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: SLEEP HEALTH OF AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY TENNIS PLAYERS DURING THE COVID-19 LOCKDOWN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It is suggested that in lines 42 - 43 you only focus on the results of the study. Avoid making conclusions that are beyond the scope of the research.

The introduction section of the article needs some more literature reviews on sleep normative data.

Improve the sentence in lines 83 - 84: “Furthermore, while the pandemic was still ongoing and most facilities continued to be closed, tennis was one of the first sports able to recommence given the”
Experimental design: How did you ensure that participants only played tennis during the Pandemic? Give some more information on this in line 111.

In the method section, include the psychometric properties of the questionnaires provided.

In the Data Analysis section: Provide analysis on the association between age and sleep health.
Validity of the findings: Clearly define the restrictions imposed by the government in lines 256 - 258. Was there a total lockdown?

Your research is not focused on employment. Consider explaining only the results of the research in lines 270 - 272.
Additional comments: No 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: SLEEP HEALTH OF AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY TENNIS PLAYERS DURING THE COVID-19 LOCKDOWN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written and describes the findings of a cross-sectional survey in Australian community tennis players during the COVID-19 lockdown 2020. Main variables are sleep health, additional variables are tennis play, training location, physical activity and alcohol consumption. The authors found sleep health to be generally good among tennis players if compared to normative values from the literature. They did not find any correlation of sleep health with tennis play, physical activity, training location and alcohol consumption. These findings are important since they contradict other studies that found worsening of sleep during the pandemic in the general public and in athletes.
Important literature has been cited with few exceptions mentioned below. I have some issues with the figure and the tables mentioned below.

Abstract:
-	Line 38: The Tb- should be Tb.

Introduction:
-	Since you measured alcohol consumption please insert a short paragraph on the current data on alcohol consumption during COVID-19 lockdowns in (1) the general public and (2) athletes
-	Please insert a short paragraph on the impact of lockdown on sports facilities and training hours of athletes.

Table 1:
I find the current depiction of results difficult to read. I would suggest adding the % behind respective values and leaving out the “n =”. You might want to rewrite the table with the corresponding description (% and n ; median and interquartile range) in the head-row of the table and inserting the subtitles (Age range, relationship status and so on) below. This would increase readability.

Table 2:
To improve readability I would suggest brackets around the p-values. This way it is easier to distinguish coefficients (Tb) from p-values.

Figure 1:
Please indicate what is depicted by the thin black curved line around the boxplots.
Experimental design: The methods are well described, with sufficient detail to replicate. No additional comments
Validity of the findings: These findings are important since they contradict other studies that found worsening of sleep during the pandemic in the general public and in athletes. I have some comments on the discussion section:

Discussion:
-	Lines 240-241, it is complicated to see which values are the ones from the tennis players and which the normative values. Please improve this, I would suggest: “SHI (normative: 76 vs. tennis players: 85.3)”
-	Lines 267-269: I don’t think your findings contradict an association between physical activity and sleep since the vast majority in your sample remained physically active and met WHO recommendations. Poor sleep is strongly associated with sedentary behavior. Therefore, your sample already consists of participants with higher physical activity level than the general public.
-	Lines 278-281: One hour of outdoor training per week has no effect on zeitgebers. Therefore, this line of argument is frail. I would suggest excluding it or adapting it in order to be more appropriate.
-	I agree that the responses on alcohol consumption are not suitable to detect more heavy drinking patterns and this is an important limitation of your findings. However, standard drinks per week and per occasion (to detect binge drinking) would have been more appropriate (not millilitres).
-	Since questionnaires were distributed by social media you have no representative sample of community tennis players. Selection bias might have occurred. Please state this as a limitation.
Additional comments: I don’t see a paragraph on funding. I would suggest adding this to the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: MATERNAL SELF-EFFICACY AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING IN CHILEAN ADOLESCENT MOTHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CHILDREN’S SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering me as a reviewer for this publication in your journal PeerJ.

The manuscript “Maternal self-efficacy and emotional well-being in Chilean adolescent mothers: the relationship with their children’s social-emotional development” by Léniz-Maturana et al. deals with the associations between maternal self-efficacy, maternal well-being, and children’s socio-emotional development in a selected sample of low-income adolescent mothers in Chile. The authors underline the importance of maternal self-efficacy and maternal well-being for an optimal socio-emotional development of the child.
This is a nicely written, interesting and relevant manuscript. Furthermore, this is a valuable contribution to science and clinical practice and I suggest acceptance for publication (with revisions).

The study has several strengths. These include the importance of the questions the authors are addressing for the field as well as the South American sample because I like the idea of cultural diversity in research.

1. BASIC REPORTING
- Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.
Please revise the following:

There are multiple, long sentences paragraphs throughout your manuscript, which reduces the readability of your paper. Please work to shorten these sentences, e. g. lns. 58-62; lns. 95-98; lns. 490-494; lns. 531-535

Please check the punctuation throughout the manuscript: commas are missing, e. g. ln. 142: “social isolation, and low self-esteem; ln.155; ln. 419; ln. 430; ln. 442; ln. 15: “anxiety, depression, and stress” (according to the most recent publication manual of the American Psychological Association, I believe the 7th edition).

You could make it easier for the reader to follow; please revise the following sections: sentence lns. 75-77; ln. 148: what do you mean with “childhood behavior”?; ln. 152: “complicated stage”; ln. 160: “development process is incomplete”

Ln. 56: “fortunately” – please avoid personnel opinion

- Intro & background to show context. Literature well referenced & relevant.
Please revise the following:

Why is Chile the focus of this study? What is unique about Chile? These facts are important to understand and contextualize the results, and then to discuss whether they would be applicable to other contexts. You mentioned some points (from ln. 50) but it would help if the rationale was set out more explicitly.

Please insert sources for the following statements: lns: 68-69; lns: 106-108; lns: 131-132; lns: 134-135; lns: 179-181; lns: 190-191; lns: 206-207

Lns.: 94-95: why you used the word “consequently”? I am sorry; I did not understand the link.

Lns: 147-148: Somewhat the last sentence comes in as a surprise. You might revise it, so that the reader can follow your reasoning.

Lns. 161-166: Please try to streamline the arguments, sometimes I do not get the point; also lns. 190-200.

Lns. 201-203: “different studies” – please name more than one reference.

Ln. 246; ln. 256; ln. 271; ln. 282: please add the references of the scales and inventories.

- Structure conforms to PeerJ standards, discipline norm, or improved for clarity. - YES

- Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled & described.
Please revise the following:

Figure 1: the figure is very helpful; unfortunately, the resolution is not good enough.

- Raw data supplied (see PeerJ policy). - YES
Experimental design: 2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
- Original primary research within Scope of the journal. - YES

- Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Please revise the following:

The presentation of the relevance of the sample (why chile? Why the selected sample of low-income adolescent mothers?) and the introduced concepts could be made clearer in the introduction.

Ln. 213: Hypothesis C: maternal self-efficacy is named the mediator – please clarify.

Ln. 249: from 0 to 10 ->  11point likert scale

- Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard. - YES

- Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. - YES
Validity of the findings: 3. VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS
- All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Please revise the following:

Please give information about the correlations (or t-tests) of the study variables and the sociodemographic (control) variables, e. g. age of mother and child, income, level of education, support, etc. - this should be presented in the Results section. The role of control variables should be discussed as a future direction (potential moderators, explanatory as to why some expected associations may not exist - e.g., maternal depression and child development)

Table 1: I find it hard to read, please change the design.

Table 2: Please report the raw values of the children’s socio-emotional development variables and – for a better overview – please add also the means and SDs of the maternal variables (and delete the passage in the text). For example in Lns. 201-203 you write: “Different studies agree that the children of adolescent mothers develop more slowly than those of non-adolescent mothers, and one of the possible causes of these outcomes is the socially disadvantaged origin of adolescent mothers.” It would be interested to know how the children in your sample are developed (e.g. with reporting the raw scores).

It is not until line 229 that the reader learns that this is a selective sample of low- income mothers. Why? Please give that information already in the abstract.

Lns. 487-489: An additional avenue for investigation (and perhaps clarification) might be determining the item-level bivariate associations between these measures with your data.

Ln. 363: self-efficacy mean of 7.71 is relatively high, or not? In this selected sample: adolescent and low-income? Please discuss this result further.

E.g. ln. 371: please write the letters r and p in italics; and please revise this throughout the manuscript

Ln. 371: A line break should not be in a parenthesis, same ln. 414.

Ln. 377: please add the exact p value, if p is higher than .001; same ln. 378; ln. 379; ln. 405; e.g. “p = .034”

- Speculation is welcome, but should be identified as such.
Please revise the following:

The authors sometimes use a causal language when discussing the results. For example, on lns. 221-223 “protective factor”; lns. 430-433 “effects”, ln. 436 “impact”. I urge the authors to be cautious when using this language and to substitute causal terms such as “impact” with more appropriate ones such as “association”. Thus, there are reasons to be cautious in strong statements about mediation.

- Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Please revise the following:

Lns. 539-541: – many of the relations were insignificant, mother’s anxiety and depression scores did not correlate with the socio-emotional development of the child; you discussed this null finding but, in my opinion, you should make it more clear; same in line 615.

The relevance of intervention was nicely displayed.
Additional comments: There are a number of limitations that need to be acknowledged and discussed. For example:

Please add as a further limitation: Generalization of the results is limited because selected sample of low-income adolescent mothers.

A further issue is that all data stem from the report of one person, i.e. mother, who rated both her own feelings and the behavior of the child. Thus, associations found between measures may be methodological artefacts. In the case of a significant association we do not know whether there is really a functional relationship between them or whether this is due to individual tendencies of the mothers to describe own behavior and child behavior, general tendencies to respond more or less positive when filling in questionnaires. For example, it may be that some mothers have a more pessimistic (as compared to others with a more positive) view of life and, therefore, they tend to describe both their own emotional state and the child's emotional problems.

References: Lns. 895-898: why “S” bevor “Q”?


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: MATERNAL SELF-EFFICACY AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING IN CHILEAN ADOLESCENT MOTHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CHILDREN’S SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: Dear
please explain mothers that entry your study were nullipara? if yes why did you collected sampling from preschool.
2- How did you estimate sampling? 79 person is very low for modeling method.
3- How did you calculate mediating  role of anxiety and stress?
4- Did you use structural equation model?
5- which software use for assessment of model?
6-which approach Baron &Kenny or Sobel criterion are used for mediating role assessment?
7- please explain about conceptual model in introduction?
8- in structural model only one model is assessed? why did you write five model.
please concentrate only in one model .
9- Please each hypothesis is mentioned in end of introduction.
10-samplig size estimation, references and formula are added in methods.
11.Ethical code is mentioned in paper.
12. Please explain about sampling method? How did you do sampling?
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: No 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: MATERNAL SELF-EFFICACY AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING IN CHILEAN ADOLESCENT MOTHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CHILDREN’S SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided

The clear and detailed way by which authors described the theretical framwork of the study and previous studies is appreciale. However, my suggestion is to reference more recent studies both for what concern parental self-efficacy beliefs (e.g. Glatz & Buchanan, 2015), and for what concerns maternal self-efficacy in adolescent mothers.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared

The article is well articulated and clear in its structure. However, I think that some Table are pretty difficult to read, and therefore, that is necessary a reformattation of them. In particular, Table 4 is difficult to understand. In addition, even if Table 2 shoud report the mean levels of the variables of interest, it reports only the minimum and maximus levels of these.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: ABSTRACT
#1. Line 23. I suggest to the authors to report in the abstract section the mean age of the mothers.

INTRODUCTION
#2. Line 77. I suggest to the authors to report in the introductory section the overall im of the study and its research questions.

The concept of maternal self-efficacy
#3. Line 83. Regarding the definition of parental self.efficacy, I suggest to use the definition prosposed by Bandura (1997).

The relationship between maternal self-efficacy and well-being during adolescence andchildren’s social-emotional development
#4. Line 210. Please, better describing the hypotheses nad the expected results in term of  findins from previous studies or theories.

Instruments
#5. I suggest, fir each instruments, to provide an item example.

Data analyses
#6. I was wondering what type of statistical software has been used ti implement the statistical analyses and the reasons why authors did no implemented a structural equation model to examine the mediation.
#7. I suggest to the authors to keep under control the effects of some covriates in the mediation model, such as, participants age and child's gender.


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: MATERNAL SELF-EFFICACY AND EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING IN CHILEAN ADOLESCENT MOTHERS: THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CHILDREN’S SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment. The article is clear in each sections, the English is professional and the literature references cover the study's background and objectives.
Experimental design: Research questions are innovative and well defined, also the methods and the procedure fit very well with the manuscript's objectives.
Validity of the findings: Study's findings are very interesting and they have a high impact both in term of practical implications and of theoretical knowledge.
Additional comments: The revisions made to the article address each points raised by reviewers.
The article is now much improved.


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: DIURNAL PATTERN OF SALIVARY ALPHA-AMYLASE AND CORTISOL UNDER CITRIC ACID STIMULATION IN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Xie and colleagues have conducted an essentially sound study on diurnal variances and sex differences in alpha-amylase and cortisol in saliva (as well as flow rate and pH) of young adults. The manuscript is relatively well-written (except for a few lines in the Discussion section, and the first part of the Conclusion) and essentially transparent. I suggest some corrections/clarifications, mainly in the data presentation/analysis and communication of details of experiments/study design.

Lines 240-244 needs revision – the sentence is not readable in the present version. This also applies to Lines 267-270.

Line 307 – what is meant by the statement that the two analytes in men “have higher stress capacities”? It does not make any sense to me.

Lines 310-317 are not typical features of a Conclusion section and could to my opinion be revised/shortened/removed.
Experimental design: Line 89-99: Several (most relevant!) exclusion criteria were used. Were these solely participant-reported, or objectively evaluated by the investigators? The latter would add value to the manuscript.

Line 115-133: Regarding the saliva analyses which were not performed immediately: it would be critical to know how saliva was handled/stored awaiting analysis of sAA and cortisol – fresh (under stabile temperature?), frozen, centrifuged post thawing, etc etc. Also communicate time to analysis and if analytes were measured on several occasions or not.

Line 135-141: Statistics. The authors demonstrate that the data is not normally distributed, and thus correctly evaluate by non-parametric tests. Still, the authors present the results as means and standard errors. More relevant non-parametric descriptive statistics would rather be medians and interquartile ranges, or similar.
Validity of the findings: Figure legend 1 (and onwards). Define abbreviations also in legends – allow figures to be fully readable as standalone parts.

Fig 1-2, 4, 5-6: authors state that comparisons have been made between two groups. Still, stars and bars indicate comparisons between 3 time points. Were time points merged? This must be crystal clear.
Additional comments: Line 195: sAA (typo)

Line 198: significant (typo)

Line 332 (?): within (typo)

Figure 8: cortisol (same typo ocurring in all subpanels)


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: DIURNAL PATTERN OF SALIVARY ALPHA-AMYLASE AND CORTISOL UNDER CITRIC ACID STIMULATION IN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overview

This study examined how diurnal levels of salivary alpha amylase (sAA), salivary cortisol, salivary flow rate, and salivary pH levels would be impacted by a citric acid stimulation test. The study was conducted  in a sample of healthy male and female participants. Saliva samples were collected at 4 time-points over the course of the day, to map the circadian fluctuations of the salivary markers.
The study found that citric acid stimulation was associated with increased sAA and cortisol levels in men, at certain time points, compared to women, and that neither SFR nor the pH levels were impacted by the citric acid stimulation.
The authors conclude that sAA and cortisol seem to be robust against the citric acid influences and propose that the results provide a comprehensive understanding of the physiological characteristics of human salivary secretion.

I commend the authors for this endeavor, knowing first-hand the challenges that are associated with collecting salivary data at multiple time points during the day.
However, my enthusiasm for this manuscript was overshadowed by the numerous issues with it. Highlighted below are my major issues with the manuscript in its current form.

Abstract:
1.	The authors need to make the rationale behind the use of citric acid stimulation more explicit, in both the abstract and the main manuscript.
2.	The authors do not need to provide the statistical results of the correlations in the abstract. These should be reserved for the results section in the manuscript.
3.	The authors do not make it clear what their findings mean, and how they fit in the literature more broadly.
4.	I further find it difficult to understand how the findings from this study “contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the physiological characteristics of human salivary secretion, and the selection of appropriate sampling strategies for the right salivary sampling time in studies investigating chronic psychosocial conditions.”

Introduction

Overall, I found that the introduction lacked structure, and did not adequately highlight the aim of the study, and the knowledge gaps that it is trying to fill.

1.	Once again, the rationale for the study is missing. Specifically what is the purpose behind the use of citric acid stimulation, and what information the effects of this manipulation provides on the diurnal fluctuations of the salivary markers under study.

2.	Given that the study was not conducted on clinical or sub-clinical samples, the mention of patient groups in line 70 gives the reader the impression that the study will either include patients or that the findings will have some relevance to patient samples – which does not seem to be the case here.

3.	The authors mention that salivary secretion and biomarkers are influenced by sex hormones, specifically mentioning the effects of menstrual cycle on fluctuating levels of sAA. This suggests that the authors accounted for gonadal hormones, and/or menstrual cycle study of their female participants. I cannot find any information confirming this however. Is this the case?

4.	The last sentence of the introduction states the goal of the study which is to “identify the diurnal patterns in sAA, SFR, pH, and salivary cortisol before and after citric acid stimulation”.  Here the authors introduce SFR and pH as variables of interest, without providing any background literature on why these variables should be considered within the context of diurnal rhythms, and why citric acid stimulation should impact these markers.

5.	The study hypotheses are missing. Each hypothesis should be explicit and clear, so that the reader has a clear idea of what the authors aim to investigate and expect.
Experimental design: 1.	The authors need to provide more information about the participants. Specifically, were the female participants using chemical contraceptives? Or if they were tested in a specific menstrual cycle phase? Or whether these factors were considered or accounted for.

2.	It would be helpful to know more about the data collection procedure. Did data collection occur in the lab or in participants’ homes? If in the lab, did the participants come for a full day in the lab? What did they do in the lab between sample collections. More information about the study protocol will be helpful.

3.	What was the time delay between the saliva samples that were collected before and after citric acid stimulation?

4.	I am still unclear if citric acid stimulation is used as a means to induce stress (line 133)? If so, this needs to be make explicitly clear throughout the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: Statistical analyses

1.	Why did the authors choose not to transform the non-normally distributed data? Given the study design, the authors could have run repeated measures anovas or HLMs to investigate the effects of the citric acid stimulation on the salivary markers.

2.	The results section does not provide any statistics for the analyses presented.

3.	Looking at the sAA values presented, the numbers don’t square up with the values typically seen in the literature. Could the authors provide a reference for their analysis protocol, as well as information about the detection limits of the assays they used.

4.	Once again, I feel that a clear goal of the study with explicit hypotheses will help streamline the results section. Is there a reason that the authors conducted the analyses first in the whole sample, and then spilt the groups by sex? Why not include sex as a between subjects factor in the analyses from the outset?

5.	Figures 5 and 6 can be combined together to visually represent the changes in the salivary markers over time in men and women.

6.	I am not sure what information figures 4 and 7 (the ratio of the markers) are depicting, to help the reader interpret the results.

7.	It would be helpful if the pre-and post- stimulation cortisol and sAA data in figure 8 were plotted in the same graph.

Discussion
1.	In lines 234-240 the authors’ discussion of the clinical applications of sAA and cortisol do not fit with the scope of the paragraph, and the study in general, and appear to be contextually irrelevant.

2.	In lines 254-262, the authors repeat the results of the study but without putting them in the broader context of the literature, nor do they provide any interpretations for what these findings mean.

3.	Lines 259-262, the authors appear to over extend the relevance of their findings. How do these results “…..contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the physiological characteristics of human salivary secretion, as well as to the selection of appropriate sampling strategies for the right salivary sampling time in studies investigating chronic psychosocial conditions”? It is recommended that the authors expand on these claims, or perhaps temper their statement.
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: DIURNAL PATTERN OF SALIVARY ALPHA-AMYLASE AND CORTISOL UNDER CITRIC ACID STIMULATION IN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: EFFECT OF EXTRACTS FROM EGGS OF HELIX ASPERSA MAXIMA AND HELIX ASPERSA ASPERSA SNAILS ON CACO-2 COLON CANCER CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript meets basic criteria of reporting. Please see comments below for more information.
Experimental design: The manuscript meets all the criteria set out by PeerJ.
Validity of the findings: Please see General Comments section for details.
Additional comments: This paper by Magdalena Matusiewicz et al describes the anticancer effects of extracts (and their fractions) from the eggs of two snail species Helix aspersa maxima and Helix aspersa aspersa on the viability of colorectal adenocarcinoma cell line. The authors have found that the fractions containing <3 kDa from the extracts of Helix aspersa aspersa showed anticancer effects. The extracts reduced the cell viability by inducing apoptotic cell death pathway.
Overall, the manuscript meets the criterion set out by peer J. However, the discussion section of the manuscript is very lengthy and needs to be shortened for publication purposes.


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: EFFECT OF EXTRACTS FROM EGGS OF HELIX ASPERSA MAXIMA AND HELIX ASPERSA ASPERSA SNAILS ON CACO-2 COLON CANCER CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: 1) Please expand MTT test abbreviation in the Abstract (Methods 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: EFFECT OF EXTRACTS FROM EGGS OF HELIX ASPERSA MAXIMA AND HELIX ASPERSA ASPERSA SNAILS ON CACO-2 COLON CANCER CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In the paper titled ‘Effect of extracts from eggs of Helix aspersa maxima and Helix aspersa aspersa snails on Caco-2 colon cancer cells’ the authors prepare extracts and fractions from the eggs of two snail sub species and identified components of the extracts. Further they checked the effect of these extracts and fractions on human colorectal cancer cell lines (Caco-2). The authors claim that the extracts have a negative effect on the cancer cell line and could be a potential candidate to be used in combination therapy for cancer treatment. Overall the paper needs to be written properly and the language needs editing . Throughout the paper, in many places, sentences need to be framed properly to help readers understand the content easily. Introduction has to be written more clearly and precisely. The results presented are not conclusive and are not discussed in the paper. In discussion the authors try to just give information related to the paper and fail to discuss the result section. I request the authors to go through the comments and modify the paper before publishing.
Experimental design: See section below
Validity of the findings: 1.	In the background section, the second line (line 21 and 22), does not correctly reflect what the authors want to communicate. Please rewrite this.
2.	Reference missing (Line 59)
3.	Reference missing (Line 60)
4.	Line 57,58,59- What does transition mean here? Is it an economical/developmental transition? Readers will not be able to understand this sentence if not explained properly.
5.	Line 75- What is combination therapy? Is it the use of more than one medication at a time to treat cancer? It is hard to understand what the authors want to explain here.
6.	Figure 1A- Even though the authors started with equal weight of eggs for both species, I would recommend a protein quantitation to confirm equal protein concentration before analyzing by SDS PAGE. Also, I recommend the authors to provide a picture of the SDS gel showing bands below 8kDa. This could be easily produced by running the extracts on SDS gel and not allowing the dye front to run away.
7.	Figure 1 B needs a known glycoprotein as positive control. What is the sensitivity of this method- Is that glycoproteins which are in lower concentration not stained? Does staining depend on the number of glycan attached to the protein?
8.	Line 518 to 524, the result is unexpected with H. a. maxima eggs (at concentrations of 2.5 x 10-2 one does not see reduction in viability but at 2.5 x 10-4 there is significant reduction. Same applies for H. a. aspersa eggs. Also, longer incubation with water extract of eggs do not show any significant reduction in cell viability. This needs an explanation at least in the discussion which is missing.
9.	Line 519- the numbers are different in figure (25 x 10-2) and text (2.5 x 10-2). Please correct this.
10.	Line 340-Why cells are starved in lower FBS? Does that already make cells sick? What is the logic of using 1% FBS in media?
11.	Line 539- treatment with extracts for 72 hours did not affect the percentage of live and dead Caco-2 cells while treatment with 24 affects had a significant effect. What is the explanation for this. Did the authors try 12 hour and 48-hour incubation? What would be the effect if they are treated for 12 and 48 hours?
12.	Line 543- Again one does not see an effect with concentration of 25 x 10-2, but 25 x 10-3 gives significant difference. Also, no effect with 72-hour incubation. Any explanation?
Additional comments: 1) Discussion is very lengthy starting from page 16 to 27. Most of the information given in the discussion can be removed. Please edit and make it short and  focus  on discussing the results.


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: EFFECT OF EXTRACTS FROM EGGS OF HELIX ASPERSA MAXIMA AND HELIX ASPERSA ASPERSA SNAILS ON CACO-2 COLON CANCER CELLS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript meets all the criteria set out by PeerJ.
Experimental design: The manuscript meets all the criteria set out by PeerJ.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript meets all the criteria set out by PeerJ.
Additional comments: None


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: NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE CRANIAL OSTEOLOGY OF THE EARLY CRETACEOUS PARACRYPTODIRAN TURTLE LAKOTEMYS AUSTRALODAKOTENSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: My only recommendation is that a paragraph be added in the Methods section giving a summary of the taxa that are being compared with Lakotemys. This could include their phylogenetic position within the Paracryptodira and reference to papers in which morphological data is provided.


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: NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE CRANIAL OSTEOLOGY OF THE EARLY CRETACEOUS PARACRYPTODIRAN TURTLE LAKOTEMYS AUSTRALODAKOTENSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear editor and authors,

In my opinion this is an interesting paper to be published in this Journal, and I only suggest some minor changes:
- Lines 60-63 (i.e. last sentence of the Introduction): I suggest deleting this sentence relative to future studies (or restricting its use to the Conclusions)
- Line 81: The generic name should be italicized
- Line 91: The “finely sculptured skull and shell” should be more detailed described
- Lines 318-323 and others: Although the authors indicate, for some comparisons, taxa with which a character is shared, and others from which the analyzed taxon differs, this is not done for all discussed characters. Please complete all comparisons.
- Line 392: I think that, in the text, it is better not to use abbreviations
- Line 849: Please add “of it holotype” at the end of that sentence.
- Lines 849-854: In both sentences (especially in the first) it is not clear what information is provided for the first time in this paper. I suggest expanding the conclusions or modifying these sentences to clearly indicate what new information is provided.
- Figure 1: Although the specimen was previously published, I suggest adding a photograph in dorsal view and another in ventral view of the skull.

I’m available for any questions that may arise.

Sincerely,

Adán Pérez-García
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE CRANIAL OSTEOLOGY OF THE EARLY CRETACEOUS PARACRYPTODIRAN TURTLE LAKOTEMYS AUSTRALODAKOTENSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript provides a description of the cranial material of a specimen of paracryptodiran turtle Lakotemys australodakotensis from the Early Cretaceous of North America. The description itself is generally well written and clear. The issues we have with the text are minor and easily rectified. The figures are clear, informative, well labelled, and reasonably well integrated with the text. However, the colours chosen for the bones could perhaps be more in contrast with each other: they were difficult to distinguish in a non-colour print out. Also some the scale bars seem wrong (e.g. Figure 5, 7, and 8). The only part of the physical description which we found questionable was the report of sculpturing on the dorsal surface of the parietal. As it is stated in the paper, the skull is deformed and the surface has been eroded, and these structures are only present on one side. A close up photograph of the area (ideally a stereopair) might help provide more confidence that these structures are not the result of postmortem damage. There isn’t a phylogenetic analysis but some characters and their distribution are discussed. The character distribution is used to make some inferences regarding the phylogenetic relationships of Lakotemys australodakotensis with respect to other baeniid turtles and these are well argued. The paper clearly adds important knowledge for baeniid turtles and their evolution. Overall we recommend publication with minor revisions.

# Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout?
The article is written in English and generally uses clear, unambiguous, and technically correct text. The writing is generally good but there are several sentences that could perhaps be reduced in length, particularly in the introduction and discussion. There are also some paragraphs in the description that could be broken into two or even three paragraphs (e.g. the section on the parietal).

# Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided?
The introduction and background could certainly be expanded upon to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. At present the introduction is rather brief and focuses on the species Lakotemys australodakotensis. To make the paper more accessible to wider audience the authors should consider adding a paragraph or at least a few sentences on baenid turtles in general, e.g. a group of extinct testudines known from the Cretaceous and Palaogene of North America considered to be aquatic and comprising over a dozen species. Another useful addition to the introduction would be a phylogenetic tree (as inferred by previous work) as it would clarify some of the taxonomic terminology and phylogenetic hypotheses being referred to. Moreover, given how unstable some taxonomic terms can be, it may be helpful to researchers reading this description in 10-20 years’ time for understanding the context in which it was executed. A table listing the main taxa, their age, and geographic origin, anatomy known, and primary reference would also be a useful addition for readers unfamiliar with the group. In some places it might also be useful for the authors to refer to rather than repeatedly listing individual species.

# Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared?
The structure of the manuscript generally makes sense. All figures are relevant to the content of the article, are of sufficient resolution, and are appropriately described and labelled. There are some parts of the results that would fit better in the discussion, such as speculation on the phylogenetic position of Lakotemys australodakotensis. Appropriate raw data and 3D surface files have been made available on Morphosource. The description might be improved by moving all of the comparisons with other turtles to a separate section after a straight description of Lakotemys australodakotensis. However, we appreciate that altering this structure is a non-trivial task and arguably a personal preference.

# Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Some additional introduction would move the manuscript closer to being ‘self-contained,’ and some tabulation of key character observations and measurements would move the manuscript closer to representing an appropriate ‘unit of publication’. This manuscript could also make it clearer how much of the skull was previously described in Joyce, Rollot, and Cifelli (2020). That would help highlight how much of the information provided here is new.

.
Experimental design: # Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal (https://peerj.com/about/aims-and-scope/)
Yes, the manuscript represents original research in the field of palaeontology which is applicable to Biological Science.

# Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The manuscript has a clearly defined research question: what additional anatomical knowledge of Lakotemys australodakotensis is provided by microCT scanning and what does the additional data indicate regarding the evolution of baenid turtles. However, one might argue that the study could go further by adding a more detailed phylogenetic analysis.

# Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
The investigation appears to have been carried out appropriately. The material has been examined using microCT and the authors are honest when the CT data is unclear, which is good practice. There are places where the authors could clarify exactly how certain bones articulate with one another in three dimensions (e.g. Jones et al. 2011) and whether their descriptive text is from a ventral or lateral view etc. The scalebars need to be rechecked.
Jones, M.E., Curtis, N., Fagan, M.J., O’Higgins, P. and Evans, S.E., 2011. Hard tissue anatomy of the cranial joints in Sphenodon (Rhynchocephalia): sutures, kinesis, and skull mechanics. Palaeontologia Electronica, 14(2), p.17A.

# Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
The methods used are generally described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator. However, the authors should clarify what they mean by “interpolated slice-by-slice segmentation”? The manuscript could also be more explicit when it comes to comparative material and species: which specimens and species were examined first hand vs how much of the comparisons were restricted to the published literature? The authors are not obliged to examine every fossil in person, however it is helpful for them to report which they did and which they did not.

.
Validity of the findings: # Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
This manuscript arguably represents an “add-on” to a previous description (Joyce, Rollot, and Cifelli, 2020) which did not include a detailed examination of the CT data. This new manuscript certainly does add a significant amount of new data. However, the text could perhaps make it clearer by providing extra detail regarding what was previously described and what is novel here. The authors could also count how many additional phylogenetic characters can be scored with the new data which they provide. This exercise would help highlight why this newmanuscript is a worthwhile addition to the literature.
Joyce, W.G., Rollot, Y. and Cifelli, R.L., 2020. A new species of baenid turtle from the Early Cretaceous Lakota Formation of South Dakota. Fossil Record, 23(1), pp.1-13.

# All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
The CT models are archived on Morphosource and are already accessible which is excellent practice.

# Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results. The description is well figured and generally well described. The results and conclusions reached are generally supported by the data. Phylogenetic inferences are based on comparison of a specific characters among a subset of key baenid turtles. These are reasonable considering the available data and are appropriately couched as needing further empirical research. However, it would be very useful for these to be tabulated in additional to the text for reference (cf. Roček, Z., 2008). Alternatively, a detailed phylogenetic analysis could be added to the manuscript highlighting the new information with respect to Joyce, Rollot, and Cifelli (2020).
Roček, Z., 2008. The Late Cretaceous frog Gobiates from Central Asia: its evolutionary status and possible phylogenetic relationships. Cretaceous Research, 29(4), pp.577-591.

.
Additional comments: Detailed comments are itemised and listed by abstract, line number, or figure number below:

Abstract
Please insert USA after “South Dakota”

Abstract
We’d prefer “least nested” to early diverging and basal

Line 32
 “Joyce, Rollot & Cifelli, 2020” should be in brackets

Line 38
Although would be better than “while” here

Line 39
Presumably you mean “X-ray” micro-computed tomography, e.g. rather than neutron micro-computed tomography.
Jones, M.E., Lucas, P.W., Tucker, A.S., Watson, A.P., Sertich, J.J., Foster, J.R., Williams, R., Garbe, U., Bevitt, J.J. and Salvemini, F., 2018. Neutron scanning reveals unexpected complexity in the enamel thickness of an herbivorous Jurassic reptile. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 15(143), p.20180039.

Line 40
Please clarify whether you mean external suture seams, internal suture interfaces, or both.

Line 40
Changing “initially rendered difficult because of” to “obstructed” would make this sentence less wordy and add focus to the main point of the sentences: the reason description was difficult.

Line 40
Perhaps you should state why metal oxides are a problem in this context. Was resolution of the scan an issue? What type of  rock is the skull preserved in?

Line 42
The word “restricting” might be a better word than “leading” here.

Line 43
Please add a couple of sentences to expand upon “only a brief description of OMNH 66106.” How much of the external anatomy was already described?

Line 46-49
A table could be helpful here to summarise the core species of the group, where they are from, their geological age, what anatomical parts are known of them, and the key references describing them.

Line 55
“As part of a” should be the start of a new paragraph

Line 61
You could simply use “here” instead of “herein”.

Line 70
Should contra be in italics?

Line 72
Amira version what?

Line 72
Please clarify what you mean by “interpolated slice-by-slice segmentation”? Did you segment every slice in one plane or did you segment every other slice and interpolate between them using the Amira interpolation tool? Did you check information in the other two planes? Please provide this information.

Line 87
Please add “USA” after “South Dakota” given that PeerJ is an international journal and (believe it or not) not everyone outside North America knows where South Dakota is.

Line 92
Please consider changing “branches into the skull” to “branches into the ventral surface of the skull”.

Line  94
Perhaps add more information to clarify “well-developed axillary and inguinal buttresses”. Perhaps add “of the carapace”. Also what you mean by “well-developed”. How do they compare to other elements of the carapace?

Line 101
Is “a slightly broader skull” a strong enough character to be diagnostic? Both individual variation as well as taphonomic distortion would make this difficult to use as a diagnostic character. The other diagnostic characters of Lakotemys australodakotensis stated are strong enough on their own. Perhaps it would help to provide specific measurements.

Line 110
You might consider adding a short section here describing what key comparative specimens you have examined first hand and which you compare using only the literature.

Line 112
Any lithology for the matrix? Sandstone? Siltstone?

Lines 121 and 136
As stated in the general comments, given the reported erosion and damage to other parts of the skull, it seems uncertain that the observed ridges and striations do represent ornamentation. A close up photo of the area might prove helpful.

Line 180
A close up figure of this nasal maxilla contact would be useful

Line 217
Please change “The frontal is about twice wider posteriorly than anteriorly” to “The frontal is twice as wide posteriorly as it is anteriorly”

Line 209
Citations to Figure 3 and 4 appear out of order?

Line 248-249
You could provide actual measurements here.

Line 248-306
It seems odd that there is no mention of the ornamentation here.

Line 261
Consider adding a paragraph break after “foramen stapedio-temporale in dorsal view (Fig. 2A).”

Line 262
“Whereas” would be better than “while” given that “while” introduces a time clause.

Line 262
Please consider replacing “suture” with “external suture seam” and clarify whether you mean in lateral view.
Jones, M.E., Curtis, N., Fagan, M.J., O’Higgins, P. and Evans, S.E., 2011. Hard tissue anatomy of the cranial joints in Sphenodon (Rhynchocephalia): sutures, kinesis, and skull mechanics. Palaeontologia Electronica, 14(2), p.17A.

Line 266
Consider changing “to be closer to the original state” to “to more accurately reflect the anatomical arrangement in life”.

Line 270
“rider” should be defined for those unfamiliar with such terminology.

Line 272
Consider adding a paragraph break after “but different from the elongated "rider" one of Eubaena cephalica (Werneburg, Evers & Ferreira, 2021).”

Line 288
Please add “(for cranial nerve V)” after the first time you use the phrase “trigeminal foramen”

Line 295
Excellent example of how external suture seams can be highly misleading. See Jones et al. 2011 for other examples.

Line 301
Please re-read and clarify the text here. Presumably you simply mean that the difference in reconstruction between the right and left sides is because the left-side is less well preserved and this issue led to segmentation uncertainties.

Line 308
Please add “are” between “preserved in OMNH 66106 but” and “damaged”.

Line 323
Consider changing “No contact between the ventral process of the postorbital and pterygoid is apparent in OMNH66106, being prevented by the medial process of the jugal.” To “No contact between the ventral process of the postorbital and pterygoid is apparent in OMNH66106 as it is prevented by the medial process of the jugal.”

Line 319
If you think this short contact with the maxilla is important perhaps consider adding the specific figure or page number after the year of the reference.

Line 326
Presumably you mean in dorsal view rather than “on the skull roof”.

Line 328
Which “ventral process”?

Line 329
Posterior is an adjective so you need to add end: “posterior end”

Line 331
You could collate this information with a summary table of taxa and characters (even if you don’t want to perform a phylogenetic analysis at this time), e.g.
Roček, Z., 2008. The Late Cretaceous frog Gobiates from Central Asia: its evolutionary status and possible phylogenetic relationships. Cretaceous Research, 29(4), pp.577-591.

 Line 340
For directness please change “Variation in our reconstructions of the jugal and maxilla is apparent between the two sides of the skull” to “Our reconstructions of the jugal and maxilla differ between the right and left sides””

Line 341
For clarity please change “skull in that this exposure is more extensive in the right jugal.” To “skull in that exposure of the right jugal is greater than exposure of the left jugal”

Line 344
It looks to me like the posterodorsal corner of the maxilla is broken and missing. There is even a shadow on the jugal which might represent the edge of the facet for the maxilla. Can this area be inspected more closely?

Line 348
Please clarify what the shape of the anterior end of the jugal is if known. Is the surface model provided via morphosource complete?
https://www.morphosource.org/concern/parent/000379250/media/000379268

Line 378
You don’t need the qualifier “quite” here. Moreover, this qualifier means different things to different English speakers: in the UK it tends to mean “a lot” whereas in USA it tends to mean “only a little”.
Levshina, N., 2014. Geographic variation of quite+ ADJ in twenty national varieties of English: A pilot study. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2(1), pp.109-126.

Line 398
Providing a subheading for the premaxilla and explicitly stating that it is not preserved is good practice.

Line 415
Please consider replacing “suture” with “external suture seam” and clarify whether you mean in lateral view.
Jones, M.E., Curtis, N., Fagan, M.J., O’Higgins, P. and Evans, S.E., 2011. Hard tissue anatomy of the cranial joints in Sphenodon (Rhynchocephalia): sutures, kinesis, and skull mechanics. Palaeontologia Electronica, 14(2), p.17A.

Line 455
“did not contact” might be better than “were not contacting”

Line 462
The description might be improved by moving all of these comparisons to a separate section after a straight description. However, we appreciate that altering this structure is a non-trivial task and arguably a personal preference.

Line 477
Please clarify what you mean by sutured. Do you mean interdigitated? if so, in what plane?
Please see Jones et al. 2011.

Line 479
Please clarify what the nature of this contact is? Is it a simple butt joint or is there some overlap or interdigitation.

Line 494
Please change “this” to “this feature” or “this trait” (or similar)

Line 515
Consider changing:
“Due to unclear sutures between the basioccipital and exoccipitals, it is not clear if the pterygoid also contacted the exoccipital in this region.”
to
“It is not clear if the pterygoid also contacted the exoccipital in this region because the sutures between the basioccipital and exoccipitals are unclear.”

Line 525
Is there a reference you can cite to support the statement “the pterygoid forms the sulcus cavernosus, which served as the passage for the lateral head vein posteriorly through the braincase”

Line 534
Please consider changing “anteriormost” to “anteriormost foramina”.

Line 539
Is there a reference that you can cite to support the statement:
”consistent with the expectations for a palatine artery canal, thus allowing us to identify it as the canalis caroticus lateralis.”

Line 571
The authors shouldn’t really speculate about phylogenetic position and its implications in the results. Therefore, this section of text should probably be moved to the discussion.

Line 584
For clarity, please qualify what you mean by “this”: “this what?”

Line 625
Please change “this is different” to “this arrangement is different”

Line 784
You should begin the discussion with a few sentences by clarifying what this new description adds to the previous description by Joyce, Rollot, and Cifelli (2020).

Line 786
minor but the entire list of species name is probably not necessary here

Line 851
Plesimorphic might be better than primitive.

Line 833
Starting at “although” should be a new paragraph.

Line 833
It is probably not necessary to relist all of the shared characters as the entire previous part of the discussion covers this in great detail.

Line 848-857
You should add a couple of sentences highlighting the new observations that were not previously reported by Joyce, Rollot, and Cifelli, (2020).

Line 854
Please add a sentence explicitly stating why the presence of “a canal for the palatine artery” is important, e.g. “The presence of the canal provides a potential synapomorphy with Uluops uluops which is supposedly non-beanid paracryptodire turtle (Rollot, Evers & Joyce, 2021a)”.

Line 860
Many thanks for your pre-emptive thank you!

Line 860
Are there any curators or CT technicians that also need to be thanked?

Line 864
Given that PeerJ is an international journal please spell out Oklahoma and add USA.

Line 865
Again, given that PeerJ is an international journal please add USA.

Line 868
Adding the models to Morphosource is excellent practice and we were able to access the scans.

Line 942
The volume number should be in bold.

Figure 1
This figure is useful but would be improved if you can make the matrix a different colour such as brown or orange in Fig 1 A and C? photographs of the specimen or occipital view would also be useful additions.

Also “2cm” should be “2 cm”.
Please change throughout.

Figure 2
“1cm” should be “1 cm”.

Figure 3
If these structures are not covered by matrix a photo of the actual surface should be provided as well.
Also “1cm” should be “1 cm”.
Also “2cm” should be “2 cm”.

Figure 4
“5mm” should be “5 mm”.
“3mm” should be “3 mm”.

Figure 5
Please recheck the scale bars. The one for A is described as 5 mm but seems to include 8 squares whereas the on ein B is described as 1 cm but seems to include 6 squares. Something is wrong.
Also please change “5mm” to “5 mm” etc.

Figure 6
Excellent! We love it. However, the foramen should be labelled with CNV if you are indeed confident that it is the trigeminal nerve.
“2cm” should be “2 cm”.

Figure 7
Please recheck the scale bars. The one for A is labelled as 5 mm but seems to include 4 squares whereas the on ein B is labelled as 5 mm but seems to include 6 squares. Something is wrong.
Also please change “5mm” to “5 mm” etc.

Figure 8
Please recheck the scale bars. The scale bar is labelled as 1 cm but seems to include 6 squares.
Also please change “1cm” to “1 cm”.

Tables
There are currently no tables. However, two tables would be a worthwhile addition:
1. a table of important baenid taxa listing their geographic locality information, geologic age, anatomical representation, and primary reference.
2. a table of measurements (e.g. skull width at the quadrates, quadrate height, foramen magnum width, occipital condyle width) would be useful to include.

.


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: NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE CRANIAL OSTEOLOGY OF THE EARLY CRETACEOUS PARACRYPTODIRAN TURTLE LAKOTEMYS AUSTRALODAKOTENSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made or justified all minor changes suggested by all reviewers, so that I believe this manuscript can be accepted in its current version.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment'
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE CRANIAL OSTEOLOGY OF THE EARLY CRETACEOUS PARACRYPTODIRAN TURTLE LAKOTEMYS AUSTRALODAKOTENSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: As previously communicated, this manuscript provides a description of the cranial material of a specimen of paracryptodiran turtle Lakotemys australodakotensis from the Early Cretaceous of North America. The authors have done a great job of responding to our previous comments. The additional text, tables, and phylogenetic tress elevate the manuscript significantly. The issues regarding the scale bars appear to be fixed. The extra text in the introduction and discussion helps provide context to the description. I anticipate that this manuscript will make a very useful and well cited publication.

# 1.1. Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout? #
The article is written in English and uses clear, unambiguous, and technically correct text. I still think some of the sentences would be better broken in two but pulling threads at this stage might cause more harm than good and the text is certainly good enough. There are also some paragraphs in the discussion that could be broken into two or even three.

# 1.2. Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided? #
The introduction is only slightly longer than before but it is significantly better at showing how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. The phylogenetic trees in figure 1 are an extremely useful addition and will help future scientists understand the context in which this description was made. The table of comparative taxa is also an excellent addition.

# 1.3. Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared? #
The structure of the manuscript is fine.

# 1.4. Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses? #
The additional information added to the manuscript has elevated it to being ‘self-contained,’ and an appropriate ‘unit of publication’. In fact, this manuscript set a great benchmark for similar descriptive papers to aspire to.
Experimental design: # 2.1 Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal (https://peerj.com/about/aims-and-scope/)? #
Yes, the manuscript represents original research in the field of palaeontology which is applicable to Biological Science.

# 2.2. Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap? #
The manuscript has a clearly defined research question: what additional anatomical knowledge of Lakotemys australodakotensis is provided by microCT scanning and what does the additional data indicate regarding the evolution of baenid turtles. One might argue that the study could go further by adding a more detailed phylogenetic analysis but the addition of Table 3 is certainly good enough.

# 2.3 Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard? #
As previously written the investigation appears to have been carried out appropriately. The material has been examined using microCT and the authors are explicit and honest when the CT data is unclear, which is good practice.

# 2.4 Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate? #
The authors have now clarified what they meant by “interpolated slice-by-slice segmentation” which is good. The additional table of comparative material and species is excellent.
Validity of the findings: # 3.1 Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated? #
As previously stated this manuscript arguably represents an “add-on” to a previous description (Joyce, Rollot, and Cifelli, 2020) which did not include a detailed examination of the CT data. However, this new manuscript certainly does add a significant amount of new data and it now included enough background information to make it a really useful piece of work that significantly adds to the previous description.

# 3.2 All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled? #
As stated in our first review, the CT models are archived on Morphosource and are already accessible which is excellent practice.

# 3.3 Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results ? #

The description is well figured and well described. The results and conclusions reached are reasonable and supported by the data. Phylogenetic inferences are based on comparison of a specific characters among a subset of key baenid turtles. These are reasonable considering the available data and are appropriately couched as needing further empirical research. The comparisons are now presented in an easy to read table which is extremely useful. The authors deseve congratulations.
Additional comments: 4.1. General responses to the “Rebuttal letter”
The authors make a very reasonable case for keeping the figure colours as they are. We didn’t intended to push the issue, only raise it. However, we think it is wrong to assume that “virtually all readers” will read the publication on screen. The habits, resources, and opportunities available to people across the world is diverse. Nevertheless, the colour differences are still good enough even in black and white. We admit that our own publications are not beyond criticism.
We are glad that the scale bars could be fixed. We are happy to help.
If photographs wouldn’t provide meaningful images of the ornamentation then there is no need to provide them. Thanks for clarifying.
We are glad you re-checked the manuscript and we accept that it is certainly good enough. However, we do caution that having “two native American English speakers” as co-authors doesn’t necessarily give you a free pass because native speakers can sometime miss issues that cause needless problems for ESL. The re-checks that you’ve done (by both native and non-native speakers) are more important. We do list a couple of further minor suggestions below.
The addition of table 1 is great.
I looks forwards to seeing the future manuscript that includes the phylogenetic analysis. The new figure 1 and table 1 is enough here.
We are gratefully that you clarified what you meant by “interpolated slice-by-slice segmentation” particularly as it differs from what one of us assumed.
The table that lists all comparative material used is excellent!
I enjoyed reading the revised version and look forwards to seeing it published.

4.2  LINE BY LINE COMMENTS
Detailed comments are itemised and listed by abstract, line number, or figure number below according to the new pdf (not the track changes document):

Line 46
I’ve generally been advised not to refer to references as if they are people and not to make references the subject of the sentence. However, maybe it’s OK here.

Line 86
I don’t understand why the authors use “herein” instead of “here”. It’s not as bad as using “utilize” instead of “use” but it still seems like a waste of letters to me for zero gain. Obviously not a big deal though.

Line 809
Perhaps add “Specimen” in front of OMNH 66106 because it’s the beginning of a paragraph.

Line 809
This first paragraphs seems excessively long. Consider whether it is worth breaking in two.

Line 868
Because the sentence is at the start of a new paragraph and not at the end of a paragraph listing the observations I think you should consider changing “these observations” to “the new observations described above” or maybe “the new observations described here”

Line 892
Please cite a publication to support the statement “and thus complements the recent descriptions of Arundelemys dardeni”


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: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OLDER CHILDREN (PAQ-C): ARABIC TRANSLATION, CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION, AND PSYCHOMETRIC VALIDATION IN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN IN SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: •	The English language could be clearer and more fluid;
•	The references used are specific and well presented although they are mostly a bit old.
•	The structure seems to be conform the standards PeerJ;
•	Figures and tables are relevants, well labeled and described, however two of them deserve correction and improvement.
•	The necessary data has been provided.
Experimental design: •	Seeks to harness an existing questionnaire in another language for use in another paísto.
•	Was it not clear how the 8-year-olds answered the questionnaire? It was the same way as the 14! Their understanding was guaranteed?
•	The procedures (line 110-113) should clearly state how the data on personal characteristics were collected, the tool used and the way in which they were applied.
•	It was not clear whether the translators who participated in the study were certified official translators!
•	What are the characteristics of the group of experts who participated in the study, can we consider them specialists!? Its general characteristics that guarantee its competence must be described (Paixão, Abad, & Giménez, 2018).
Validity of the findings: •	The fact that the collection tool is based on a tool that has already been validated in other countries, guarantees more robust scientific knowledge.
•	Its application in different contexts is important for the conclusions to be strengthened.
•	In which the author and the reference value is based to affirm that the psychometric validity is adequate!
•	Why choose a scale of 5? It must be backed up with references, and if 1 is “no activity” and 5 is “seven times or more” what do 2, 3 and 4 mean? The options must be closed and clearly know how many times a week it corresponds.
•	The reference that justifies the validity and significance is very old (1999), a more current reference should be used (Brewer & Jones, 2002; Butragueño & Benito, 2014; Simón, Fernández & Contreras, 2017; Saldaña & García, 2013; Otero, González & Calvo, 2012).
•	It seems to me that the conclusion turns out to be more of a result than the conclusions that can be drawn from the study. Information is also presented in a very telegraphic and unreflective way.
•	Line 215: It seems to me that the term “empirical” evidence is not suitable for statistical tests, it should be revised.
•	In my view the statistical procedures expressed in the results demonstrate statistical robustness.
•	An effort should be made to review the Discussion to improve understanding and readability, clarifying the interpretation of the results.
•	Line 258: when it is stated that the internal consistency is satisfactory, the value must be presented.
•	Line 270: must be presented a reason why the test-retest was not done! Since it is reported in the introduction to be carried out by other studies.
Additional comments: Introduction:
As it is a validation article, it lacks further grounding in this part according to the validation tools used in the process, as the introduction is very much directed only to physical activity.
References:
Reference 4 on line 286 does not appear in the text, however the references presented may be more current, as in this case the theme has been developed in other studies after 1998;
Images and tables:
Table 1: it should have only horizontal lines as the other tables presented;
Figure 1: must also have the legend of the other two lines of data (green and red) and be presented without color, in gray scale;


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: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OLDER CHILDREN (PAQ-C): ARABIC TRANSLATION, CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION, AND PSYCHOMETRIC VALIDATION IN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN IN SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It should be emphasized why the study is important for this sample (Arabic). It should also be stated why the development of the scale is important.Why is it important to develop an Arabic version of this scale?

Introduction section, Information on physical inactivity (maybe numbers for inactivity), especially children in Arabia should be given.

In introduction, it should be explained which theory the study (especially phsyical activity scale) is related to. The phsyical activity should be based on the theory.

Current literature should be used in the introduction. It should be written using current literature (2021, 2020) in a specific flow order as a link between topics.

The hypotheses of the study should be stated.

The English language of the text should be improved
Experimental design: In methods section, cluster sampling method should be based on the scientific sources. A detailed explanation should be given about the sampling method. For example; How many schools have been identified? How many of these were sampled?
How the sample size was calculated should be stated based on scientific sources.
An explanation should be given about where, how and by whom the data is collected.
More detailed information should be given about the characteristics of the participants.
Authors should be informed about the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of participants from the study.
Validity of the findings: More detailed information should be given in the conclusion section. Also, the recommendations section should be added.
Discussion section should be developed.More references should used.
Additional comments: References should be arranged according to the journal format.
According to the quality of this journal, the study is quite simple in terms of methods section.
The aim of the development of the arabic version of the scale or the innovations which the scale will bring to the sports field have not been fully emphasized.


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: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OLDER CHILDREN (PAQ-C): ARABIC TRANSLATION, CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION, AND PSYCHOMETRIC VALIDATION IN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN IN SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the important issues raised in the previous review have been clarified.
Experimental design: The authors satisfactorily met all the needs identified in the previous review.
Validity of the findings: All the changes resulting from the review contributed to a clear improvement of the document, increasing its quality in terms of scientific production.
Additional comments: After the reformulation carried out by the authors, taking into account the different notes of the reviewers, I understand that the article is now ready 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: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OLDER CHILDREN (PAQ-C): ARABIC TRANSLATION, CROSS-CULTURAL ADAPTATION, AND PSYCHOMETRIC VALIDATION IN SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN IN SAUDI ARABIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors made major changes to each part of the article. The article is ready for publication
Experimental design: The authors made major changes to each part of the article. The article is ready for publication
Validity of the findings: The authors made major changes to each part of the article. The article is ready for publication
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: FACTORS RELATED TO OVERWEIGHT AND OBESE POPULATIONS MAINTAINING METABOLIC HEALTH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thanks for giving me the opportunity for reviewing this interesting manuscript. It discovers important features for maintaining metabolic health for people with MHOO. I believe the manuscript itself is clear and unambiguous with relevant literature provided.
Experimental design: This prospective cohort study is well designed with defined research question. However I have some questions as follows:
1. In Table 4, analysis was performed by stratification of age (48), however I can not tell the importance of this stratification from the manuscript, nor there is discussion of this result. Please explain why you use this cut-point and its clinical significance.
2. In Line 295, the author mentioned "...the participants were randomized sampled from....." However I can't understand the randomization process from the study design section.
3. There is no inclusion specific inclusion criteria or exclusion criteria mentioned in the manuscript, please  provide inclusion and exclusion criteria in the study design section with more detail.
4. I think a flow chart regarding the enrollment of subjects, the inclusion and exclusion criteria and further follow-up measurements would help readers to better understand this research.
Validity of the findings: This manuscript includes robust data with statistically soundness. The conclusions are well stated with linkage to original research question. However I have a question regarding subjects who dropped out from the study. Originally, 195 participants with MHOO were included at baseline, but only 89 participants completed the follow-up. In other words, more than 50% of participants dropped out and this could cause a selection bias. Please explain the reason why these participants could not finish the follow-up, or you may add this to the limitation section.
Additional comments: Please copyedit your manuscript text to correct grammatical and typographical errors.


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: FACTORS RELATED TO OVERWEIGHT AND OBESE POPULATIONS MAINTAINING METABOLIC HEALTH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	The main issue here is that the reference for the consensus definition for metabolic syndrome appears incorrect. There is consensus around the definition of metabolic syndrome, resulting in the international harmonized definition of metabolic syndrome. The authors should use that as their primary definition in order to ensure comparability with other studies and other populations. It is understandable to want to assess a more stringent definition of metabolically healthy (especially in populations like this where more participants fall into that category), but this should be done in the context of modifying the harmonized definition. For example, specifying no MetS criteria or only 1 MetS criteria to be “healthy”.
Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, et al. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009;120(16):1640-1645. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.192644

2.	Additional care in the language and framing of the results when discussing the direction of the estimates with respect to preserving metabolic health would help the reader keep track of the appropriate interpretations.

3.	More data on this topic is needed from different Asian populations living in Asia. This unique population is a major strength of this manuscript. I commend the authors for their appropriate use of population specific cut-points for overweight and obesity. The discussion could be strengthened by putting comparison of these results with that from prior work in this context. As mentioned above, the large proportion of this population that meets a more stringent defintion of metabolically healthy obesity is worth mentioning as many western cohorts have too few particiapnts in this category to investigate.
Experimental design: The study suffers from substantial threats to validity and clarity of methods could be improved. The suggestions are in order of importance.

1.	The issue of selection bias from massive loss to follow up cannot be ignored. At the very least a table comparing baseline values of those who remain in the study compared to those who dropped out is needed with commentary on the direction and suspected magnitude of the bias. If possible, assessment of competing risks including information on how many participants did not complete the follow up because they died would be useful. While the original sample being random and fully generalizable is wonderful, if the loss to follow up is differential, then this study will be impacted.

2.	Additional specifics about the analysis are needed for clarification. Were data from the follow-up included as exposures in the models? This is not clear and changes the interpretation of the results. For instance, why is the reference group for BMI a category that was excluded at baseline? Additionally, that category is only represented by 15 participants during follow-up, making this a statistically weak reference group in addition to being inconsistent with the original eligibility criteria. Including changes over time, but not showing whether the results for change over time differ from baseline levels is confusing.

3.	Stepwise variable selection is not an appropriate method of variable selection for causal inference. An epidemiologic approach that considers the potential causal relationships of the variables including confounders, mediators, and colliders is better. For instance, removing socioeconomic factors from the model because they are not significant, does nothing to address their potential as confounders of the other variables.

4.	Please define “Follow-up year”. Does this imply longer duration of follow-up for every participant? More information on the range of follow-up would be informative here.

5.	Were those who lost weight more likely to be older? Could this be a source of reverse causality with those who are sicker or frailer more likely to close weight? Similarly, including the number of participants with pre-existing comorbidities in Table 1 would be helpful. Was prevalent CVD excluded or adjusted for? The inclusion of participants with prevalent CVD could impact the results as the relationship between risk factors and outcomes often differs for incident and prevalent cases.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are well linked to the results; however, the validity of the results may be threatened by the biases described in the Design section. Once those threats to validity are addressed, the results may be well supported.
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: FACTORS RELATED TO OVERWEIGHT AND OBESE POPULATIONS MAINTAINING METABOLIC HEALTH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I believe the revised manuscript itself is clear and unambiguous with relevant literature provided.
Experimental design: Thanks for the authors to answer my questions. However I still have a doubt concerning Table 2, which compared health behaviors and cardiometabolic profiles of MHOO participants at baseline and follow-up.

In Methods section of your revised manuscript, line 308, you wrote: "The definition of metabolic health......compromised of [1] an absence of cardiometabolic diseases, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, Type 2 diabetes, coronary artery diseases, cerebral vascular diseases, and peripheral vascular diseases and [2] the presence of ≤ 1 of the following cardiometabolic profiles......" Those who did not satisfy the definition of MHOO in this study were excluded.

However, in Table 2, there were still 26 of 89 participants who had Hypertension,  7 with Hyperglycemia, 7 with Low HDL and 10 with elevated TG. These results are quite confused with exclusion criteria. Please explain.
Validity of the findings: Thanks for the authors to answer my questions. In discussion section, line 1154, you wrote: "our study population was Taiwanese people, so the generalizability of our results may be limited to other populations." That is true, however I still want to remind that the obesity prevalence, diet pattern and health behaviors were very different between different regions across Taiwan. As followed reference:

Yeh CJ, Chang HY, Pan WH. Time trend of obesity, the metabolic syndrome and related dietary pattern in Taiwan: from NAHSIT 1993-1996 to NAHSIT 2005-2008. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2011;20(2):292-300.

Thus, since your study enrolled only participants living in the Northern region of Taiwan, there is a chance that different results would be discovered if further study with participants from other regions of Taiwan is made.
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: FACTORS RELATED TO OVERWEIGHT AND OBESE POPULATIONS MAINTAINING METABOLIC HEALTH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: My only final comment is that adjustment for multiple testing is not necessary in this manuscript and can be removed. Adjustment for multiple testing assumes that each test is independent, and that is not the case here.
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: ECOMORPHOSPACE OCCUPATION OF LARGE HERBIVOROUS DINOSAURS FROM LATE JURASSIC THROUGH TO LATE CRETACEOUS TIME IN NORTH AMERICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript by Wyenberg-Henzler, titled "Ecomorphospace occupation of large herbivorous dinosaurs from Late Jurassic through to Late Cretaceous time in North America," provides an interesting and informative approach to discussions of ecological competition and replacement in major dinosaur groups. The paper is clearly written, with complete citations of relevant papers, and an appropriately conservative interpretation of the results.
Experimental design: The methods presented here are out of my area of immediate expertise, so I cannot provide substantive comment in this area.
The research question is well defined and appropriately tied to previous discussions in the field.
The methods are sufficiently described, and appropriate data are available.
The paper mentions concerns about sample size for some clades. For time periods and regions when a particular species had low diversity, there's probably not much that can be done about it. In other cases, would it be possible and appropriate to use related taxa from other times or regions as a proxy? Early Cretaceous sauropods are one particular example -- there is only one in the sample (Abydosaurus), but there are of course other taxa known from postcrania. Could skulls of related taxa (e.g., from Europe) be used as substitutes? This is not ideal, of course, but might be helpful for the particularly important segment of the Early Cretaceous.
Validity of the findings: All required data are provided, and seem to be sound.
Conclusions are appropriately constrained given the data and results.
Additional comments: This is briefly mentioned, but it would be worth further emphasizing that there can be avoidance of competition by inhabiting different environments or cycling through landscapes at different times of year.

The issue of competition focuses primarily on diet, which is of course quite important. But...competitive exclusion can also be mediated by things such as reproductive traits, or other life history traits (e.g., growth rate), or resistance to predation.... This is mentioned in part in the discussion, but I think it is important to focus on how other traits might displace sauropods other than diet. We don't know a lot about this of course for most dinosaurs, but it could be yet another explanatory factor.

Overall, any suggestions I have are pretty minor. The overall work is very nicely done!


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

Input:
Title: ECOMORPHOSPACE OCCUPATION OF LARGE HERBIVOROUS DINOSAURS FROM LATE JURASSIC THROUGH TO LATE CRETACEOUS TIME IN NORTH AMERICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: An excellent quantitative analysis to examine the hypothesis of competitive evolution in the history of North American large-bodied herbivorous dinosaurs.

The text is clear and well-written. The material and references are up-to-date. The flow of the presentation of the analyses and their interpretation is reasonable and sensible.
Experimental design: The measurements chosen for study are reasonable (and previously used in similar such analyses); the statistics used are appropriate for the type of data; and the results are fairly interpreted. The figures succinctly summarize the data well. Of special note: the author is very clear on the current limitations of the data and the necessity to examine these on a broad scale for that reason.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are sound given the experimental results. The data and methods are described in sufficient detail to allow an independent researcher to duplicate this study.
Additional comments: Many apologies for the lateness of this review.

If the author continues this work into the future, it would be interesting (if sufficient data density allowed) to partition the Late Cretaceous into earlier (Cenomanian-Turonian) and later (Campanian-Maastrichtian) divisions. This would reflect the time before the rise of megaherbivorous ceratopsians versus the age of the Ceratopsidae. There is a similar transition in the makeup of the apex predators at these same divisions (Nesbitt et al. 2019 in the manuscript references; also, Holtz 2021).

Holtz, T.R., Jr. 2021. Theropod guild structure and the tyrannosaurid niche assimilation hypothesis: implications for predatory dinosaur macroecology and ontogeny in later Late Cretaceous Asiamerica. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 58: 778-795. doi: 10.1139/cjes-2020-017

COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS, SUGGESTIONS
p.7, line 44	Although not universally followed, the preference is to use Ma only for specific dates (in the context of “millions of years ago”) and Myr for durations. See, for instance, Aubry et al. 2009:
Aubry, M.-P., J.A. Van Couvering, N. Christie-Blick, E. Landling, B.R. Pratt, D.E. Owen & I. Ferrusquía-Villafranca. 2009. Terminology of geological time: establishment of a community standard. Stratigraphy 6: 100-105. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~ncb/Selected_Articles_all_files/25_Stratigraphy.6.100.pdf
p.7, line 59	As useful as it would be (especially for terrestrial paleontologists), there is no formal epoch “Middle Cretaceous”. As such, the “middle” here should be lowercase (and indeed, “mid-Cretaceous” might be preferred).
p.8, line 63	A very important point, especially as the skeletal, dental, and footprint records all fail to find stegosaurs and non-titanosauriform sauropods in Early Cretaceous North America.
p. 13, line 190	These “blocks of time” are simply the standard Epochs of international stratigraphy. You should note, however, that you are excluding the Berriasian through the Hauterivian in your Early Cretaceous. (Also, the base of the Barremian is currently regarded as ~129.4 Ma: https://stratigraphy.org/gssps/)
p. 14, line 207	While stegosaurs are often regarded as low-browsers (and almost certainly were primarily such), Mallison (2010) has shown that a tripodal feeding posture in this clade is at least feasible. It might be interesting to see what your results yield if you include the possibility of mid-level feeding in Stegosauria.
Mallison, H. 2010. CAD assessment of the posture and range of motion in Kentrosaurus aethiopicus Hennig 1915. Swiss Journal of Geosciences 103: 211-233. Doi: 10.1007/s00015-010-0024-2
p. 21, line 371	It is worth noting that although you have only one Jurassic ankylosaur in your analysis (Gargoyleosaurus), at least one more is known (Mymoorapelta) which couldn’t be included in your metrics as there is nothing yet like a complete skull known for it. Thus, lack of overlap might be less if we knew a bit more about Morrison ankylosaur cranial diversity.
p. 22, line 386	Did Benton really claim that competitive interactions only occurred over 1-10 years? I cannot find this statement in his text. I believe this might be a typo, and you meant ~100-101 Myr.