PEDIATRIC PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IN A ROMANIAN CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language should be improved. Here are some examples:
- line 130  „atleat“ – at least
- Line 174-176  „april“ –April, „may“ May, etc.
- line 260 – „discharges“  discharged
- line 271-272 „the disease was less frequent children“  ... among  (?) children...
- line 273 „SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed2.18% of the pediatric patients..“
- line 346 „leukocites“ – leukocytes
- line 437-438 „a delayed diagnosis and management might lead to the disease can progression..". etc.
I suggest you have a colleague who is proﬁcient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript.

Spaces are missing in multiple places. For example:
- line 125 „infectionand“
- line 126 „casein“
- line 130 „atleat“
- line 138 „onNational“
- line 158 „analysisof .... wasperformed“ , etc.
Experimental design: Some areas of Materials and Methods need more details:

line 144-151 Have you created the categories by severity yourself? Please explain why If they are published elsewhere, please provide the reference.

line 160  What nonparametric tests were applied?

line 29 - perhaps a mistake “October 21” -- > October 31
Validity of the findings: Line 177-181 I suggest there is no need to repeat the same data, what is in the table.
In addition, the data do not match: line 177 “Median age was 6.6 year”; Table 1 “(median 6.35)”

Table 1. Age distribution. The numbers do not match, for example:
0-1 years: total – 34 (26 with symptoms + 3 without symptoms = 29, so 5 children are missed),
1-4 years: total – 40 (32 with symptoms, 10 without symptoms = 42, but not 40..), etc.

Line 192-193: “Among the 47 patients with identified source, 5 patients didn't have any symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection.” In Table 1 – 6 patients were without symptoms. Which data is correct?

Line 208-209 I would recommend to provide neurological symptoms more accurately: how many had hypotonia? How many had febrile seizures? Etc.

Line 212-213 I suggest that very different compared group size should be noted as the limitation.

Line 216-219 It would be interesting to know, which symptoms most commonly occurred together. In addition, could you compare with clusters of clinical phenotypes published by Swann OV et al. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3249)?

Line 283 “…pediatric cases have risen from 2% of cumulative reported cases in April to 10.5%..” It is not clear when was 10.5% reached. Could you add the details?

Line 292-293 It’s a really interesting observation. Maybe you could speculate, that there are more cases in older children but parents with  younger children  seek medical help more often.

Line 332 and Table 2.  Please define fever, pyrexia, digestive symptoms, neurological symptoms.

The conclusions should be more clear and should be limited to those supported by the 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: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PEDIATRIC PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IN A ROMANIAN CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thanks to the authors for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. it is written quite clearly although there are some scattered grammatical errors. Literature references are numerous and appropriate even if some parts need to be expanded.

- Line 68: we well know that children with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection have a milder course of disease than adult do. However, I think it is important to mention here the existence of MIS-C as a possible evolution of the infection that had a significant impact on pediatric population, with corresponding references.

- Line 317: when you discuss about children with underlying conditions, you should add among the references some papers that have analyzed COVID-19 patients with underlying diseases more extensively. For example 1) Tsankov BK et al. Severe COVID-19 Infection and Pediatric Comorbidities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;103:246-256 and 2) Brisca G, et al. Clinical course of COVID-19 in children with pre-existing medical conditions. Acta Paediatr. 2021 Apr;110(4):1291-1292.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: I believe that a significant limitation of the work, as acknowledged by the authors, is the lack of evaluation in the short and especially long term. This implies a scarce possibility of highlighting important data such as hospital returns or even the fraction of children who have subsequently developed a MIS-C. Do you have these information?
Additional comments: in conclusion it is an interesting work which describes the characteristics of pediatric patients with sars-cov-2 infection in a tertiary Romanian hospital. I believe that some minor revisions are needed.


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: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PEDIATRIC PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IN A ROMANIAN CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thank you for taking the comments and suggestions so carefully into account. Your changes have greatly improved the article. It was a great pleasure to review this interesting paper once again.


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: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PEDIATRIC PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IN A ROMANIAN CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Ok
Experimental design: Ok
Validity of the findings: Ok
Additional comments: I am satisfied with the corrections made by the authors


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: TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF SONNERATIA CASEOLARIS SEEDLINGS UNDER CHILLING STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript titled “Transcriptome Analysis of Sonneratia caseolaris Seedlings Under Chilling Stress” mainly focused on the response to chilling stress of Sonneratia caseolaris. Besides, the transcriptome data of the leaves under chilling stress was also studied. After treated by low temperature for 6h, there were 168473 unigenes and 3706 DEGs identified in leaves. And authors analyzed the relative pathways and their relationships on chilling response reactions. However, there are some issues should be improved in this manuscript.
Experimental design: 1. During the chilling treatment, authors should add the thermoperiod, photoperiod and illumination intensity.
2. For the experimental design, how many seedlings were used in the treatment? And how many repetitions were used in the treatment?
3. In the section of Plant materials and treatments, why authors chose 4℃ as low temperature treatment? Please explain.
4. In the section of Plant materials and treatments, the second leaf of seedling was taken as samples. Please describe more detailed with the position of the sample leaf. And explain why choose this leaf as the sample.
5. In the test of qPCR, the author mentioned that “Three replicates of each cDNA sample were performed for qRT-PCR analysis”, how many technical duplication were used in the fluorescence quantitative step? In the initial data, I only saw 3 replicates data.
Validity of the findings: 6. In the Results section, there is only one sentence to Figure 1. Please give a more detailed description on the changes during chilling stress.
7. In the Results section, the author didn’t describe Figure 4 B and C.
8. The author didn’t describe Figure 6 in the Results section.
9. For the pathway enrichment analysis, the Plant-pathogen interaction was explained as “low temperature exposed plants are more vulnerable to be infection by pathogens” by authors. The author should consult a large number of similar references and speculate the possible reason of this phenomenon in the Discussion section.
Additional comments: The manuscript was well performed, but there are some issues should be improved before published. So I recommend major 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: TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF SONNERATIA CASEOLARIS SEEDLINGS UNDER CHILLING STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The RNA-seq data has interesting results. However, the authors did not critically analyse the data to hypothesize the mechanism of chilling stress in S. caseolaris.Hence, the authors need to improve the analysis part in more detail.
Experimental design: Research findings are not rigorous, rather very general. Since they have quite interesting results, they should analyse the mechanism of chilling stress in more detail and critically. Experimental design is fine. However, the auhtors need to do more qRT-PCR analysis for more transcription factors and few more for each transcription factor.
Validity of the findings: The results are interesting and has importance in the field as chilling stress mechanism in mangrove is not explored yet. However, they need to work on the data critically to come up with a hypothesis. The physiological part is fine, but the molecular mechanism part is not analysed in detail. Hence, the conclusion is very general.
Additional comments: The manuscript #56218 entitled "Transcriptome analysis of Sonneratia caseolaris seedlings under chilling stress” by Yang et al. aimed to investigate physiological and transcriptomic analyses to understand the mechanisms of chilling stress of Sonneratia caseolaris seedlings. The physiological analyses was performed on relative electrolyte conductivity, malondialdehyde (MDA) content, soluble sugar content and soluble protein content. They observed that the content of these compounds increased significantly under chilling stress. It suggests that the levels of osmoprotectants increased in S. caseolaris seedlings in response to the chilling stress. To better understand the mechanism, they performed RNA-Seq of S. caseolaris leaves after 6 h of chilling stress. The pathway analysis of DEGs showed that the highly enriched categories were related to carbohydrate metabolism, antioxidant enzyme, plant hormone signal transduction, and transcription factors (TFs). They have quite good and interesting data, but the analysis and presentation of the data needs major improvement.

I have few critical  comments for the authors:

1.	Introduction needs major revision. They need to add information on the physiological and molecular mechanism in response to chilling stress in other plants. I agree that it is not known in mangrove, but in general what happens to plants under chilling stress and what are the molecular mechanisms already established (including transcription factors and different phytohormones) that plants adapt to overcome the chilling stress need to be explained in the introduction to have a general overview.
2.	The information on chilling stress in the first paragraph of discussion part should be in the introduction.
3.	Discussion part needs critical revision.
4.	Results are included in the discussion part. Hence, the authors should remove those parts and write that information in the results section so that discussion part will be shorter.
5.	 Phytohormones play a major role during abiotic stresses. The gene expression data on the phytohoromes seems quite interesting. I don’t see much analysis and explanation on hormonal regulation in the manuscript except the information on the up and down regulation of genes associated with hormones. It is very important to analyse and discuss on hormonal regulation by linking the hormone responsive TFs and that would help the authors to come up with some hypothesis regarding the molecular mechanism of chilling stress in S. caseolaris.
6.	The authors have very interesting results on the gene expression data of different TFs. Many of them are strongly upregulated. However, I do not see any critical information on the role of transcription factors on chilling stress mechanism. The authors have just mentioned that they are up/down regulated and hence they are important. However, they need to explain the role of each TF in more detail with the possible regulatory mechanism involved. They need to also pay attention on any transcriptional changes happening during  chilling stress. Please add a section on different TFs and their possible role in chilling stress and among them which of the potential TFs could be playing a key role in the chilling stress in S. caseolaris. To support their findings and hypothesis the authors need to do more qRT-PCR analysis for more number of TFs such as AP2/ERF, ARF, C2H2 ZnF, bHLH, MYB, WRKY etc. Instead of doing one transcript for each TF, please do it for more number of copies so that it will give more support to your findings. You can have a hypothetical model by linking the physiological and molecular mechanism. Overall, there is no critical analysis of the results.
7.	The authors should have a summary figure which could explain their overall findings and hypothesis regarding the chilling stress mechanism.


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: TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF SONNERATIA CASEOLARIS SEEDLINGS UNDER CHILLING STRESS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have revised the manuscript. I do not have any comments as they have addressed all my comments.
Experimental design: The authors have done the suggested experiment. Hence, I do not have any comments.
Validity of the findings: They have validated their findings.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all my comments. However, I have a doubt in the revised manuscript. In the results section, under sub heading "Phytohormone related DEGs" line 257-258, they have mentioned that
"Especially in auxin signal transduction, ABA signal transduction, EN signal transduction and JA signal transduction." What is EN signal transduction? Is it ethylene (ET) signal transduction pathway? Please check it and edit it using the correct wording in the manuscript and also in the figures.


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

Input:
Title: FRESHWATER-ADAPTED SEA BASS DICENTRARCHUS LABRAX FEEDING FREQUENCY IMPACT IN A LETTUCE LACTUCA SATIVA AQUAPONICS SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript is found scientifically sound. Author’s dedications are appreciable.
	Materials and methods are described in detail. But it’s difficult to read the whole
        paragraph. Authors are requested to add a simple flow chart/diagram/table to present
        the complete methods.
	Over all context writings are grammatically correct and easy to read.
	Article structure is followed by professional English.
	Figures and graphs are fine.
	Raw data are shared as much I checked.
	Results are relevant to hypothesis
	It’s a cordial request to rewrite the abstract and conclusion.
Experimental design: I observed that this manuscript contained original aims and objectives
	Research question and problem identification is clear.
	Methods are suggested to compile in a flow chart/diagram/table.
	Bacterial analysis need to explain detail.
	Manuscript is maintained with ethical standard as far I observed.
	Methods are described with enough details and data replications are present.
	Over all experimental design is accepted but need to explain some terms in details
        that I mentioned in reviewed word file.
Validity of the findings: Literature is clearly stated.
	This research has scientific impact
	Results are statistically sound
	Conclusions are not well decorated. So, conclusion is needed to improve.
	Limitations of experiments are expected to describe.
Additional comments: This research work is appreciable and it’s has scientific value
	Please try to write and explain the methods simply with flow chart/diagram/tables.
	To explain bacterial analysis, you can also use flow chart.
	Flowchart/diagram are more comfortable and convenience to the readers.
	I am convinced with this research but need to improve methods and materials part. Probably you did
        hurry in conclusion writing. I found your research is very interesting. So, I also expect a compact and
        convincing conclusion.
	I found some texts with insufficient references and in some no references. Please follow the
        reviewed article.
	Please mention the p value in text when you state your result statistically significant or not.
	Please revise all references.
	I tried my best to suggest for improving this article, please try to correct and develop as much you
        can.


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: FRESHWATER-ADAPTED SEA BASS DICENTRARCHUS LABRAX FEEDING FREQUENCY IMPACT IN A LETTUCE LACTUCA SATIVA AQUAPONICS SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting of the study is largely ok except for a few spelling edits which have been made in the attached review comments file. A largely good background/context and justification for the study have been provided. However, several gaps in literature references particularly in the materials and methods were identified and so highlighted in the attached file. Unfortunately, the raw data file did not open hence, I was unable to evaluate the data. The article structure is okay though I have some issues and consequent suggestions/recommendations for the figures and tables which are detailed in the attached file. In summary:
- keys/notes showing meanings of acronyms used in the figures and tables should be included
- Figures 2 and 3 are suggested to be considered as supplementary files since the contents are summarised in Tables 1 and 2.
- The Photomicrographs had missing plates/figures for some of the feeding frequency group representatives
- The quantitative histopathology assessment did not involve an 'n' value and hence not demonstrated statistical analysis of the derived dataset.
- Othe specific comments can be found in the attached file.
The results obtained were largely discussed including the limitations of the study which was good (unexplained dead fish in FF2).
Experimental design: This study aligns with the scope of this journal and demonstrates a rigorous research method and effort. However, I have the following requests for clarification:
In the introduction, the last paragraph, please include a statement on the potential use or benefit of the results based on the study aim described.
In the Materials and methods;
- Please state if there were replicates of the fish exposure tanks though it appears so considering an estimated 171 fish exposed at 19 fish per tank. Please state clearly the number of replicates (biological) per fish feeding group.
- Please state if the fish were randomly distributed into the experimental tanks. Also, please state the number of fish procured from the breeding farm initially which were adapted for 60 days. Also, were there any mortality experienced during the period of acclimation/adaptation of the fish before the commencement of the experiment?
- It is not clear how 24 lettuce plants at 8 plants per bed were distributed into the aquaponics system containing 171 fish at 19 fish per tank. Please see/clarify this in the methods and Figure 1.
Other comments and edits are contained in the attached pdf file.
Validity of the findings: The areas with needs for clarifications, further edits, and inclusions have been stated under experimental design. Unfortunately, I was unable to access the raw data, hence could ascertain this. The statistical analyses are largely ok except for needs for inclusions and clarifications in the tables which have been detailed above and contained in the attached file.
Additional comments: The study is largely well conducted and I find the results of importance and application in aquaponics which can be applied to other relevant fish species and plants. It demonstrates contributions to achieving food security, value for money, and reduction in water pollution.


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: FRESHWATER-ADAPTED SEA BASS DICENTRARCHUS LABRAX FEEDING FREQUENCY IMPACT IN A LETTUCE LACTUCA SATIVA AQUAPONICS SYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -The title is now very clear and attractive.
- Professional English is used all over the manuscript.
- Enough literatures are cited and background of this study is quite strong now
- Related diagram is now inserted in materials and methods for better understanding so it's very easy to readers.
- Other figures and tables are well described.
- The article is professionally structured
- All questions are answered by authors satisfactorily.
- Relevant results are stated with significant value and hypotheses are clear now.
Experimental design: -Methods are described with proper figure, it's very appreciable.
- The aims and scope of this journal are original as far as I checked.
-Research questions are well answered with relevant references.
- Investigations are performed with enough technical efforts.
Validity of the findings: -Abstract and conclusion are now well written and much more convincing than previous.
- The result is statistically sound
-The discussion part is now more strong with enough references.
Additional comments: I highly appreciate your correction on manuscript. Now it is concrete and presentable to the readers. I am satisfied with your answers. The explanations and clarifications are well described in the manuscript which are required. I think now it's ready to publish. However, the final decision will be made by the editor.
Hope for the best.


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: FRESHWATER-ADAPTED SEA BASS DICENTRARCHUS LABRAX FEEDING FREQUENCY IMPACT IN A LETTUCE LACTUCA SATIVA AQUAPONICS SYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript addressed the comments and edits suggested in the original review comments satisfactorily.
Experimental design: The comments raised in the original manuscript have been addressed by the authors. Particularly, references have been included for methods used, number of fish used and justifications have been provided, figures have been updated including tables. The methodology is described in sufficient detail to enable replication.
Validity of the findings: Clarifications, justifications and edits have been made following the original review comments and this is satisfactory.
Additional comments: Thank you for the edits and revisions done to your study. Please find attached the revised documents with just a few minor typo edits.


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: EFFECTS OF MATERNAL TAURINE SUPPLEMENTATION ON MATERNAL DIETARY INTAKE, PLASMA METABOLITES AND FETAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN CAFETERIA DIET FED RATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The work is well presented, background and hypothesis clear .
Figures and tables included enough information to understand the work
Experimental design: Just to know, how the taurine concentration was selected?
Validity of the findings: It is a relevant study, there is not specific information of that
Additional comments: The aim of this study was to analyze the protector effect of taurine on cafeteria dietary intake in rats during gestation and lactation.
 The authors showed interesting results supporting partial normalization of cafeteria-induced maternal metabolic dysfunction by taurine; however taurine supplementation did not prevent adiposity. Even more, taurine supplementation cause increase in neonatal mortality in the control group.
My main concern is to the model; it is expected obesity induction by the cafeteria diet (CAF).  I think it is difficult to know the energy and nutrients intake, since cafeteria diet vary every day. How that was calculated? How the taurine concentration was selected?
Although some metabolic parameters indicate increase in fat tissue, no differences in body weight gain were observed compared to the control in gestational period. In fact, the fat intake was increased and protein and carbohydrates decreased.
As Authors mentioned, taurine concentration could be low; in fact the intake of water ( containing taurine ) was considerable reduced in the CAF groups.
Probably some results are underestimated; although the statistical significance is clear, the standard error in several cases is high.