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: HIGHER BEE ABUNDANCE, BUT NOT PEST ABUNDANCE, IN LANDSCAPES WITH MORE AGRICULTURE ON A LATE-FLOWERING LEGUME CROP IN TROPICAL SMALLHOLDER FARMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Basic Reporting
The title should be higher honeybee densities, not bee densities.
Abstract:
L26: Apiformes should not be italicised – only the species binomial name is italicised.
L30: Just state bees, rather than pollinating bees. Not all bees are pollinators, and this study did not test their pollinating ability.
L36: How long were the transect, what length of time did you walk them? How many people walked them? Were bees captured?
Results should be written in past tense, for example:  we did not, rather than we do not
L43: Remove “we see that”
Discussion section: Again, this should be written in past tense.
Did you quantify resources in natural areas? Is this an assumption that alternative foraging resources were scares there?
Introduction:
L69: Insert ‘a’ before ‘recent meta-analysis’
L79: large rather than larger
L83: I would say commercially important, not ‘interesting’
L85: Reference required for Africa’s food security issues
L86: Pesticides however don’t necessarily reduce crop losses – I think this should be acknowledged
L104: Apiformes shouldn’t be italicised.
Results: I am confused as to why you report bee abundance and species richness for landscape variables, but then bee density and accumulative bee species richness when looking at fruit set. Can you please be consistent with the metrics you use in reporting results?
Discussion:
L253: it didn’t increase the abundance of pollinators: rather, it increased the abundance of honeybees.
Whether this is due to a beneficial effect of agricultural crops on honeybees is also uncertain. As you rightfully note in L263, surrounding agricultural land had managed honeybees which were the source of the increased honeybees observed on nearby pea fields. I would advise seeing if you could quantify honeybee colony densities in the landscape.
L304: I don’t think you can justify this statement. Firstly, you found increasing honeybees did not increase fruit set. Secondly, there is the possibility honeybees are excluding native bees – you have a small sample size, but I would recommend seeing if there is a negative correlation between honeybees and the wild solitary bees. It may be that if honeybees were absent, there would be more wild solitary bees, who may be better pollinators of pea plants (which has been found in diverse pea crop species and wild crop species: e.g. Aouar-Sadli, M., Louadi, K., & Doum, S. E. (2008). Pollination of the broad bean (Vicia faba L. var. major)(Fabaceae) by wild bees and honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) and its impact on the seed production in the Tizi-Ouzou area (Algeria). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 3(4), 266-272; Aouar-Sadli, M., Louadi, K., & Doum, S. E. (2008). Pollination of the broad bean (Vicia faba L. var. major)(Fabaceae) by wild bees and honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) and its impact on the seed production in the Tizi-Ouzou area (Algeria). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 3(4), 266-272; Gross, C. L. (2001). The effect of introduced honeybees on native bee visitation and fruit-set in Dillwynia juniperina (Fabaceae) in a fragmented ecosystem. Biological conservation, 102(1), 89-95.)
Conclusion: you did not measure landscape complexity per se, so I would rephrase this.
References:
Inconsistent formatting. Please fix.
Experimental design: 2.	Experimental design
Methods:
Please provide information on how large each field was. Also, were peas the only flowering plants in the fields or were wildflowers/flowering weeds also present?
Were fields all sampled on the same day?
There is a big difference between many bee assemblages being active at 08:00 vs. 16:00, with resources being depleted across the day. Did you randomise when each field was surveyed over the day?
L132: How were they captured? I find it unlikely that ALL were captured – were bees that were observed but not captured counted? How many people conducted the sampling? Was it the same investigator each survey? This is important because if not you may need to account for inter-observer error.
L136: Did you investigate if pea planting density influenced bees or beetles? You have the data, so I recommend looking at this, and ensuring flower density if significant didn’t co-vary with landscape variables.
L142: What were these morphospecies groupings? Who identified the bees? Where were they deposited (which institution/museum?)
L115: What variety was this please?
Linear regression is inappropriate – as you revisited the same field sites mixed effect models with site as a random factor should be used.
L214: this is proportion data, and so a glmer with the binomial family should be used.
L227: how were these assumptions tested? If the assumptions were not met, what did you do?
Given the dominance of honeybees and their different life-history to native bees, I would recommend doing the statistical analyses separately for honeybees vs. native bees regarding abundance.
Were managed honeybees kept on any of the farms?
Were the pea plants field treated with herbicides or insecticides?
I strongly believe 10 mins over 15 m is inadequate sampling effort. I recommend conducting the study over another year and sampling for a longer duration.
Validity of the findings: 3.	Validity of the findings

The limited sampling duration limits the validity of the findings, and different statistical tests are required (include site as a random effect to account for re-visits).
More information on the methodology is required to be able to judge the validity of the results.

Results: Please also conduct analyses on the influence of proportion of natural habitat on native bee abundance and honeybee abundance separately, and the relationship between honeybee abundance and proportion of agricultural habitat. I acknowledge that at present the sample size is small, hence I recommend conducting another year of surveys and increasing the sampling effort.
Additional comments: Thank you for you research into what you point out, is an understudied region. Although I believe this research has great potential, there are a number of factors that need to be addressed before this manuscript is of publishable quality. I hope you find my comments and feedback useful.

This article contributes to studies outside of northern hemisphere temperate ecosystems, which are certainly understudied, and I applaud the authors for undertaking this understudied topic of research.
Please have a taxonomist identify your specimens, and provide a list of the species, and where they are deposited.


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: HIGHER BEE ABUNDANCE, BUT NOT PEST ABUNDANCE, IN LANDSCAPES WITH MORE AGRICULTURE ON A LATE-FLOWERING LEGUME CROP IN TROPICAL SMALLHOLDER FARMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors report the results from a landscape study on pollinators and pests in pigeon pea in Malawi. The manuscript is well-structured. The language can be more concise (see many detailed comments on this provided below). Some more background information would be helpful, if it exists (see detailed comments on the introduction below).
Experimental design: The research questions are well defined and the research fills an identified knowledge gap. The research design and execution is sound. The bagging treatment is mixing effects of pollinators and florivorous pests on the crop, but this is acknowledged. Sample sizes are limited (number of sites, number of insects collected), but sufficient for statistical analyses. The methodology should be clarified in some cases (see detailed comments provided).
Validity of the findings: See below a few minor comments on the underlying data files provided.
Additional comments: Detailed comments

Abstract
L36. blister beetles
L41. Consider to delete “We show that” (it is clear from the heading “Results” that these are your results.
L43. Delete ”We see that”. blister beetle
L44-45. We did not
L49. explaining -> which could explain
L50. “high proportions of SNH” Also, use, or avoid using, the abbreviation SNH in some consistent manner (compare with L28, 29). Check throughout manuscript. Introduce the abbreviation once in the abstract and once in the main text if you are using it.

Introduction
L59. world’s
L60. Suggest to delete “real”
L72. It would be helpful to clarify a bit what you mean by “different contexts”
L76-77. Clarify what is the difference between this argument and that SNH can be a source of pests (mentioned on L75)?
L81. “within the African context”. Consider to write “in Africa” instead.
L88. Specify the regions or reformulate “in African regions” to “in Africa”.
L90. Italicize the scientific name.
L91. due to its
L93. Recommend to use pigeon pea (singular, as on L90) or at least not mix singular and plural. Comment applies throughout manuscript (and also for groundnut/s).
L93-95. It would be helpful to provide if there is more information about this pest. Is it one or several species? How do they damage yield / do they eat the reproductive parts of the flowers?
L96-97. Clarify what are the pests causing these yield losses.
L98-100. It is unclear to me from this statement what proportion of pigeon pea yield that is pollinator dependent. Bees provide 20-90% of the cross pollination, but unclear what vectors provide the rest (other insects?) and the degree of selfing of the crop (or is it fully cross-pollinated?).
L102. Consider to delete “Considering all of the above,”
L105. Consider if you need to modify this statement here, and also in the abstract because you are not using fruit set directly in analyses, but rather always the difference in fruit set between open and bagged.

Materials and Methods
L113. Provide the scientific name for groundnut.
L116. Suggest to delete “very”, L120 “quite” etc throughout as these words to not add any objective meaning.
L121-122. Specify the overlap by providing the distances to the two nearby fields. The overlap does not seem large to me based on the map.
L123-126. Some justification for choosing the 1 km radius would be useful.
L137. It is unclear to me what you mean by counting pigeon peas (plant individuals? pea numbers?) across the transect, and how this could serve as a proxy for planting density. Also unclear why planting density is an important covariate. It seems flower density could have been an important covariate though when you count or collect flower-visiting insects.
L138. Three times. Repetition from above.
L139. It would be good to specify how you define weather that is favorable for bees.
L156. we removed
L160. Delete “actually”.
L161. “three times at eight”
L162. How many clusters were assessed each visit at each site and how do you separate blister beetle damage from damage caused by other pests?
L167. How come you focus on pods produced per flower as a measure of pollination success only? What about peas per pod, or pea weight?
L168. It would be helpful to mention that flowers were counted when they were bagged in the “Flower exclusion” paragraph. You can consider to merge this paragraph with that one.
L172-173. Clarify the proportion missing data.
L175. I recommend to have this paragraph earlier in the methods, after “Study area and field selection” (where you talk about the landscape composition around your fields).
L181. involved (methods are normally written in past tense, check this throughout).
L225. Suggest to delete “actually”.
L227. I think it would be good if you clarify a bit what assumptions you tested for.

Results
L231. Delete “different”.
There are only two figures and three tables in the main text, so I think it would be possible to include some (or all) of the supplementary tables and figures in the main text.

Discussion
L260, 271, 272, 286, 302. Delete “rather”, “completely”, “seems to”, “seem to”, “rather”,
L273-284. Some condensing of this text is possible.
L313. Clarify what you mean with “complex landscape effects”.
L317. contexts
L317-320. I do not think you need triple expressions of uncertainty, especially as this is your concluding sentence. “indicates” in the beginning of the text is enough to express uncertainty across the full line of thought. You can remove “could” and “might” from this sentence.

Appendix 1
mosaic (typo). Check for consistent use of capital letters.

Figure 2, legend
“between between” (word duplicated by mistake). Relationship between A and B, not relationship between A on B.

Table 2.
Provide p-value decimals in some consistent manner. Unclear why it says “(Log)” after “Proportion of damaged flowers”. I did not see this being explained anywhere.

Data files
Proportion damage is termed “percent.damage” in the Excel file, but the numbers are proportions.
Please check that you use percent and proportion correctly here and throughout the manuscript.

Was does the comment “Empty pod” mean in fruit set data? If a pod is formed but contain no peas should it then contribute to pod set?

Was does the variable “Overlap.100m” mean in the landscape data?


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

Input:
Title: HIGHER BEE ABUNDANCE, BUT NOT PEST ABUNDANCE, IN LANDSCAPES WITH MORE AGRICULTURE ON A LATE-FLOWERING LEGUME CROP IN TROPICAL SMALLHOLDER FARMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: L. 90: 'Cajanus cajan' should be written in italics.
L. 106: 'SNH' is mentioned here, but not yet explained previously.

L. 115: Here it is mentioned that the peak of the bloom is in May. I think this might be a good place to mention the duration of the bloom here as well.

Could you please present Table 3 in the same format as Table 2? A similar type of results are presented in both tables, yet the way of presenting makes Table 2 much more accessible. Furthermore, it increases the consistency of the manuscript, and hence the overall readability.
Experimental design: Could you please mention the size of the studied pigeon pea fields? I think this contributes to the reader's overall conceptualization of the study.

Could you please mention the mesh size of the used organza bags?

L. 242 – 245: This part of the results concerns the ‘Landscape effects on blister beetle damage and fruit set difference’ as written in the subtitle. Yet I believe the effects on fruit set are not reported in the text. Effects of the landscape on ‘blister beetle damage’ and ‘the proportion of damaged flowers on the tagged open clusters’ are mentioned. Yet the effects of the landscape on the difference in fruit set between open and bagged flower clusters is not mentioned in the text.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Dear authors,

You performed an interesting study, which you performed and discussed carefully. All this work is presented in a very well-written manuscript. I only have a few minor remarks.


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: HIGHER BEE ABUNDANCE, BUT NOT PEST ABUNDANCE, IN LANDSCAPES WITH MORE AGRICULTURE ON A LATE-FLOWERING LEGUME CROP IN TROPICAL SMALLHOLDER FARMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have re-read the manuscript following the revision. I am satisfied with how the authors have dealt with most of my comments and those of the other reviewers, and I think that the manuscript has improved significantly as a result. I have a few more comments, most of them as a result of the revisions made.

L28. You can remove the acronym SNH from the abstract since you now decided not to use  the abbreviation in the abstract.

L30, 32. I think the abstract would become more clear if you replace “visited and unvisited” with bagged and open and bagged flowers (or add bagged and open within parenthesis) (note that you use "bagged and open" on L44).

L39. “of visited flowers” is confusing here. I think you can remove it.

L87-89. Add references for this new sentence, regarding (1) increased pesticide use in Africa, (2) lack of target effects of pesticides, and (3) side-effects human health and the environment.

L101-102. Clarify if you are referring to one ("Hycleus sp. is a common pest") or multiple pest species here ("Hycleus spp. are common pests").

L119. Why “fruit set on open flowers” here for the pollinators (but fruit set difference for pest damage)? As stated previously, you always analyze effects on fruit set difference.

L196, L298, L360. did not, cannot.

Check your manuscript carefully for small mistakes such as mix of capital and non-capital letters (Appendix 2, appendix 3) and double spaces.
Experimental design: L138-140. Provide separate results for the two landscape variables.

L147-148. This is still not clear. According to the map, this one site seems to be more than 885 meters from other sites. Do you mean 885 m from the outer edge of the 1km landscape buffer of another site? Also, was it exactly at the same distance from both its neighbor sites?

L272-273. Does this exclusion of data also applies to the analysis in the previous paragraph?

L286. With the revised information about presence of unmanaged honeybees in the study area, I find this distinction between the two groups “honeybees” and “wild bees” confusing. If I understand correctly honeybees are mostly wild bees in your study area. In either case, use the same group name everywhere (non-honeybees are termed solitary bees in eg Appendix 6)

L298-299. Why the addition of “LM:” here – what does it mean and why is it only used here?
Validity of the findings: L367. Why only solitary bees, and not wild social bees.

Supplements:

I do still not understand all variables in the provided data files. Metadata description (for example, an explanation of each variable name what it means) would be helpful. How do I eg interpret that "Overlap.1000m" > 0 for five of the ten sites? Maybe this is a mistake on my end, and I am just not looking in the correct place, because the authors state that they have “explained what it means in the datafile description provided by PeerJ”. Please clarify.
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: HIGHER BEE ABUNDANCE, BUT NOT PEST ABUNDANCE, IN LANDSCAPES WITH MORE AGRICULTURE ON A LATE-FLOWERING LEGUME CROP IN TROPICAL SMALLHOLDER FARMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Dear editor and authors,
To my opinion, the authors have carefully revised the manuscript as a great effort to address all my concerns, as well as those of the other reviewers. This has significantly improved the manuscript, and I have no further concerns.


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: RETINOIC ACID INDUCED PROTEIN 14 (RAI14) IS DISPENSABLE FOR MOUSE SPERMATOGENESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes the knockout of Rai14 in mouse model and it's effects on spermatogenesis. The conclusions of this manuscript show that Rai14 is dispensable for mouse spermatogenesis, which is a different result from a rat model. The manuscript could benefit from a more thorough background and/or conclusions section. For example, what could be the reasons for the differences in the different animal models? Are there differences in the protein function? How is this applicable to human health and male fertility?
The manuscript is generally well written and clear, but should be edited one more time for English language. E.g. line 66 - among the various junctions existed in the seminiferous...and line 79 - Theses domains.
The raw data for Figure 2C shows body weight for 3 animals and one testicular weight for each animal. Was only one testis weighed?
The fluorescent images are very hard to see. In 1D, it may be helpful to draw a line around the tubule, it's hard to discern what's what in that image. Same for 3 C-G. Also, in 3 C-G, it would be helpful to see less magnified images to get an idea of the expression pattern of each marker. Figure 4 D-G, it is very hard to see what the authors are trying to show. Again, in addition to the current images, a less magnified image would be helpful.
What is the purpose of Figure 2 G? It is hard to see the actually morphology of the sperm with this magnification.
Experimental design: The study is well designed and the results support the conclusions. However, can the authors add for Figure 3 C-G, how many samples were analyzed, were cross sections counted, if yes, how many cross-sections per group.
Validity of the findings: The results are valid and supported by the data. All raw data files are provided.
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: RETINOIC ACID INDUCED PROTEIN 14 (RAI14) IS DISPENSABLE FOR MOUSE SPERMATOGENESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Grammar needs to be improved.
Experimental design: See general comments, below.
Validity of the findings: See general comments, below.
Additional comments: Grammar needs to be improved throughout, perhaps through the assistance of an English-speaking colleague or grammar service.

64-6: would not say spermatogenesis occurs as a result of “extensive restructuring” – these things occur in somatic cells, but there is no evidence these direct spermatogenesis as implied here
67-73: this reviewer’s understanding is that the apical and basal ESs are distinct junctions, both in location and construction (basal = tight junction, and apical = adherens junction?), and therefore likely should not be grouped and described as if they are one and the same; please clarify
75: “proved to be”? That’s a strong statement – what evidence is provided outside of RPE cells? In the testis? And it’s obviously regulated by more than just RA, if it’s only expressed in the testis and placenta in vivo
79: replace “generally”
80-81: “located at both Sertoli and germ cells” – what does this mean? In all germ cells? In all Sertoli cells?
82: replace “could” – is this just speculation? Do they actually do it, or just when they feel like it?
83: typically siRNA approaches don’t “silence”, but knock down mRNA levels; and what age Sertoli cells were used, were they adult, or juvenile before these junctions formed? And if in vitro, were these junctions formed? If not, how useful are those observations?
86: “impeded” means slow down, delay, hinder… none of these really sound like they describe spermatid polarity and adhesion; what is meant by “spermatid movement”? Is this the observation that spermatids tend to be found at different points in the epithelium during spermiogenesis? Is this critical for their development? What mechanisms are known to regulate it?
89: replace “several lines of evidence” with something like – it has been observed in several studies that there are phenotypic differences in KD vs KO models
95-6: Seems strange that the entire Introduction is leading the reader to believe that RAI14 has an important role, and then the conclusion comes as a let-down – which it shouldn’t, the data is the data… would consider re-framing the Introduction so this isn’t so ‘jarring’
100: is “healthy” really necessary? Does anybody working in reproduction purposefully use unhealthy mice?
 Methods: Describe how was fixation done for IF, also electron microscopy
155: sperm from the cauda epididymis are far from “mature”
155-6: using what software, and what parameters? More details are required
160: epididymides = plural
203: replace “elimination” with absence
208: was that previous result in testis in vivo, or in Sertoli cell cultures? Please clarify
223: was this gammaH2AX or phosphorylated gammaH2AX?
224: typo
230: but not in your observation, correct? And it wasn’t expression, but rather localization
241-2: how did the authors distinguish the phalloidin staining for F-actin in the apical ES vs the tubulobulbar complex, a spermatid F-actin rich structure?
251-2: A rather odd non sequitur to start the Discussion – and lots and lots of studies using bulk and single cell RNA-seq have been done since that 2003 study; and the Ikawa and Matzuk labs have published several other papers more recently, but with the same conclusion that could be cited here

280: why use “efficient Rai14 targeting” to describe a global KO? It was all-or-nothing

Fig. 1 – Negative control for immunostaining (in D)? What specifically is RAI14 localized to? What stage tubule is shown in each? Does RAI14 localization differ during spermiogenesis? Provide a higher-mag image that shows staining more clearly.

Figures – the different figures, symbols, centered, etc need to be lined up, equivalent spacing provided

Fig. 5 – What stages?


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: RETINOIC ACID INDUCED PROTEIN 14 (RAI14) IS DISPENSABLE FOR MOUSE SPERMATOGENESIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made the requested changes  and considerably improved the quality of the manuscript.
Experimental design: Experimental design is adequate and well defined.
Validity of the findings: Results are valid.
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: RETINOIC ACID INDUCED PROTEIN 14 (RAI14) IS DISPENSABLE FOR MOUSE SPERMATOGENESIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript is much improved in terms of readability and data presentation.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The authors should be commended for taking the reviewers' suggestions seriously and addressing each point. It is this reviewer's opinion that the manuscript is 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: METASYCHIS VARICOLLARIS SP. NOV. AND REPORT OF METASYCHIS GOTOI (MALDANIDAE, ANNELIDA) FROM THE CHINA SEAS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear Editor of Pee Journal Dr. James Reimer

I would like to thanks to authors for suggest my name to review this paper, especially be a group of Maldanidae, which worked for almost seven years.

I would like to give some suggestions on manuscript entitled: Metasychis varicollares sp. nov., and report of Metasychis gotoi (Maldanidae, Annelida) from China Seas by Yueyun Wang, Xinzheng Li, Chunsheng Wang.

In general this manuscript reasonable, and deserve to be published after many changes. I didn’t understand some sentences and expressions, principally in relation to the description of the new species, but I pointed on the manuscript. Please, if the author need some informations I’ll be always to dispostion. I’m not a native speaker English, but according to my experience in the family Maldanidae, and in this genus, I was thoroug. I think that Dr G.W. Rouse and/or Dr. James Blake will make a better review of the text in English, and improve it in general.   THE GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLSHI LANGUAGE NEED TO BE GREATLY IMPROVED.

TITLE: I made few changes in the title, and suggestion.
ABSTRACT: Need improved.
INTRODCTION: Need improved.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:It’s good.
SYSTEMATICS: Improved the ms in general.
REFERENCES: Plese, check citation and references in general. They need to improved

ALL SUGGESTIONS ARE IN THE MSN
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I would like to thanks to authors for suggest my name to review this paper, especially be a group of Maldanidae, which worked for almost seven years.
I would like to give some suggestions on manuscript entitled: Metasychis varicollares sp. nov., and report of Metasychis gotoi (Maldanidae, Annelida) from China Seas by Yueyun Wang, Xinzheng Li, Chunsheng Wang.
The manuscript need substancial changes.


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: METASYCHIS VARICOLLARIS SP. NOV. AND REPORT OF METASYCHIS GOTOI (MALDANIDAE, ANNELIDA) FROM THE CHINA SEAS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is reported a new species of Metasychis and M. gotoi from China Seas. The new species is well described. The report represents a contribution that further improves the knowledge of the biodiversity of this group and of polychaetes.

I recommend some minor modifications for improving the manuscript.
1. Please provide photographs of the specimen like Wang et al. (2016) Fig. 3.
2. Fig. 2B should be revised because it does not contain the anterior margin of chaetiger 1.
 3. I think that M. disparidentata sensu Imajima and Shiraki (1982) also resembles the new species. A comparison with Imajima's descriptions will provide a better understanding of the relationships between the Asian Metasychis species.

Additional comments are provided in the PDF file.

Yours sincerely
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: METASYCHIS VARICOLLARIS SP. NOV. AND REPORT OF METASYCHIS GOTOI (MALDANIDAE, ANNELIDA) FROM THE CHINA SEAS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes a new species of marine worm from China and reports on an additional maldanid species that is widely distributed in China seas. The authors describe the new species using the appropriate techniques (Light and electron microscopy) and there is no question that the proposed new species is indeed undescribed.

The introduction is missing some recent literature about the phylogeny of maldanids and I have indicated in the revision.

The description needs to be improved to follow the telegraphic style and I have provided many suggestions throughout the manuscript.

The figures are of good quality but the authors should re-think about ordering them to follow a more standard structure (A to C, left to right, for example).
Experimental design: The manuscript is within the scope of PeerJ in the Biological Sciences field, although it is only reporting on two species (one newly described) with limited impact. The authors did not include any molecular data but as a taxonomist myself, I think that it should not be discourage publication hence morphological description is well performed.

The methods section is well described and with sufficient detail.
Validity of the findings: The paper describes a new polychaete species so the findings are novel per se.
Additional comments: I have provided many suggestions to improve the flow of the manuscript, especially the descriptions that should be in telegraphic style. Additional comments and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file.


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

Input:
Title: METASYCHIS VARICOLLARIS SP. NOV. AND REPORT OF METASYCHIS GOTOI (MALDANIDAE, ANNELIDA) FROM THE CHINA SEAS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear Editor
I want to thank you and authors

The authors did all substantial changes pointed the anterior review. I make many happy with all changes. Although, small errors persisted. For example: In main text we can find: citation of two kinds: Author & Author  -  Author and Author. Please, the authros can be consistent. There are some erros in references, for example: After name of journal, we can see with can or point, or nothing. Please, can be consistent. Some references are missing Volume.
The added the discussion and it is good now.
In general, the ms is good and can be published after minor errors.
Thank you very much
Experimental design: Dear Editor
I want to thank you and authors

The authors did all substantial changes pointed the anterior review. I make many happy with all changes. Although, small errors persisted. For example: In main text we can find: citation of two kinds: Author & Author  -  Author and Author. Please, the authros can be consistent. There are some erros in references, for example: After name of journal, we can see with can or point, or nothing. Please, can be consistent. Some references are missing Volume.
The added the discussion and it is good now.
In general, the ms is good and can be published after minor errors.
Thank you very much
Validity of the findings: Ok
Additional comments: Dear Editor
I want to thank you and authors

The authors did all substantial changes pointed the anterior review. I make many happy with all changes. Although, small errors persisted. For example: In main text we can find: citation of two kinds: Author & Author  -  Author and Author. Please, the authros can be consistent. There are some erros in references, for example: After name of journal, we can see with can or point, or nothing. Please, can be consistent. Some references are missing Volume.
The added the discussion and it is good now.
In general, the ms is good and can be published after minor errors.
Thank you very much


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: METASYCHIS VARICOLLARIS SP. NOV. AND REPORT OF METASYCHIS GOTOI (MALDANIDAE, ANNELIDA) FROM THE CHINA SEAS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This version of the manuscript is much improved. Before accepting this manuscript, I suggest some modifications. I have attached the pdf with comments.
If the changes are followed as suggested, I do not need to revise the manuscript again.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: METASYCHIS VARICOLLARIS SP. NOV. AND REPORT OF METASYCHIS GOTOI (MALDANIDAE, ANNELIDA) FROM THE CHINA SEAS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is sound and describes a new species and record of maldanid polychaete from China. I have included additional edits and suggestions in the attached PDF file. The authors have attended my previous suggestions. The descriptions are appropriate and there are no questions about the validity of the proposed species. Other than that, the manuscript meets the general standards of PeerJ and there are no obvious concerns regarding acceptability of the results, completeness of the data provided and the conclusions made.
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: No additional comment
Additional comments: Please see attached PDF document with minor suggestions to improve the text. As I have commented in the manuscript, I suggest the authors to contact Dr. Geoff Read and make the appropriate update in the WoRMS database before publication of the manuscript. There is no need to state in a published manuscript that a dynamic database is outdated.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF TRAINING FREQUENCY ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH FOR TRAINED MEN UNDER VOLUME MATCHED CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There are multiple errors of writing in the document.
References seem suitable but improvement on data reporting and visual depiction required.
Specific comments have been provided to authors.
Experimental design: Study fits aims and scope of journal.
Research question is interesting but limited conclusions can be drawn based on lack of outcome measures and several issues with the study design. Specific comments provided in latter section and how this can be improved.
Validity of the findings: Some contradictory statements when interpreting the results. Some statements made in discussion require further support or need to be checked carefully against existing literature.
The study has meaning for the strength and conditioning community but lack some novelty due to limited information that can be drawn from the results.
Specific comments have been provided to the authors on how some of these points could have been addressed.
Additional comments: The authors present a study where resistance training frequency is conducted over 8 weeks in resistance trained males. Groups consisted of a split or full-body program meaning that main exercises were trained either 2 or 4 days per week, respectively, under volume matched conditions. The main findings were that there are no additional benefits of increased training frequency on muscular strength adaptations however, this may be favourable to avoid increases in ratings of perceived exertion. I have provided specific and more general comments below that I hope the authors will find useful:

Specific comments:

L31: ‘tested prior to and after’
L35: The supplementary exercises listed in the table are not full body. Please amend.
L39-42: This section would benefit from presenting some of the raw data not just p-values. Moreover, no numerical or statistical results are presented for RPE.
L46: The conclusion about RPE is not clear based on the rest of the abstract.
L51: Here the authors say ‘recently’ but strength training has been popular for many years. In fact, the study referenced here is 13 years old.
L53-54: Please check wording in this statement.
L59: ‘but training frequency’
L66: space required after reference. And should this be American College of Sports Medicine?
L70-71: Again the ‘last few years’ are referred to but the unpublished study in question dates back to 2012.
L70: ‘One study that has received’
L75-76: This statement contradicts itself.
L106: ‘local gym participants; is unclear. Do you mean people who attended gyms?
L109: enhancing
L11: ‘and written consent’
L117: ‘in the bench press’ and ‘squat’
L133: ‘repetitions at’
L192: 1RMSQUAT is spelt incorrectly in text.
L246: ‘in other studies’

There are also several writing errors in the discussion and conclusion. I invite the authors to check the whole document carefully to improve the overall quality.

General comments:

L75-82: here it would be good to present a little more about the specific study details and main findings.
L105: The heading is ‘participants’ but in text ‘subjects’ is used. Please check and keep consistent in all sections.

Introduction: The rationale for measuring RPE is not well supported in my opinion. For example, many other simple questionnaires would give perhaps more substantial information rather than just information about the session itself e.g. perceived fatigue after or prior to a session, motivation to train, muscle soreness questionnaires etc. This would provide more detail to the findings and enable a more informed decision about subjective outcomes and training frequency to be made by the authors.

Study design: Here it would be good to either list the supplementary exercises, or refer the reader to the table. The exercises actually occurred was not clear until the table was inspected.

L149-150: Here the terms ‘exertion’ and ‘effort’ are used interchangeably. Technically, these can represent different things so please revise and clarify what the focus was on, i.e. effort or exertion.

Pre-training statistical results for between group characteristics at baseline should be presented to ensure that they were not different.

L176-177: It is unclear why the repetition in reserve method was used for supplementary exercises? As some of these muscles are synergists etc in the main movements this prescription could affect the overall results, recovery times between session etc. Further clarity on this decision is required.

Results: In text it would be useful to present some raw values rather than just statistical outcomes.

The results of RPE and interpretation of this throughout the manuscript is difficult to follow. For example, on L223-224 it states that RPE was higher in the split group (weeks 4-5) but the conclusion of the abstract seems to state that splitting the session avoids increases in RPE? Please also check for consistency in other sections.

L251-253: The is a very strong statement that is not well supported. Suggest removing or discussing further with additional supporting references.

L255: The idea of relative and absolute strength here seems to come out of nowhere as it is not presented in the results section.

L280: Suggest some caution a sit appears Pareja Blanco reports that training to failure, especially with higher repetition schemes delays recovery. Currently, the manuscript seems to imply that increased volume means closer to failure which is not technically true as it depends on the intensity used.

L315: Saying differences between groups could increase implies that there may have been a difference to start with, but the results don’t seem to support this.

L341: RPE is not specifically about fatigue so this sentence needs to be revised.

L333: In the introduction the two meta-analyses are listed as Ralston and Grgic. Here Rhea is listed, is this correct?

References 421-423: The full stops appear to be in the incorrect place.

Table 1: The exercises described as ‘biceps’ and ‘triceps’ do not provide sufficient information. Please provide more specific detail about the exercises.

Table 2: So here the repetitions and intensity ranges can vary even within each week. This presents a problem when the aim of the study was to ‘volume-match’. So quite possibly the performed repetitions and loads between groups could have been different. Moreover, how was it decided upon what intensity and the number performed by the individual for each training session. At the very least, training data showing intensities and volumes performed by each group per week, and statistical analysis of potential differences is required.

Figure 1: It is better to show the results as individual data points with a possible line to indicate individual changes over the training intervention. For example, it may reveal that the weakest individuals to start with improved strength the most. This leads on to figure 2 where individual improvements are shown but provides no insight into the starting strength. I suggest that the presentation of this data is considered to improve transparency and provide further interesting insight.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF TRAINING FREQUENCY ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH FOR TRAINED MEN UNDER VOLUME MATCHED CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are commas missing for many of the in-text citations (eg: L63  (Kraemer & Ratamess 2004) )

L25 Change to something along the lines of “In strength training, the role of training frequency is often debated but the limited data available does not allow for clear training frequency “optimisation” recommendations"

L66 add a comma after (2009)

L72 Well done on clarifying that the “Norwegian Frequency Project” has not been fully published therefore limiting the applicability of its findings

L120 Exercise needs to be plural (right before “for the upper body”)
Experimental design: L107 Was there a particular reason to include only males in this study? If yes, please clarify

L136 Were the 1RM testing procedures based on any studies/guidelines? What was the rationale behind allowing participants to have 5 attempts in order to determine their 1RM?

L149 Were the participants familiar with the CR10 scale? If not, did they have to go through a “familiarisation” period prior to being tested? Please clarify.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors have submitted a very interesting and well-presented study exploring the effects of training frequency on the 1RM strength of trained males. This study is a great addition to the, currently limited, strength training literature.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF TRAINING FREQUENCY ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH FOR TRAINED MEN UNDER VOLUME MATCHED CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: 1RM – The participants were trained in resistance training, but why did not perform test and re-test of 1RM in back squat and chest press?

RPE

Line 148 - When was the RPE asked at the end of the exercise session? Right after it is over or a few minutes later? Please clarify?

The Borg CR10 scale was trained with the participants before the data collection?
Were the participants familiar with the Borg scale?

Line 158 – The time under tension was controlled to calculate the volume?
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This article deals with an important and relevant topic for coaches, personal trainers, athletes and resistance training practisers and reveals great importance in terms of practical application.
I suggest some changes in order to enhance the quality of the paper further.

Abstract

Line 25 – introduce “to increase maximal strength”
Line 27 – I suggest introduce “maximal muscular strength”

Introduction

In the text, the authors use different nomenclatures to refer to the training to increase muscle strength (strength training, resistance training). Please use only one.

Line 236 – Introduce “maximal muscular strength”
Line 249 – Introduce “maximal strength”

There is different muscular strength manifestation. In this paper, it was evaluated the maximal strength and not the other manifestation forms. Please be more specific when made the discussion/comparisons with other studies.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF TRAINING FREQUENCY ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH FOR TRAINED MEN UNDER VOLUME MATCHED CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an improved version of the manuscript. There are still some writing errors and several amendments that require attention.
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: The data and conclusions are clearly in this improved version of the manuscript.
Additional comments: The authors have worked to ensure that the current version of the manuscript is improved and as such I believe that the quality and clarity has also improved. I still have several comments which should be addressed plus a few additional errors that I picked up. See below.

Figure 1. Please make the pre and post point a circle for each individual and the line style the same across all individuals.
Table 1. Bicep and tricep exercises still unclear. I.e. dumbbell, barbell, cable, seated, standing, unilateral etc?
Table 2 caption: Please clarify that this volume was the same during 'each week' not 'one week'. The authors should also clearly say that this applied to the SQ and BP exercise specifically.

Abstract: Opening statement is long and does not read well.
L49: 'avoid potential increases in RPE'
L66: 'has'
Intro general: L84 states that there are multiple studies published on the topic but earlier the authors imply that frequency has largely been overlooked. I suggest be more clear and consistent in several sections of the introduction.
L288: Furthermore, Dankel et al...
L295: A reference was removed from here but I feel it is required.
L307: It may be better to refer to 'perceptual responses' rather than felt fatigue as this is not captured by RPE.
L350: Reference required.
L414L Prefer to avoid abbreviation as it is only used a few times. Too many abbreviations can become confusing.
L444: close bracket required after p=0.46.
L515: suggestion: 'Although the current findings suggest that exercise frequency...'
L557: I am not sure it is correct to discuss the unpublished study here.
l564: Reference required.
l569: RPE
L597-599: Wording here is not easy to follow. Please amend.
L604: 'higher training frequencies than men.'
L632: 'provides similar'
L635: Clarify to the reader that this higher training frequency means that volume per session is lower (in equated models). This is probably what provides the benefit in this context based on your current study.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF TRAINING FREQUENCY ON MUSCULAR STRENGTH FOR TRAINED MEN UNDER VOLUME MATCHED CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No further comments. The authors have addressed my previous comments.
Experimental design: No further comments. The authors have addressed my previous comments.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: MICROBIOMES OF DIFFERENT AGES IN RENDZIC LEPTOSOLS IN THE CRIMEAN PENINSULA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.
The manuscript is well written and easy to read when it comes to language. To my understanding there aren't many problems in this regard.

Intro & background to show context
The line of reasoning used by the authors for the construction of the Introduction is not clear or continuous throughout the text. The authors start from a remarkably interesting premise addressing how the different aspects of pedogenesis (parental material and age or time) can shape the microbiome of different soils and horizons. In my opinion, this is the original aspect of the work and it should permeate the entire text (from Introduction to Discussion and Conclusions). In the Introduction section, the authors add different elements to this logic (pedogenesis shaping microbiome) (e.g. mining, liming, anthropic impacts) that cause the Introduction to lose its focus, organization, and clarity.

Literature well referenced & relevant
References are current and appropriate.

Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled & described
With regard to the figures, I suggest that Figure 1, where the sampling points were located, be made with a different base map, perhaps a geological map since this is an information used by the authors in the Introduction and in the Discussion. In the case of Figures 4 and 5 I suggest that the authors increase the size of the letters.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Scope of the journal
The manuscript fits well within the scope of PeerJ (Environmental Sciences).

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap
As previously mentioned about the Introduction, I feel that the authors have chosen a very original and poorly explored subject by trying to link aspects of soil pedogenesis with the shaping of their microbiome. However, as observed for the Introduction section, the text did not maintain this focus on the presentation of the results, nor on its discussion. I feel that this original aspect was lost throughout the manuscript. In this case I suggest the authors to reorganize the manuscript throughout and further explore central aspect.

As regards the M&M, my main concern regards the description of the structure of the study. I understand that for the authors the structure of the study must be clear but it is not for those who read the manuscript. The way that the different study sites (soils) were described in the item "Study sites and sample collection", must be improved and different important aspects are unclear.
1. Are all the soils Technosols? If not, how do the authors defend the fact that they have used both Technosols and natural soils in the same sequence of soils?
2. How exactly did the authors have established the supposed chronosequence? Is it based on different durations of anthropic activity? If so; these activities would have had to be able to "reset the pedogenesis clock" at different times; if that’s the case please explain how. The establishment of this chronosequence must be much better explained and described in the manuscript.
3. Are there any dating data or another technique that confirms or corroborates the alleged soil ages?
4. Are all soils originated from limestone? If so, are these rocks part of the same geological formation and with the same characteristics? It is known that because of its sedimentary origin, limestones can vary widely in their composition on small spatial scales. The geology, climate, vegetation cover and geomorphology (the other soil forming factors) from each location must be described in much more detail.
5. In the case of the Technosol, the authors mention a "reclaimed sandy quarry"; this fact indicates the occurrence of a contrasting geology in relation to the soils developed from limestone. In this is case; if there are different parent materials the authors would not be working with a chronosequence.
Validity of the findings: Regarding the results section, I suggest that the authors reorganize it and present the data respecting the structure of the work (that is, the chronosequence). In addition some of the parts of the results section are actually discussions of the data (for example, lines 196 to 198; lines 202-203; 273-274; 278-279).
On the other hand, in the discussion section, (between lines 338-356) there of parts that fit more appropriately either in the Introduction or in the Material & Methods sections. Therefore, I suggest a reorganization.
Another important point regarding the Discussion is that until line 412, the authors practically limit themselves to describing which groups of microorganisms were found, the most and least frequent ones in the different areas, in the horizons and describe the characteristics of these groups without effectively discussing their presence (and abundance) in the actual context of the study.

Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Regarding the conclusions, as was mentioned for the previous sections, the authors mix parts of results in this item (for example, line 443 "The microbiome of the Technosol of the K6 site was also similar in composition to benchmark soil but was higher in alpha-diversity "). Few real conclusions can be identified.
In this item, the authors mention in line 435 - 436 "Our research demonstrated that soil type on a limestone rock is the driving force behind microbiome shaping, without any apparent influence of its age"; I suggest that the authors try to structure their article more clearly in these direction (Introduction and hypotheses); i.e. around the effects of material factors of origin and time on the microbiome.
Additional comments: Finally the authors, in my opinion, have created a great ammount of interesting data but  failed in connecting them into a cohesive, clear and objective text. Given the points highlighted, I consider that the authors should seek the restructuring of the manuscript (perform a major revision) before its acceptance  by the journal.


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: MICROBIOMES OF DIFFERENT AGES IN RENDZIC LEPTOSOLS IN THE CRIMEAN PENINSULA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Major Comments:
1.	Abstract; line no 19-21, while the author’s mentioned that Rendzic Leptosols area the most important factor than the climate in shaping soil properties. However the literature suggests climate as the crucial factor for the same. Please check the statement.

2.	Your results show Acidobacteria as the third most abundant phyla (Fig 3), as you also mentioned it in the abstract, line no. 27. However in the very next line (28), you mentioned low representation of Acidobacteria. Check the data or change in the abstract.

3.	Again in the conclusion section line no 436-437, it is mentioned that the sites were deficient in Acidobacteria due to the alkalinity of the environment. This indicates doubt in your results, clarify this statement.

4.	All the supplementary figures and tables are missing in the pdf file.

5.	While the author’s have represented the data in heat map/ tabular form that make it difficult for the readers to understand. Better to represent the data in graphical form.

6.	The author’s have chosen 4 study sites with 8 sampling horizons, site K1 (O, AY, C), site K2 (AY, C), site K3 (AY, C), site K6 (AY). Can the author’s mention the possible reason for choosing varying number of sampling sites from the 4 study areas? Like for K1 there are 3, K2 and K3 have 2 and K6 1, why.

7.	While the authors have performed the Quantative analysis of fungal diversity by performing qPCR. The study does not seem much impactful, better would have been if the authors have done ITS sequencing as well. Any specific reason ?

Minor Comments:
1.	Overall the article seems very nice and presents an interesting read. However, some points need a focus. Grammar need attentions, references need focus.

e.g., references needs a particular some where the references seem incomplete
Like line no. 670, reference seems incomplete.
Similarly line no702, reference seems incomplete.

2.	Line no 34 add “old” after years
3.	Line no 38 again add “old” after years
4.	I think could have been should be replaced by “could be”.
5.	Spelling needs proper focus
Experimental design: Major Comments:
1.	Abstract; line no 19-21, while the author’s mentioned that Rendzic Leptosols area the most important factor than the climate in shaping soil properties. However the literature suggests climate as the crucial factor for the same. Please check the statement.

2.	Your results show Acidobacteria as the third most abundant phyla (Fig 3), as you also mentioned it in the abstract, line no. 27. However in the very next line (28), you mentioned low representation of Acidobacteria. Check the data or change in the abstract.

3.	Again in the conclusion section line no 436-437, it is mentioned that the sites were deficient in Acidobacteria due to the alkalinity of the environment. This indicates doubt in your results, clarify this statement.

4.	All the supplementary figures and tables are missing in the pdf file.

5.	While the author’s have represented the data in heat map/ tabular form that make it difficult for the readers to understand. Better to represent the data in graphical form.

6.	The author’s have chosen 4 study sites with 8 sampling horizons, site K1 (O, AY, C), site K2 (AY, C), site K3 (AY, C), site K6 (AY). Can the author’s mention the possible reason for choosing varying number of sampling sites from the 4 study areas? Like for K1 there are 3, K2 and K3 have 2 and K6 1, why.

7.	While the authors have performed the Quantative analysis of fungal diversity by performing qPCR. The study does not seem much impactful, better would have been if the authors have done ITS sequencing as well. Any specific reason ?

Minor Comments:
1.	Overall the article seems very nice and presents an interesting read. However, some points need a focus. Grammar need attentions, references need focus.

e.g., references needs a particular some where the references seem incomplete
Like line no. 670, reference seems incomplete.
Similarly line no702, reference seems incomplete.

2.	Line no 34 add “old” after years
3.	Line no 38 again add “old” after years
4.	I think could have been should be replaced by “could be”.
5.	Spelling needs proper focus
Validity of the findings: No problem with the findings.
Additional comments: Major Comments:
1.	Abstract; line no 19-21, while the author’s mentioned that Rendzic Leptosols area the most important factor than the climate in shaping soil properties. However the literature suggests climate as the crucial factor for the same. Please check the statement.

2.	Your results show Acidobacteria as the third most abundant phyla (Fig 3), as you also mentioned it in the abstract, line no. 27. However in the very next line (28), you mentioned low representation of Acidobacteria. Check the data or change in the abstract.

3.	Again in the conclusion section line no 436-437, it is mentioned that the sites were deficient in Acidobacteria due to the alkalinity of the environment. This indicates doubt in your results, clarify this statement.

4.	All the supplementary figures and tables are missing in the pdf file.

5.	While the author’s have represented the data in heat map/ tabular form that make it difficult for the readers to understand. Better to represent the data in graphical form.

6.	The author’s have chosen 4 study sites with 8 sampling horizons, site K1 (O, AY, C), site K2 (AY, C), site K3 (AY, C), site K6 (AY). Can the author’s mention the possible reason for choosing varying number of sampling sites from the 4 study areas? Like for K1 there are 3, K2 and K3 have 2 and K6 1, why.

7.	While the authors have performed the Quantative analysis of fungal diversity by performing qPCR. The study does not seem much impactful, better would have been if the authors have done ITS sequencing as well. Any specific reason ?

Minor Comments:
1.	Overall the article seems very nice and presents an interesting read. However, some points need a focus. Grammar need attentions, references need focus.

e.g., references needs a particular some where the references seem incomplete
Like line no. 670, reference seems incomplete.
Similarly line no702, reference seems incomplete.

2.	Line no 34 add “old” after years
3.	Line no 38 again add “old” after years
4.	I think could have been should be replaced by “could be”.
5.	Spelling needs proper focus


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: MICROBIOMES OF DIFFERENT AGES IN RENDZIC LEPTOSOLS IN THE CRIMEAN PENINSULA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript needs to improve some mistakes in the language (minor corrections).
Experimental design: - Methods are described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.

- The research question is well defined, relevant, and meaningful.
Validity of the findings: - All data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, and controlled.
- Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question and limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: MICROBIOMES OF DIFFERENT AGES IN RENDZIC LEPTOSOLS IN THE CRIMEAN PENINSULA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised version of manuscript has been improved considerably.
Experimental design: Experimental design are perfect as per my knowledge.
Validity of the findings: Findings are valid
Additional comments: Congratulate the authors for their effort for the improvement of 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: MICROBIOMES OF DIFFERENT AGES IN RENDZIC LEPTOSOLS IN THE CRIMEAN PENINSULA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Everything is OK
Experimental design: Everything is OK
Validity of the findings: Everything is OK
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: PSEUDOCNIDAE OF RIBBON WORMS (NEMERTEA): ULTRASTRUCTURE, MATURATION, AND FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This ms seeks to present a comparative analysis, based primarily on transmission electron microscopy, of the enigmatic pseudocnidae found in the proboscis of certain nemertean worms. It presents a great deal of new data as well as reinterpretation of earlier observations and succeeds admirably at presenting what is likely to be the definitive understanding of these structures. Organization of the ms is clear and language structure is excellent.
Experimental design: Experimental design is thorough, encompassing a suitable diversity of taxa for the intended comparative analysis.
Validity of the findings: The findings are convincing and fully justified by text and figures.
Additional comments: My only misgiving is a lack of reference to the unusual proboscis of Heteroenopleus enigmaticus Wern, 1998. Perhaps the authors cannot infer anything about the "stylet" structures described but I think it would be worth stating that and why.
In the attached document, I have highlighted words where there is a typographical error, a missing comma, or something else. There are many missing "the" (an understandable problem of native Russian speakers writing in English), most of which I think I marked but I doubt that I caught all of them.


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: PSEUDOCNIDAE OF RIBBON WORMS (NEMERTEA): ULTRASTRUCTURE, MATURATION, AND FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction shows the background of the study and comprehensively covers the relevant published information. Generally, the overall structure of the manuscript conforms to the standards of the journal. Some details, with respect to phrasing and labelling of images, however need to be addressed as problematic:
Text: The text, especially in the, very extensive, results-section shows several inconsistencies with respect to phrasing and grammar. I marked some of these inconsistencies, but as I am not a professional language editor some of the phrasing inconsistencies might have slipped my attention as well. I attribute that to the corresponding author not being a native speaker and would strongly recommend the manuscript being language edited, at least by the second author, who is a native speaker.
Figures: The figures are largely well and sufficiently labeled. However, the usage of vertical scale bars is absolutely unusual and severely disturbs the viewing experience. I would strongly prefer this to be changed to horizontal scale bars throughout. Some images (commented in the commented pdf-file of the manuscript) in nearly all figure plates are under-labeled, thus leaving the reader lost in the respective image – these images need sufficient labeling. Additionally, some figure captions are incomplete or redundant (marked throughout the commented pdf-file of the manuscript as well). In the text, the images are generally referred to, in some cases additional reference to images should be made for clarification (see comments in commented pdf-file of manuscript). Raw data has not been supplied by the authors but the supplied images are fully sufficient to illustrate the described findings.
Experimental design: The presented data are original and within the scope of the journal. The research question is defined in that the aim is to provide a comprehensive account on the comparative ultrastructure of nemertean pseudocnidae. As this aim is purely descriptive, a research question in the strict sense cannot be defined. Nevertheless, the data presented are relevant and meaningful as they provide a sound baseline knowledge for future research addressing the evolution and ecological significance of the described structures that have been known to represent an important but still poorly known aspect of nemertean anatomy.
Technically, the data acquisition is done on an advanced level as all three authors are known to be experienced ultrastructure-researchers. Unfortunately, some images have folds and not all show optimal contrast for a reader unexperienced in ultrastructural research to assess all details described in the text. The methods employed are fairly standard methods and are largely described to enough detail to be replicated (requests to specify a few aspects have been included by me in a commented pdf-file of the manuscript).
Validity of the findings: The presented data is the most comprehensive account on the ultrastructure of pseudocnidae in Nemertea ever published and thus provides a very valuable contribution to biological science. The sub-sections of the discussion seem a bit unbalanced in my opinion, since there is a comparably long discussion on the similarities and differences of cnidarian cnidae and nemertean pseudocnidae, just to make the point that these are not homologous structures. On the other hand, the extrusomes of more closely related taxa are only briefly touched. The manuscript would benefit from a more balanced account. Conclusions on the systematic implications on the other hand are rather brief and do not take all results into account at equal rate (e.g. the lateral process in the heteronemertean species Z. ruber). Comments on that issue can be found in the commented pdf-file of the manuscript. Clearly, the largest profit of this manuscript is the amount of primary data on nemertean pseudocnidae provided in the results section.
Additional comments: On the one hand, a commendable contribution due to its wealth of data, on the other hand, maybe due to the unusually large size of the manuscript, a more rigorous editing by the authors prior to submission would have been desirable.


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: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript discuss an important topic on Hippo pathway and Noncanonical Wnt regulation. The manuscript nicely shows the correlation between YAP-TEAD and Wnt5a expression across many cancer types and Wnt5a as potential TEAD target gene.
Experimental design: The experimental design is well suitable for publication.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript well-addresses previous findings and limitations and strongly suggest that Hippo pathway is closely related to noncanonical Wnt pathway by directly expressing Wnt5a ligand.
Additional comments: The manuscript discuss an important topic on Hippo pathway and Noncanonical Wnt regulation. The manuscript nicely shows the correlation between YAP-TEAD and Wnt5a expression across many cancer types and Wnt5a as potential TEAD target gene. The manuscript well-addresses previous findings and limitations and strongly suggest that Hippo pathway is closely related to noncanonical Wnt pathway by directly expressing Wnt5a ligand.


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: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article  includes sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature was appropriately referenced.

Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Additional comments: I would be very glad to re-review the paper. In general, there is a lot of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study. Also, there are enough explanations of the rationale for the study design. the submission is worthy of publication.


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

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.1	Overall the English is fluent in logic but the author needs to further polish the English grammar. For example, “on the other hand” was repeatedly used as conjunction phrase in line 293 and line 307.
1.2	The TME mentioned in line 86/87 is an emerging hot topic in cancer biology but this paragraph is confusing. The author proposed that YAP/TAZ may be independent of Hippo then guided the readers to TME and mentioned the activation of YAP/TAZ with TEAD binding. But TEAD binding is a canonical TF for Hippo. The author should further re-organize this paragraph to clarify the significance.
1.3	Regarding the crosstalk between Wnt5a and YAP/TAZ or Hippo, the author did not mention the activation of YAP/TAZ by non-canonical Wnt signaling, instead all the efforts in this version were paid to the activation of non-canonical Wnt by YAP/TAZ. Just as the author claimed in the abstract, “crosstalk between YAP/TAZ and the Wnt pathway is more intricate than previously thought”, those intercalating feedbacks should be stated in the introduction section. For example, the 2015 Cell paper cited in this manuscript (Park et al., 2015), YAP/TAZ was indeed activated by Wnt5a and even Wnt3a (through a non-canonical way), although the authors in the 2015 paper also demonstrated Wnt5a was a potential YAP/TEAD target gene.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: 3.1, please specify what RP score can be termed as high. Line 160.
3.2. In Figure 1A, no TEAD binding was found in Wnt5a promoter but in Figure 2A, there are significant occupancy of TEAD1/2 and YAP1. Will the author interpret this as a cancer type specific context for TEAD binding? What specific cancer type is it in Figure 2A ChIP seq datasets? Although there could be datasets variation, the author could provide more details here.
3.3, the author did find the YAP/TEAD-modulation of WNT5A in certain types of cancer. Further characterization of the types in the discussion will make this article more interesting to the broad field.
Additional comments: The overall design and rationale is important for further understanding of crosstalk between Wnt5a and YAP/TAZ. It would be even better if the author can suggest some underlying mechanisms for the cancer type (context) specific modulation between Wnt5a and YAP.


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: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: The authors very methodically show the presence of binding sites is conserved and is present on YAP1 (for both WNT5A and itself). Did the authors check this with certain negative regulators? How specific is the domain for this binding?
In the chip-seq data used to show the presence of binding sites, what kind of cell lines/samples is the data coming from?
In another KnockTF database, did the authors check for all down regulated/upregulated genes network to visualize any possible indirect relation between TEAD->WNT5a?
With the WNT5A and YAP1 correlation in different cancer- can the authors shed more lights on the cancer types with significant correlation? Is this a known phenomenon where WNT5A pathway is known to play an important role in the cancer progression? Can the authors label the GTEx (fig3b with tissue type, sample number etc)
Additional comments: The authors in this manuscript presented a completely in-silico and interesting method to show functional interaction of WNT5A and YAP/TEAD signaling in cancer. In their analysis they have used many bioinformatic approaches, web tools and public dataset like gene expression, chip-seq. Although Park et al., 2015  had addressed this interaction, this approach is quite applicable for other methods as well. It is a very well written manuscript with comprehensively citing literature.


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

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 5

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the author, through in silico approaches, makes the assumption that Wnt5A is TEAD target and also about the role of YAP/TAZ signaling in regulation of non-canonical Wnt. The findings are the result of careful analysis of published data and the methodology is sound. The results will be of use for researchers particularly working in these areas.
Is there a role for Wnt5a-Yap/TAZ axis in other biological processes than cancer, for e.g., growth and development?
Did the author look at miRNA data to see if the regulation of Wnt5a by these Factors are dependent on those?
Wnt5a is known to have two isoforms. Comment on the possible differential effect on regulation of these.
In prostate cancers, promoter methylation of Wnt5a has been reported. Is there a negative correlation in the YAP/TAZ Chip data in these?
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Is there a role for Wnt5a-Yap/TAZ axis in other biological processes than cancer, for e.g., growth and development?
Did the author look at miRNA data to see if the regulation of Wnt5a by these Factors are dependent on those?
Wnt5a is known to have two isoforms. Comment on the possible differential effect on regulation of these.
In prostate cancers, promoter methylation of Wnt5a has been reported. Is there a negative correlation in the YAP/TAZ ChIP-data in these?
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: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and sound.
Experimental design: Good. No further comments.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated.
Additional comments: I think the author address the questions and comments raised by reviewers quite well. The revised version is suitable for publication.


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

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

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


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

Input:
Title: ANALYSIS IN SILICO OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN WNT5A AND YAP/TEAD SIGNALING IN CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The author has responded adequately to all the queries. No further modifications are necessary.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: MENTAL HEALTH STATUS AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH CORONARY HEART DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English, no substantial problems detected. For some minor comments on language see general comments to the authors below.
References, article structure, self-contained, no problems detected.
Raw data shared, the shared data includes scale scores for SCL-90 and WHOQOL-BREF, not raw data on individual items. And these derived variables are rounded to two decimals. If this is done to protect patient privacy I support the authors' decision on that point (but then this should have been stated). Protection of patient privacy is very important, contemporary malevolent actors may have access to substantial computing resources and sophisticated algorithms, and indirect identification from an open access data file alone is always a threat. I recommend, however, that the authors base their analyses on derived variables with full precision, without rounding.
Experimental design: The design is observational, not experimental. This is not an objection and I regard the article to be within the aims and scope of PeerJ. I regard the design as adequate for the second aim, subject to stated limitations. But since the sample is not clearly recruited to be representative for a specific population I do not consider the design adequate for addressing the first aim. Also, since no analyses described in Statistical analysis or reported in Results are specifically addressing the first aim of assessing the mental health status and QoL among elderly patients with CHD, I recommend that the first aim is deleted.
No other problems regarding the design are detected.
Validity of the findings: I have some recommendations on the description of the instruments, specifically scoring, as detailed in general comments to the authors below. Briefly, the scoring procedures are not precisely described. Data necessary for the analyses reported are provided. Whether data are robust and controlled, I do not have the information needed to assess that. Conclusions are well stated and linked to the second research question, and above I have recommended  deleting the first research question. I have, however, some recommendations for revision of the statistical analyses as detailed in general comments to the authors below. I also recommend that syntax for the analyses is included as supplementary information.
Additional comments: 1. Main comment on statistical analyses. In unadjusted analyses the authors first test for normality of the scale scores, and since these tests indicate deviations from the normal distribution, a non-parametric procedure is used. In adjusted analysis, however, the authors use linear regression. This is not consistent, linear regression is a parametric procedure. I think that decisions of statistical procedures should not be based on a test for normal distribution. Such tests have low power for small samples, and for large samples normality tests may detect minor deviations with no importance for the validity of linear regression (including t-tests and analysis of variance as special cases). Actually, linear regression has considerable robustness for moderate deviations from a normal distribution, while procedures such as the Mann-Whitney U test are not similarly robust to deviations from its underlying assumption of the same shapes of the distributions within the two samples compared. See e. g. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-78 . Instead of tests for normality I recommend graphical inspections (e. g. by histograms) of the shapes of the distribution of dependent variables, with particular emphasis on the proportions of floor and ceiling (values equal to the lowest and highest possible values. Possible is important here, floor and ceiling are not related to the lowest and highest values in data). If substantial problems with a dependent variable are detected, regression analysis together with a robust procedure for computing standard errors may be considered, such as a bootstrap procedure or Hubert-White estimation. In any case, the results of the normality tests are not reported in the article, they should be reported if these tests are used.

2. Description of scoring of SCL-90 and WHOQOL-BREF. I have made some searches and SCL-90 seems to be a commercial instrument. This may imply that there are restrictions towards making precise statements of the scoring procedures, in case this should be stated. In any case, the lowest and highest possible values (as opposed to lowest and highest actual values in data) for the scale scores should be stated, if possible under the terms for use of the instrument. I have checked with the supplied data, and all scale scores for SCL-90 are between  1 and 5. This may not be consistent with the description of scoring of SCL-90 in the article (line 97-103), where it is stated that the items are dichotomized and the number of positive scores computed. Specifically, the total score for SCL-90 should then be the number of positive items within all 90 items. Also, if this description is correct the scale scores for the domains should be appreciably lower than the total score since the number of positive items are lower, this is not so in data. For WHOQOL-BREF it is presumably possible to state the scoring procedures precisely. In the article it is only stated that each domain has a total rating of 100 points. If this is a statement of maximum possible value, the minimum possible value should also be stated. For WHOQOL-BREF also, this statement does not seem to be consistent with data. Actually, in data the total score for WHOQOL-BREF ranges between 62 and 131, where 131 is appreciably higher than 100. And for the 5 domains the lowest values for scale scores in data are between 4.0 and 6.5 while the maximum values are between 18.9 and 20.0.

3. Other comments on statistical analysis. Since BMI is determined by height and weight, the analyses should not be adjusted for BMI in addition to height and weight.
“The associations were examined using multiple linear regression analyses, and the β estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each significant variable were determined.». This information should be reported also if p>0.05. Variables with p>0.05 should also be included in Tables 2-4. A p-value > 0,05 does not signify «no relationship» (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). To take one example, the upper confidence bound for Somatization by primary hypertension in adjusted analyses similar to those reported in Table 2 is 0.374, higher than many of the upper confidence bounds reported for SCL-90 domains in Table 2. Therefore, despite a high p-value of 0.232 indicating no strong evidence for this relationship, there is no strong evidence excluding a substantial relationship either. Related to this, there is an ongoing discussion on how p-values should best be used and reported, see e. g. the statement on this issue by the American Statistical Association from 2016 ( http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/P-ValueStatement.pdf ), particularly the third principle, «Scientific conclusions and business or policy decisions should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold».
The authors may consider including (in Discussion) an assessment of whether the estimated relationships are clinically relevant. The authors have not made formal adjustment for multiple testing, I tend to agree with that since it is not clear within what groups of analyses such adjustment should have been done, but the authors may include (in Discussion) an assessment of whether the large number of estimated relationships might have led to some spurious results. Another less important issue, I recommend replacing «the β estimate» by e. g. «the adjusted difference», this is more interpretable and «β» is often used for standardized regression coefficients that are not of interest here.

4. Discussion and conclusions. There are several statements of associations involving “CHD comorbid with" primary hypertension, type 2 DM and stroke. For readers of the article the context of these statements is clear, but if such statements are cited by others out of context they may be interpreted as associations involving CHD. Such an interpretation is wrong since all patients had CHD. The authors may consider changing the wording of such statements to statements that for CHD patients, comorbid primary hypertension, type 2 DM and stroke were associated with outcomes.

5. Data for analyses have been made available, if possible it had been valuable if syntax for the analyses also had been made available as supplementary material.

6. Details on Results. I have checked the results in the article with the data enclosed. Line 135, mean BMI in my checks is 25.71, not 25.70. Supplementary Table 1, phobic anxiety hypertension mean 1.45, p 0.002, psychoticism not hypertension mean 1.27. Supplementary Table 2, phobic anxiety type 2 DM mean 1.55, standard deviation 0.60. Supplementary Table 3, phobic anxiety stroke mean 1.70, standard deviation 0.60.

7. Other details, notation. language. The notation ± for standard deviations is a bit outdated, use a comma or parentheses instead. Move the software description to the end of Statistical analysis. Inconsistent use of space before references, for example line 31 no space before (Wang et al. 2016), line 41-42 space before (Wu et al. 2013).
Line 52, «which is regarded as the widely used psychological measurement in China». «the most widely used»? In case a reference for this fact had been valuable. The reference to Zhao et al. (2019) is about one specific group only, plateau military personnel». Or «a widely used»?
Line 85, «those with an incompatibility for cognitive disorders», incompatibility with what? Consider rewriting for clarify.
Line 133 and Table 1, change “windowed” to “widowed”.


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: MENTAL HEALTH STATUS AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH CORONARY HEART DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: My mayor concern is related with the statistical analysis.
Experimental design: The design of the study is right. My mayor concern is related with the statistical analysis. Here are my observations:

In the statistical analysis section, it is more correct to mention t tests for independent samples instead of ANOVA, since only two groups are compared.

Regarding the statistical analysis, it is necessary to be more specific and mention the different response variables and the different models generated from multiple linear regression. Important information on the technique used for the construction of the different fitting models is also missing. Finally, everything related to the evaluation of each of the models is also missing, including the evaluation of the different interactions (effect modificatio), collinearity and assumptions of the model (linearity, homoscedasticity and normality). The validity of the models to draw conclusions that are more credible depends on what are indicated above.
Validity of the findings: Results
In Table 1 the recommendation is to put as a footnote an indication that the values are means ± SD for continuous variables or number (%) for categorical variables. You do not need to include the IQR

In Table 2 it is not clear if each variable in column 1 corresponds to separate models or they are in the same model. Nor is it shown if each model was adjusted for other sociodemographic, anthropometric, etc. variables. It is important that it is clear what the response variable was. Let it be clear if the Beta corresponds to the presence and non-presence of each of the studied comorbidities. Same comment for tables 3 and 4.
In Table 1, 2 and 3 of the supplement, it mentions that the Mann-Whitney U test was used, so the most correct is to report the medians instead of the means, since this test compares medians. Tables 1, 2 and 3 only show continuous variables, so it makes no sense to put the n (%) indication in the footnote.
Additional comments: The manuscript is interesting and seeks to evaluate the state of mental health and quality of life, as well as the association between the presence of three comorbidities in patients with CHD with mental health and quality of life.

My final recommendation is to take into account the observations raised