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: STIMULUS–RESPONSE COMPLEXITY INFLUENCES TASK-SET INHIBITION IN TASK SWITCHING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Although I could follow most of the manuscript, I thought the English language could be improved. The manuscript is, at some points, difficult to follow, and this would probably even be more the case for readers unfamiliar with the topic.
Experimental design: The present manuscript tested the influence of stimulus-response complexity on the backward inhibition effect. While I found the general idea behind this study interesting, I am afraid I found it difficult to evaluate, because I do not completely understand the task that participants had to perform, and how stimulus-response complexity was manipulated. Specifically, my main comment is the following:

The complexity manipulation was not completely clear to me. S-R complexity can be manipulated in various ways, so I believe it is important to be clear on this. The manipulation is introduced in the introduction, but it is unclear to me how a task can be mapped to only one response key (lines 101-105)? If I understand the tasks correctly, complexity was also manipulated in a different way when comparing easy to medium conditions (i.e., cued versus uncued response mappings), versus medium to difficult conditions (i.e., univalent versus bivalent stimuli/tasks). Does this also mean that the tasks were the same for the easy and medium condition, but not the difficulty condition? Most importantly, I am unsure about what exactly the participants were instructed to do.

Minor:

On lines 136-138: Can the authors clarify what is meant with “or informed also in the instruction”? Does this mean that some participants were only informed about some of the information on screen, and others not? If so, was this an important manipulation?

On lines 175-176, can the authors be more explicit on which orders were possible and which not. I now understand only E(asy)-M(edium)-D(ifficult) and D-M-E were possible? Or were M-E-D and D-E-M possible, too?

I found the label “CAA repeat sequences” a bit misleading, if these can also include AAA (or BBB or CCC) sequences. Maybe it would be best to label them XAA sequences or AA sequences?

This is a very minor comment, but I believe it is technically incorrect to state that a p-value = .000. It can only be smaller than .001.

If I understand the introduction correctly, the study by Gade & Koch (2007) would have hypothesized to find the opposite effect (or even found the opposite effect themselves?). However, this discrepancy is not really being discussed.

Signed,

Senne Braem
Validity of the findings: Minor:

I did not find the argument that “all subjects having an accuracy above 90% should do away with speed-accuracy trade-off concerns” very convincing. Along those lines, I believe it would be good to briefly unpack the direction of the marginally significant two-way interaction in the error rates.

The sample size seems justified, but a replication would be reassuring, especially if these findings do indeed go against what would be hypothesized based on Gade & Koch (2007, see below). Along those lines, I would be interested in knowing how much this effect might be dependent on the broader context that is being created by manipulating the different complexity conditions within subjects: This could be tested by only testing the difficulty condition in a separate sample and again show the reversed backward inhibition effect.
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: STIMULUS–RESPONSE COMPLEXITY INFLUENCES TASK-SET INHIBITION IN TASK SWITCHING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the work “Stimulus-response complexity influences task-set inhibition in task switching” Zhao et al. asked how the complexity S-R association interact with the backward inhibition cost in a task switching task.  The authors observed that the reaction time was mainly influenced by both the task sequence and the S-R complexity. In addition, the authors detected a significant interaction between these two variables revealing that the n-2 switching observed in the two easier S-R condition (easy and moderate S-R complexity) was canceled in the difficult condition. The authors discuss their results in line with the hypothesis that different cognitive resources  and neural circuits are recruited depending on the different degrees of complexity of the task.
I found the paper well introduced and referenced and the experimental design appropriated to the study. However there are several missing information in the methods that I would the authors to provide, before taking a decision on the reliability of their results.
Experimental design: The main issue of the present work is the lack of information on the statistical analysis applied. More specifically, the information on the post-hoc comparisons is not indicated in the method section and it is only reported in the results section.  There the authors report different methods for testing the difference between conditions.
In particular, when the authors perform the post-hoc comparisons for studying the main effects of task sequence and S_R complexity they declare to apply a Fisher’s LSD test which is a test adjusted for multiple comparisons. However, when the authors studied the interaction effect, the authors applied multiple t-test comparisons not corrected for multiple comparisons. In the latter case the authors are exposed to Type I errors accepting a false positive in place of a significant effect not present in the data. If this is the case, their results might be differently interpreted.
My suggestion is to repeat each post-hoc evaluation by applying the same multiple comparisons method, i.e. use the Fisher’s LSD comparison for all of them.
As minor point, the authors should refer to the software used to run the experimental procedure an to perform the statistical tests.
The information reported in the result section are redundant. The mean and standard error of the same group is reported several times and this repetition is confusing. In addition, the authors report in the text the same values reported in Figure 3. My suggestion is to report in the results section only the results of the statistical tests and refer to Figure 3 to get information on mean and variability of each condition. Related to this, the addition of graphical markers to Figure 3 for highlighting significant conditions’ different will help the reader in interpreting the results.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the finding should be reconsidered in light of the new analysis (see above) and in case discuss a negative result.
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: STIMULUS–RESPONSE COMPLEXITY INFLUENCES TASK-SET INHIBITION IN TASK SWITCHING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting is much improved, the article is much clearer to me now. Thanks!
Experimental design: I have no further suggestions or comments on the design.
Validity of the findings: I believe the results are clearly presented, and I would like to thank the authors for providing a replication of the effect in the difficulty condition. I would suggest to also mention this replication in the abstract, as well as providing the details of the participants in the participant section and the other results of that experiment in the results section (e.g., average accuracy, error rates).
Additional comments: Thank you for considering my comments and suggestions. I believe the manuscript is definitely improved. I only have two remaining minor comments:

This newly added sentence is confusing to me: "The order of the experiment included four types: Easy (E)-Medium (M)-Difficult (D), D-M-E, M-E-D, and D-E-M. The difficult task took 50 min to complete, which was almost the time it took to complete both easy and moderate tasks (60 min). Therefore, in order to avoid fatigue, we divided the participants into four groups that each completed one type of task.".
It now sounds as if participants only performed one of the different difficulty conditions (i.e., "one type of task"). Also, I am not sure what is meant with "in order to avoid fatigue". Is this to suggest that the alternative could have been that all participants had to go through all four possible task orders? Or does the fatigue-argument refer to why the M-D-E or E-D-M order was not used? I would suggest revising these two sentences to make this more clear.

Second, the newly added experiment could be detailed a bit more. I would propose mentioning this replication of the reversed backward inhibition effect in the abstract, discussing its results a bit more extensively, and to provide some further details in the method/participant section.


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

Input:
Title: STIMULUS–RESPONSE COMPLEXITY INFLUENCES TASK-SET INHIBITION IN TASK SWITCHING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors addressed all my questions.
Experimental design: My questions about experimental design and data analysis have been answered.
Validity of the findings: The new analysis supports the authors' discussion.
Additional comments: I do not have further comments.


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

Input:
Title: STIMULUS–RESPONSE COMPLEXITY INFLUENCES TASK-SET INHIBITION IN TASK SWITCHING
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for making these changes.

 I hope to be of help with these two final spelling suggestions:

"We also replicate a reversed n-2 repetition cost."
->
"These results replicated the reversed n-2 repetition cost."

"The results of the additional experiment replicated an n−2 repetition facilitation in difficult condition."
->
"Therefore, the results of this additional experiment replicated the n−2 repetition facilitation effect in the difficult condition."


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: INSOMNIA PARTIALLY MEDIATES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PATHOLOGICAL PERSONALITY TRAITS AND DEPRESSION: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Of an extremely high standard of writing with no English language errors.
Experimental design: Just one small thing to clarify: what is the "positive threshold" of the HAMA-24 scale and HAMD-24 scale as referenced in line 126? Is there a numerical value- if so, what is it for each scale?
Validity of the findings: It would be important for the authors to emphasise in the abstract and conclusions that their findings of linear correlations between AIS, PDQ-4 and HAMD scales are in the total cohort (depressed and non-depressed), not just depressed patients.

It might also be worthwhile to present or mention data about whether these linear correlations also exist within each of the two groups (e.g. within the depressed patients, and within the healthy controls).

Finally it is important to for the authors to mention in their title, abstract and conclusions that their findings are of partial mediation, not complete mediation, of insomnia on the link between personality disorders and depression. After all, the correlation between PDQ-4 and HAMD-scales remained statistically significant after the mediation analysis was performed, albeit just of a lower magnitude.
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: INSOMNIA PARTIALLY MEDIATES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PATHOLOGICAL PERSONALITY TRAITS AND DEPRESSION: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: - generally well-written in professional English
- statistical indices (e.g. r) are missing at some points
- a high number of Chinese studies is cited, non-Chinese studies should also (or preferentially) by included
- differentiation between diagnosis, syndrome and symptoms remains unclear (confounded)
Experimental design: - Case control-study → possible influence on interpretation of results should be discussed more clearly
- If only people with depression were examined, not with comorbid (diagnosed) PD; the resulting selection bias should be clearly stated and discussed
- Exclusion criteria should be stated more clearly (only insomnia and PD symptoms?)
- The assessment methods should be described in more detail (reliability/validity: two self-report questionnaires and depression scale; assessed by trainer/qualification?)
- Heterogeneity and broad variety of PD symptoms make interpretation difficult
- Causality remains unclear due to study design (partly mentioned by authors)
- statistical effects of mediation should be cross-checked (e.g. subdividing samples vs. jackknifing); furthermore the model is not unique (comparison vs. no mediation, other mediation, interaction, and non-linear mediation should at least be discussed)
- bidirectional relationships should be shown and reported as what they are
Validity of the findings: - relationships as found in the study are plausible if not trivial
- limitation of interpretation of results (validation necessary)
- limited generalization
- importance and clinical relevance questionable
Additional comments: - The manuscript is generally well-written, the topics of PD and sleep quality are still timely.
- Assessment methods are weak and require more justification (reliability, validity, time-economy).
- Statistical model is plausible and preferred but not unique (e.g., a mediation of the relationship of insomnia and depression by PD symptoms).
- Focussing on Chinese literature could either be a source of bias or a limitation (generalizability) at the present time.
- All areas of interest (i.e. PD, insomnia, depression) are much more specifically elaborated than assessed and dealed with here (e.g., recent discussion ref. to ICD-11/DSM-5, biological models; chronobiological apporaches, subtypes/cognitive and somatic dimensions of depression etc.).
- Thus, implications of the present study are questionable (for GPs? clinicians? researchers?).
- What does the study add to our knowledge or clinical practices?.


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: INSOMNIA PARTIALLY MEDIATES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PATHOLOGICAL PERSONALITY TRAITS AND DEPRESSION: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The extensive use of abbreviations from start to finish makes the paper hard to follow.  This includes the tables, which are messy and somewhat difficult to understand. The references are mostly satisfying, but the overall context and a thorough background is lacking. In the first paragraph of the introduction, it is stated that "Depression is a common and recurrent, but often neglected mental disorder." Depression is one of the most researched and well-known mental disorders in the world. It is not neglected in neither research or in public health care. This claim is almost directly false, which literature supports this statement?
Experimental design: The overall aim of the paper is interesting, but it lacks a clear rational. Which symptoms personality disorder(s) do the authors refer to? This is a concept with an immense span ranging from antisocial PD to borderline and avoidant PD. Some of them will be stronger linked to both insomnia and depression than others, but this is not communicated at all.

The use of case-control is a major strenght of the paper, but the cross-sectional design makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to draw conclusions about mediating effects. This study would have benefitted from a longitudinal design with baseline and follow-up measurement to establish the link between PD and depression through insomnia. Lastly, the method section should provide examples of items/questions to each instrument used in the study. This would have given the reader more information about which symptoms of PD that actually were measured.
Validity of the findings: Due to the cross-sectional design, the study do not provide information about true mediating effects. The conclusion is vague and do not really provide any new insight on the relation between PD symptoms (which symptoms?), insomnia and depression.
Additional comments: The study would have greatly benefitted from a longitudinal design. Please consider adding a follow-up measurement of the constructs to strenghten the conclusion.


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: INSOMNIA PARTIALLY MEDIATES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PATHOLOGICAL PERSONALITY TRAITS AND DEPRESSION: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No further concerns
Experimental design: No further concerns
Validity of the findings: No further concerns
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: VIRION2: A SHORT- AND LONG-READ SEQUENCING AND INFORMATICS WORKFLOW TO STUDY THE GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF VIRUSES IN NATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Article is well written. Language is clear and coherent. The study relies fairly heavily on precedent set by the initial workflow "virION." While this is understandable (as a methods-based comparative study), it is a bit difficult to read as a standalone. I think it may benefit from a brief description of the original virION workflow with relevant references or figure comparing workflows. Without this context, it is a bit difficult to justify why improvement on the virION pipeline is needed and determine if this is an appropriate comparative study without reading the other paper.

Will sequencing data or assemblies eventually be deposited somewhere publicly, and if so, is there a place in the manuscript designated for an accession number or other affiliated access number? Will PRJEB41030 be explicitly reported? As a living document at protocols.io, is there version control ensuring a static copy of this protocol through its continued evolution?

Very minor:
- L65 unclear which definition of “strain” authors utilize - antigenically different? Most dominant variant? It’s a little distracting and could be either changed (e.g. genotype, variant, lineage, ?) or clarified (I believe both references here utilize bacterial strain microdiversity definitions which are a little confusing)
- L41 in the abstract, it is unclear if “microdiversity” reporting is a mean or median; L78 perhaps specify “complete viral genomes?”; L82 “reduce input DNA requirements”?;  L97 manufacturer kit reference would be helpful here ; L102 and 115 capitalization
- L124 - ONT - oxford nanopore is not identified as ONT before this, to my knowledge? Also perhaps specifically define that CS is a positive control step? (is it?). on L176, it may also be helpful to redefine ONT to reiterate short v. long-read
- L263 “may be strongly,” L269 “marine ecosystem?” L271 median length?, L449 intra-population diversity? Intra-genomic diversity? L443 throughput?
Experimental design: This is a methods-based study investigating techniques to merge long-read and short-read sequencing platforms to better capture viral population microdiversity and viruses with large genomes. The study examines both wetlab and computational approaches to optimize this integration, which the authors named virION2, a pipeline that improves on a previously benchmarked workflow, virION.
This study is original, though predicated on the first pipeline, and (to my knowledge) within the scope of the journal. Methods are described in detail and workflow included on protocols.io. Additional clarification of short-read libraries, sequencing platforms, virION “original” (to clarify which improvements have been made), etc would be very helpful, as noted below to determine if the experimental design is appropriate. The study provides important insight into the effectiveness of certain tools.
Validity of the findings: From my understanding, this is a methods & benchmarking-based study. The workflow appears tractable and well executed. However, I’m confused if it assists in solving the field-wide “problem” that it originally aims to address in the introduction: current platforms miss microdiversity and large viral genomes, and this platform hopes to assist in this. It improves on the original pipeline virION by reducing DNA input and increasing read length, among many other aspects. However, because it still needs large quantities of DNA input to assess microdiversity and resolve large genomes, it doesn’t appear to solve the argument I believe the authors pose? Some additional clarification in the “current limitations” might help me understand a bit better.

That being said, the benchmarking presented here is inherently valuable to both wetlab and computational virologists.  It serves as a great reference to evaluate the utility of certain polymerases, kits, and programs. Thank you for this!

Specific comments:
- L192 & paragraph: is it possible to justify why libraries were normalized by number of reads, rather than another parameter (e.g. #bases), when read length is inherently going to be highly variable based on platform/workflow? Is it possible that this could significantly alter reports of genome completeness, length, SNV calling, etc?
- I may have missed this, but I cannot find anywhere in the main manuscript how mock short-read libraries were prepared or sequenced. I assume they were prepared using a nextera kit (#?) as “nextera” is included in supplementary figures. I also assume that they were sequenced 2x125bp PE on a HiSeq 2500, because this is how WEC samples were sequenced? However, because this is a methods-based paper, it is difficult to know what SNVs are introduced in this step without reporting.
- L244 Can you clarify the prioritization of length over high-fidelity polymerases, when assessing microdiversity appears to be a central goal?
- Though input viral DNA volumes or concentrations were sometimes reported, were they ever QC’d? If so, what device was utilized?
- Authors indicate that increased SNP frequency in longer read assemblies such as virION is not due to sequencing platform (L392). In error-correction, the multitude of amplification steps - which likely introduce SNPs  - are also likely controlled for, correct? Does the potential for uneven recruitment of “unamplified” libraries (is this a non-PCR nextera short-read library?) alter error correction in these longer-read “enhanced” viromes, and if so, does this impact assessments of microdiversity? Would it be possible to clarify these in the manuscript?
- The conclusions must be read very carefully when juxtaposed with the limitations paragraph directly above and authors could clarify this for the benefit of their readers. It appears that with low DNA input requirements, virION2 will not assess microdiversity or capture viruses with large genomes (large DNA input is still required for error correction), and this is a subtly that could be easily missed.
Additional comments: These bioinformatic comparisons are highly valuable and exciting to read. These types of studies tend to be thankless and complicated, but the authors do an excellent job of accounting for multiple parameters. However, insufficient reporting (and a convoluted presentation of conclusions) makes it somewhat difficult to determine if virION2 is appropriately benchmarked and ultimately applicable to the scientific community.


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: VIRION2: A SHORT- AND LONG-READ SEQUENCING AND INFORMATICS WORKFLOW TO STUDY THE GENOMIC DIVERSITY OF VIRUSES IN NATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The work is well written with clear rational for the work. The raw data is provided via databases

The use of the virION2 method, clearly improves the recovery of vial genomes by combining long and short read sequencing. This, improvement has been observed before when combing long and short read methodologies for viral sequencing. Although using different method for the production of long reads, an improvement on short read assembly alone has been observed previously. These methods really should really be mentioned in the introduction (https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.08.329714. PMID: 32761733 ) to give a complete picture of the current approaches that have used long reads in viromics. Given they had similar conclusions
Experimental design: The research question is well defined. The experiments are comprehensively carried out, with a large number of variables tested for the optimization of the method. It meets a clear need to provide reproducible methods for the production of long read viral metagenomes from a low input DNA. It will be of great use to the viral community

Methods are generally very well described. It would be helpful to include the method for micro diversity in this paper, given it is an essential parameter. Rather than referring to a previous work where it is in the supplementary materials.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are well supported by the data presented
Additional comments: The described work builds on previous work by some of the authors on the use of minION sequencing and its use for viral metagenomics. The work comprehensively and robustly optimises the use of the “VirION” method for long read viral metagenomics. Demonstrating that a combination of both long and short read sequencing improves the quality of assembled contigs. Such method optimisation approaches and bench marking are extremely useful tools for the wider community. The paper is very well written; with all data accessible and the methods fully described, (one case could do with further details being provided in this paper). The work was a pleasure to read and highlighted the importance of this improved approach

Minor points
L79 – here and elsewhere, space between units and number 20 L
L220 – given the importance of micro diversity to this study, it would be helpful if the method was provided in the work too. Rather than readers having to refer to the supplementary file of previous publications.


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: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 21: Our life -> our lives

Line 43: at the end of 2019

Line 103: in -> In

Line 145: each day -> everyday; day’s -> daily; he -> they

Line 146-149: improve style

Line 152: Give better reference

Improve the quality of figures.

Better to use pre-symptomatic than asymptomatic.

Provide references of application of agent-based simulation modeling in COVID-19 or similar pandemic situations
Experimental design: Give reference of your code in the manuscript.

Provide discussion on the mathematical model of SEIR and process of its representation in the agent-based simulation model.

Line 147-49 "The model has a set of to-do actions for each defined time slot. These actions define the particular behavior of an agent-based on each individual’s occupation."

Please illustrate line 147 - 149 through some figure or table.
Validity of the findings: Provide statistical analysis to validate your results on daily updates of simulated results and real results.
Additional comments: Please address the comments.

Regards,


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: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript evaluated the effect of NPI measures on a social event in a developing country setting using SIR simulation and compared epidemic curve characteristics utilizing two major scenarios. The manuscript also utilized a public health approach to present the results but also conserved the modeling of data. This interdisciplinary approach is much needed to present findings where public health decision makers can provide evidence-based decisions when dealing with COVID-19 in developing countries. As well, event specific modeling is scarce for COVID-19 and little is known beyond national level modeling. Overall, the manuscript presentation was appropriate using the before mentioned clarifications
It seems more appropriate to use NPI measures instead of NPIs. This goes for the whole manuscript.
Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 instead of SARS-COV-2.
Also, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) should be used at the first statement of SARS-CoV-2.
Line 46: Nearly 20 million.
Line 68: 1927as
Line 75: effectiveness?
Line 78: SEIR, SIQR,
Line 108: in an Irbid city, please delete “an”.
Line 241: effectiveness of the strict NPI measures in reducing the number of reported cases, deaths, and duration of the epidemic.
Experimental design: Line 146: what are the probabilities used for moving between stages? They are critical for the SEIR models to run. Values presented in table 1 are not comprehensive. For example, what is the probability of death used? Contact rate (Beta)? Alpha? I see that death rates were presented in table two but are better merged with table 1 and a reference be provided, if available.
What is the name of the software used to perform the analysis? A simple description will be an added value to this model.
Legends for figures need to be added as most do not have such.
Validity of the findings: The model based approach used in this study is unique. But, does it have any limitations? Are there limitations for this study as seen by the authors?
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: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: --
Review comments for manuscript ID: “54026-v0”, entitled “COVID-19 simulation study - The effect of strict nonpharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) on controlling the spread
of COVID-19” of journal “PeerJ”.

--
General:
Alzu’bi et al. employed an agent-based epidemiological modelling analysis to study the effects of strict Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) on controlling the spread
of COVID-19 pandemic during a wedding ceremony from Irbid, Northern Jordan with consideration of Two infected nationals of Jordan, who arrived in Jordan about a week before the event, initiated the spread of the pandemic within the contact community.
We observed the deterioration of the state of society and the spread of the epidemic among individuals in the absence of preventive measures. Also, our results show that the herd immunity case was an epidemic, with a high level of spread among the community with 918 cases during a short interval of time. On the other hand, the preventive measures scenario shows a totally controlled spread with only 74 cases applied on the same interval of time. Furthermore, a convergence in the actual results of the real system with the hypothetical system were detected in the case of applying the strict NPI measures. Strict NPIs at the community level following social gatherings seem to be effective measures to control the spread of the COVID- 19 pandemic. The analyzing outcomes support the main results in this work with biologically and clinically reasonable settings. Generally, I am fine with their results, and I also think this study is interesting and worth publishing (after revision round). Aside from the interesting parts of the work, I have some comments and suggestions for the authors.

--
Comments

--I suggest the abstract should be rewritten. Since it is not clear whether the authors are reporting an event or using a case scenario to highlight the effects of NPIs on controlling the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

--Each abbreviated term should be defined in its first introduction throughout the manuscript. E.g. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SAR-CoV-2).

--“,” should be inserted between a name and year for each citation. Such as (Cuevas 2020) should be (Cuevas, 2020). I suggest to double check with reference format of PeerJ.

--Epidemiological background should be updated to include up-to-date information on COVID-19 in Jordan and worldwide.

--In line 64-65, the sentence “Simulation can be represented utilizing mathematical equations.” Should be made clear and precise.

--I wonder what the authors are trying to report in line 74-75?

--Line 77-79, the authors should write citation from academic archives not just Wikipedia. There are numerous studies to cite. The sentence should also be made clear and precise. Also, the typo “)” should be corrected.

--“(Khalil et al. 2012); (Alzu’bi et al. 2020).” Should be written as “(Khalil et al., 2012; Alzu’bi et al., 2020).” Similar issues should be corrected throughout the manuscript.

--Line 143, “1 and 24” should be “1 and 24 hours”

--In Figure 2, what the right and left boxes means with regard to the current scenario? I wonder where they came from? And what they represent in the model with respect to the infection of the disease? i.e., Infection chance, event, asymptomatic, …

--The first sentence in the conclusion section is a bit narrow, I suggest the authors to improve this part.

--I wonder why the authors numbered the subsection, while the sections were not numbered? These should be made consistent throughout.

--I noticed that the results are based on the data not on the model? Any explanation?

--I appreciate the authors have done a very nice and comprehensive discussion mainly focusing on the technical part. It would be more appreciated if the author could elaborate more from the epidemiology and public health sides, which could fit more to the journal.

-- I suggest some important published papers should be discussed or cited. Such as:
.. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-00459-7
.. https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-020-00718-y
.. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMOa2001316
.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.050
.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.02.058
.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2020.108364


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: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
Experimental design: More explanation of agent-based modelling and the process of representing SEIR into agent-based modelling is needed.

Without mathematical formulation difficult to place the parameters of the model.
Validity of the findings: Difficult to understand the parameter values of the model.
Additional comments: Dear Authors,

Thanks for your efforts.
Please address the comments to improve the readability of the article.

Thanks


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

Input:
Title: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear English
Clear figures and tables
Clear results
Experimental design: Well defined scope and methods
Validity of the findings: Results and conclusions are well stated
Additional comments: I believe they did all the suggested changes. so, I recommend to accept the paper.


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: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

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

I appreciate the authors have carefully addressed all the issues raised by the reviewers that are useful to improve this manuscript. I think the paper is recommended for publication after consideration of the minor issue below.

--
Comments

The authors should clearly state their findings in the conclusion section.


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

Input:
Title: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 30-31: “the herd immunity case was an epidemic”, please use better way to express this.
Line 306: better to use pre-symptomatic in place of asymptomatic
Figure 3, 5 and 7: Provide legends for different colors of dots.
Figure 8: Provide legends
Experimental design: Infection chance and recovery chance hasn’t been shown in the mathematical formulation in line 134 to 138.
The values of parameter such as (exposed initially) E(0) and  (recovered initially) R(0) is not mentioned.
Validity of the findings: The results section may include the value of the parameters such as R naught for herd immunity case and NPI case.
Additional comments: Dear Authors,

Thanks for incorporating comments.
Please do the needful as per new comments.

Regards,


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: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all the comments.
I think the manuscript can be accepted after some minor correction below.

Equation 3 of the SEIR system should be dI/dt...
that is
dS/dt=-βSI/N
dE/dt=βSI/N-σE
dI/dt=σE-γI
dR/dt=γI.


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: COVID-19 SIMULATION STUDY—THE EFFECT OF STRICT NON-PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (NPIS) ON CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF COVID-19
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Dear Authors,

Thanks for incorporating comments.

Regards,


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF ISOLATION POLICIES IN SCHOOLS: EVIDENCE FROM A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF INFLUENZA AND COVID-19
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors used mathematical models to evaluate the effects of different school-based control measures on epidemics of influenza and COVID-19. They found that isolating symptomatic students could reduce attack rate of influenza but not COVID-19, which makes sense because of the common pre-symptomatic transmission of COVID-19. The authors also found that shortening school open days could substantially reduce the attack rate of both influenza and COVID-19, which is interesting and perhaps need more elaboration of why.
Experimental design: Overall I think the design of study was reasonable and valid. I would suggest to define the outcome measures first in the methods section and provide more details/analysis to elaborate how shortening school open days could reduce attack rate (e.g. the mechanisms).
Validity of the findings: Overall I think findings from the study were reasonable and valid. The findings that shortening school open days can reduce attach rate for influenza and COVID-19 is particularly interesting, but the machinist behind this is bit unclear and may need to be validated by intermediate results from the model simulations. It would be helpful if the authors could see which steps result in the reduction in attack rate, e.g., the exposure time of all students or just the infected students. These may have more implications on targeted controls - which would be more effective, control exposure or control sources?
Additional comments: 1. I would suggest to define the outcome measures first in the methods section and provide more details/analysis to elaborate how shortening school open days could reduce attack rate (e.g. the mechanisms).
2. The findings that shortening school open days can reduce attach rate for influenza and COVID-19 is particularly interesting, but the machinist behind this is bit unclear and may need to be validated by intermediate results from the model simulations. It would be helpful if the authors could see which steps result in the reduction in attack rate, e.g., the exposure time of all students or just the infected students. These may have more implications on targeted controls - which would be more effective, control exposure or control sources?
3.I don't think that I agree with the authors that NPIs lack of sufficient evidences of effectiveness. It’s not clear of the direct and indirect effects of these associations.
4. Did the author look at school closure or other NPIs as well? Suggest to rephrase to avoid confusion.
5. Introduce the parameter that are going to be estimated
6. Not very clear of the outcome measure that is used in the study until read the results. Suggest to define in the methods.
7. Line 154-158: strange to define policies here instead of in the introduction.
8. Line 191-196: How did the author define attack rate? Why higher attack rate when children are immune?


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF ISOLATION POLICIES IN SCHOOLS: EVIDENCE FROM A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF INFLUENZA AND COVID-19
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript deals with an emerging topic about assessing the effectiveness of quarantine policies in schools against influenza and COVID-19 by using disease models. The simulation result recommends extending the duration of post-fever isolation to two days rather than the current policy of one day for controlling influenza, and shortening school week down to four days or less to reduce COVID-19 infections. I think these questions to be important, and the tool developed by the authors may be helpful for assessing other intervention policies. To make the proposed method's more visible, I suggest providing the tool information in the manuscript rather than in the supplementary document. Other than that, the following issues should be resolved or at least discussed as its limitations for publication.
Experimental design: 1. (Materials and methods section) The authors' compartmental model seems appropriate, but their explanations in the manuscript are too brief. Many modeling details can be founded in the supplementary document. Therefore, I suggest reorganizing the contents in the method section and the supplementary document.

2. (Figure 1) According to model explanations in the supplementary document, heterogeneous contacts between different cohorts were considered in their model. I do not think heterogeneous contacts are necessary for this study, as only school-wide quarantine policies were analyzed. But it seems that including heterogeneous contacts can make their models more general to be reused by other studies. If such a case, it is important to make the proposed method more clear. Figure 1 needs to improve by adding more details of disease model formulations, such as including the cohort index i and redrawing the figure to indicate the mixing between different cohorts.

3. (Lines 170-171) The authors said that ”…reduces the peak prevalence from 20(13-15) to 5 (2-8)…”. However, in figure 2 part A, the medium attack rates are about 22 for the baseline and 7.5 for the two-day policy. The authors should confirm these numbers.

4. Also, the reader may not understand how you measure the outbreak duration. What is the minimum daily infection volume that defines an outbreak? Suggest defining outbreak quantitatively before discussed the simulation results.

5. (Lines 182-183) The medium attack rate is 10% for the COVID-19 baseline. However, in the sensitivity analysis section of the supplementary document (page 2), the authors said that the transmission parameter was adjusted to match up the observed attack rate of 11.3% in a school outbreak, which has a 1.3% difference from the observed data. The authors should explain why there is a discrepancy. Also, it is not clear about parameter tuning details done by the authors. What are the transmission parameters actually used in the simulation experiment?
Validity of the findings: 1. (Lines 246-258) The overall conclusion is valid and has connected to research questions and proposed methods. However, the study’s limitations are not presented comprehensively. The follows are important concerns not being well explained in the manuscript:

1. The number of ILIs mainly contain common cold cases caused by respiratory viruses other than influenza viruses. It may be inappropriate to use the number of ILIs to calibrate model parameters directly. Serology testing results or at least any evidence from previous studies would be required.

2. How about the unreported cases? Some cases are infected but not reported. These cases might have a significant impact on epidemiological evaluation and quarantine policies. The authors may propose potential modifications to their model to take such a factor into account or state it as a limitation in their manuscript.
Additional comments: Line 20: Suggest changing the term "SARS-CoV2 " to "SARS-CoV-2".

Table S2: This table only includes a part of the notations used in the proposed model. For example, f¬d is used but not included in this table.

Table 1. Suggest including the baseline policy in this table. Also, the table should include attack rates and outbreak duration rather than only report the decreasing percentages.

Figure 1. Suggest changing the arrow type from double to single for the arrow from the compartment S to compartment V.

Figures 2 and 3. These figures could be better presented by reformatting the background color, x- and y- bars scales, and legends, instead of just copied and pasted from the graphs generated by the online tool.


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF ISOLATION POLICIES IN SCHOOLS: EVIDENCE FROM A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF INFLUENZA AND COVID-19
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made explanations regarding the reviewer questions and commented on related concerns in the resubmitted article. The graphics, tables, and supplementary files have provided sufficient information to enhance the readability of the entire article.
Experimental design: The revised manuscript has clearly stated the simulation model and other materials used in the experimental analysis.
Validity of the findings: The resubmitted manuscript has clearly stated the data, measures, and assumptions, supporting conclusions drawn from the simulation result. The adding statements in the new manuscript are sound and necessary.
Additional comments: No comment.


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

Input:
Title: TRANSCRIPTOME-WIDE AND EXPRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE NAC GENE FAMILY IN PEPINO (SOLANUM MURICATUM) DURING DROUGHT STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Just providing the comments for improvement

Language:
English can be improved a bit throughout the manuscript.

Figure Specific comments:

Figures should be improved particularly Figure 1 and 7. Both of which are not sharp.

Figure 1 has the additional issue of requiring a better legend.
The description of the motif figure (sequence logo) is not completely clear. The X-axis description is ok but the Y-axis is not the number of NACs with that motif.  The Y-axis provides bits (see Crooks et al. 2004).

Figure 2. Can be improve if the sequences were clustered by their motif content

Figure 3. In phylogeny we typically speak of Unrooted and not rootless trees. Highlighting of the tips does not cover the full name.

Line 337: I suppose that Figure 5 in this sentences refers to Figure 6?

This paper has no clearly stated question as its aim was to describe the NAC gene family in pepino and analysis there expression pattern in during Drought treatment. It is a descriptive paper
Experimental design: Issues with the methods

Line: 118. I have two concerns here: First, the authors mention to have obtained sequencing data from the accessions SRX1181733, SRX1177957 of which only the second accession corresponds to Solanum maricatum.  I suppose the authors have taken the transcriptome data from Harraiz et al. 2016. If not, the authors should clearly state how the transcriptome was generated as the SRA accessions provide reads and not transcripts ready for translation.

Line 125: I suppose BLAST was used for comparison of the sequences given that E-value is mentioned in the sentence. If so, please correctly cite the BLAST manuscript.

Line 131: I reckon that MEME was used for MOTIF identification and conserved domains (which was done with PFAM).

Line 142: It is of upmost importance to state which substitution model was used for the maximum likelihood tree estimation. It is also important (although to lesser extend) describe why the model was used. Another concern is whether the authors made any attempt of removing lowly conserved regions from the alignment with for instance TrimAL (Capella-Gutierrez et al. 2009) prior to constructing the tree.

Line 339: What exactly was the criteria (in domains and expression) for selecting the 7 genes for followup. In the discussion (line 508) this is a bit elaborated but still not clearly.

Figure 3
I can understand that this would happen for Arabidopsis in the tree. But I wonder why they don’t mix so much with the other solanum species. The other solanum species do seem to have some specific groups but not as large as pepino. Could this be the effect of using a de novo transcriptome which might generate many transcript isofomrs for the same gene thus blowing into what would appear large species specific groups.

Figure 7. It is not easy to see however, there appear to be stop-codons in the alignment. I confirmed that this is case by directly translating the NAC91 sequecne of Capsicum that is provided in the fasta files of the authors and found the FSSFLFLFSKD*ILAMAVLHEGNQLA in the alignment. Therefore, I am sorry to say that Figure 7 cannot be used to make conclusions
Validity of the findings: Given that stop codons were present in the alignment of Figure 7. I am worried about the protein sequences underlying the e.g. MOTIF , PFAM and Phylogentic analyses which are based on protein sequences. I am sorry to be negative about this point it is crucial that the protein sequences are well predicted.  It is therefore important to have provided the protein sequence translations and not the whole gene/cdna sequences (not even CDS). The conclusions/findings of this paper are for a large part dependent on these inferred protein sequences.
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: TRANSCRIPTOME-WIDE AND EXPRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE NAC GENE FAMILY IN PEPINO (SOLANUM MURICATUM) DURING DROUGHT STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The manuscript “Genome-wide and expression analysis of NAC gene family in pepino (Solanum muricatum) during drought stress” reports basic information of the NAC gene family in pepino. Most of the information is retrieved using bioinformatic tools, and the expression of NAC genes in different tissues and under different drought stress using qPCR. This work will fundamentally benefit further studies of pepino drought tolerant genes in future. Suggestions for improvement on this manuscript were as follows:
1. The English language should be improved. I suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.
2. The NAC sequences were obtained from transcriptome database rather than genome database, so the “Genome-wide” in the title should be replaced by “Transcriptome-wide”.
3. Line 121-123. The authors could consider building model using previously characterized NAC sequences and sequences from other species and perform further searches to verify if any genes are missed. The identified sequences need to be further analyzed to confirm the presence of NAM or NAC domain using other tools, such as InterPro program (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/), CDD (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/cdd/wrpsb.cgi) or SMART (http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/).
4. Line 135-139, 258-261. Why were these NAC genes selected in these species? Whether the representativeness of these genes in different subfamilies is considered to better classify SmNAC genes?
5. Line 151-152. Why the samples used for tissue-specific expression undergo drought treatment rather than normal growth?
6. Line 159-160. Please provide the primer information of these 71 SmNAC genes for qPCR.
7. Other comments
Line 17. “(Pepino)” should be placed after “Solanum muricatum” in Line 15.
Line 47. “Solanum muricatum” should be italic.
Line 66, 68 and 336. Pay attention to the correct writing of superscript and subscript in “ddH2O” and “2-ΔΔCT”.
Line 250. Please check that the number 47 is correct.
Line 333. The word “meant” should be “means”.
Line 337. Please check if Figure 5 should be Figure 4.


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

Input:
Title: TRANSCRIPTOME-WIDE AND EXPRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE NAC GENE FAMILY IN PEPINO (SOLANUM MURICATUM) DURING DROUGHT STRESS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I will go over the main points that I mentioned last time

The English has indeed improved and I could understand the manuscript very fast.

The issues I had wit all figures has been solved except I still have an issue with Figure 7. Although the stop-codon problem has been resolved the alignment can be improved and result in better conservation values. If you look closely you can for instance at 2 gaps at position 140 for all the sequences except the ones of Nicotiana. This would already increase the number of conserved positions. It seems overall that some gaps could be introduced. It is a bit suspicious that the alignment has no gaps at. Please revise the alignment.

The authors recognised that the paper is more descriptive and I am satisfied with their adjustments on this issue.
Experimental design: Concerning the selected model for Phylogeny: Although I am still always in favour of performing model selection. I will accept in this case usage of the GTR as the authors are using it informed based on literature.
Validity of the findings: Given the responses of the Authors in the Rebuttal letter and the major modifications to the text (including my concerns) I am satisfied. The only thing I would urge the authors to do is to improve the alignment in Figure 7 because it will so a better conservation.
Additional comments: Once again, I am happy with the changes made by the Author and I accept 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: PLASMA BDNF CONCENTRATIONS AND THE ANTIDEPRESSANT EFFECTS OF SIX KETAMINE INFUSIONS IN UNIPOLAR AND BIPOLAR DEPRESSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: None
Experimental design: None
Validity of the findings: None
Additional comments: This paper conducted a study that have determined the association between plasma BDNF levels and the antidepressant effects of six ketamine infusions. Though this study could provide clinical implications. There are several problems to be addressed:
(1) As you mentioned in the introduction, the association of plasma BDNF levels and the antidepressant effects of repeated ketamine infusions in depressed patients is not clear. So why does not author explore the mediating/moderating effect in this manuscript? Maybe it's a clearer relationship.
(2) Although ninety-four depressed patients were included, sample size still is small. This is a limitation.
(3) How to define the bipolar depression? And how to distinguish the unipolar or bipolar depression? Authors should conduct a subgroup analysis to explore potential differences between unipolar depression and bipolar depression.
(4) For statistical analysis, authors did not adjust any covariates. Why? I think author should consider the potential confounds.
(5) Line 309. Authors should report the full name of mTOR.
(6) Authors should add some clinical implications in the discussion.
(7) Table 2 showed that both MADRS scores and plasma BDNF levels exhibited significant effects between responders and non-responders and remitters and non-remitter. Why does not author consider the interaction effect?


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: PLASMA BDNF CONCENTRATIONS AND THE ANTIDEPRESSANT EFFECTS OF SIX KETAMINE INFUSIONS IN UNIPOLAR AND BIPOLAR DEPRESSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See my overall comments as below.
Experimental design: See my overall comments as below.
Validity of the findings: See my overall comments as below.
Additional comments: Some minor issues:

1. Line 60-61, response and remission can not be directly measured by MADRS.

2. Line 63-64, “baseline, 24h, and 2 weeks” do not correspond to “(baseline, 13d and 26d)”.

3. Line 69, please provide detailed data of the BDNF levels and line 71, the corresponding correlation coefficients.

4. Line 73, in the conclusion, the authors used “may be a predictor” but in the title BDNF predicts treatment response definitely.

5. Line 104-105, a problematic and unclear sentence.

6. Line 108, are should be is.

7. Line 134-136, an unclear sentence, “examined patients” looks like very strange.

8. Line 155, according to (3), all subjects are patients with TRD. Line 206, why there is a subsample of patients with TRD in the whole sample?

9. Line 191-194, these statistical analysis methods are not used for “analyze”. Please specify these are used for comparisons between groups.

In general, scientific papers must be written rigorously without obvious language and logic issues. The authors did poorly on this.

Major issues:

1. The introduction is poorly written. Line 115-120, it remains unclear why there is a need for efficacy predictor of ketamine treatment. Line 136-137, because no non-treatment group, pre- and post-comparison can not answer this research question: increase in BDNF due to ketamine administration. The second hypothesis has no supporting evidence, or is not suitable in theory because in the afore-reviewed studies, higher BDNF is associated with better treatment response. The major issue of this part is that the authors failed to define the research question, for example, BDNF as a predictor of treatment response, biomarker of treatment response, or mediator of treatment response? These are different and can not be discussed together. A significant logic error of the current hypothesis is, since baseline BDNF could predict the treatment outcome at the end of the observation and ketamine has been administered at baseline, it is not necessary to talk so much on ketamine.

2. Problematic statistical analytic strategies. For the predictive value of baseline BDNF on treatment outcomes, I suggest the authors to do adjustment analysis to ensure this predictive value is independent from other baseline characteristics, for example, in Table 1, responders and remitters all had lower baseline MADRS scores, so responders and remitters may be a subgroup of patients with less severe depressive symptoms and are more likely to have better treatment response. The authors need to consider the sample size, since this seems inadequate for the adjustment analysis. Line 200, it remains unclear what is stepwise regression models and the purpose of such analysis. Third, I do not agree with the linear mixed model, since response and remission should be outcome variables, not an independent variable in the regression analysis. If the authors focused on the mediating roles of BDNF, the correct statistical method should be cross-lagged effect model. The current analysis can not denote the predictive effect of BDNF, i.e., prior BDNF change predicts latter MADRS change.


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: PLASMA BDNF CONCENTRATIONS AND THE ANTIDEPRESSANT EFFECTS OF SIX KETAMINE INFUSIONS IN UNIPOLAR AND BIPOLAR DEPRESSION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: None
Experimental design: None
Validity of the findings: none
Additional comments: Thank you for your revision. I still have some comments for your consideration.

1. Title. It is well-known that BDNF can be considered as both BDNF gene and plasma BDNF level. Please specifically define it.
2. Please add the provider of SPSS software
3. Line 196-120. This is an inaccurate description. The main function of multiple linear regression is to explore the independent association, rather than controlling the covariate. Authors should re-structure this description and add the dependent variable and independent variables.


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: PLASMA BDNF CONCENTRATIONS AND THE ANTIDEPRESSANT EFFECTS OF SIX KETAMINE INFUSIONS IN UNIPOLAR AND BIPOLAR DEPRESSION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no further comments.
Experimental design: I have no further comments.
Validity of the findings: I have no further comments.
Additional comments: I have no further comments.


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

Input:
Title: PLASMA BDNF CONCENTRATIONS AND THE ANTIDEPRESSANT EFFECTS OF SIX KETAMINE INFUSIONS IN UNIPOLAR AND BIPOLAR DEPRESSION
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: None
Experimental design: none
Validity of the findings: None
Additional comments: I am satisfied with your revision


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

Input:
Title: A TAXONOMICALLY DETAILED AND LARGE-SCALE VIEW OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TREE SPECIES PLANTED IN PRIVATE GARDENS OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY, NEW ZEALAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: An interesting article and topic, making use of a rare data set. I have left a number of suggestions of various level of significance (some quite strategic, some very specific) on the pdf of the manuscript. Please have a look and try and address them.

I feel overall the collected data has value. Before it's accepted for publication I would however suggest particularly re-visiting the following:
- giving the reader more confidence in how plant taxonomic data were collected? with species identification being outsourced - how can be confident this was done well?
- could some examples be provided of what actual species were identified in various categories (native/non native but also tree class sizes). This would have real value for a more biologically-inclined readers.
-both in the Introduction and Discussion providing a more detailed, deeper discussion of why is the nativeness (or otherwise) important in the context of this study? As it reads now, (to me at least) - the paper is an inventory of the things you found and catalogued. But it would be good to know 'so what'? Why is more native important (or not)? Does it have societal/ecological value or are some other aspects of what you found of more significance? More discussion of socioeconomic status vs what's found in gardens would also be good. There are some papers published in the last 2-3 years on a topic of SE status/ownership vs attitudes and plant choices which you could use to compare. Any specific species which are of particular value? Don't be afraid of making paper more plant-y/ecological!
Experimental design: I have no additional comment
Validity of the findings: Could another reviewer please look at Tables 2 & 3. I am not familiar with his type of analysis and can't really judge the validity/clarity of the information presented in them.
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: A TAXONOMICALLY DETAILED AND LARGE-SCALE VIEW OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TREE SPECIES PLANTED IN PRIVATE GARDENS OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY, NEW ZEALAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are a few cases of incorrect grammar and punctuation, noted in the attached marked pdf.  As also noted there, I found the part of the Results section that described the separate analyses of tree size classes somewhat confusing.
Experimental design: This seems thorough and careful, though I am not qualified to evaluate the modeling aspects.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript uses a valuable and unusually thorough dataset to address some very interesting and important questions about trees planted by people in urban settings. As noted above, I do not consider myself qualified to evaluate the modeling methods and I thought one part of the Results a bit confusing, but overall I found the authors' analyses to be thorough and careful and their interpretations and conclusions to be sound and appropriate.
Additional comments: Please see comments in areas 1-3 above as well as comments and suggestions included in the attached marked pdf.


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

Input:
Title: A TAXONOMICALLY DETAILED AND LARGE-SCALE VIEW OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TREE SPECIES PLANTED IN PRIVATE GARDENS OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY, NEW ZEALAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear Wei and colleagues

While you have addressed some of the comments I made, I feel there are areas yet to be improved. This is particularly around the justification of the origin of species (especially down to a very 'cellular' level - native to city!!): why is this important and why should readers be interested in that? I am not disputing that this may be important, but as a reader I would benefit from you providing a more detailed context of why is that relevant/important/what to do with that knowledge?

I am copying from my previous review the two points which I would suggest you please address in more detail:

-both in the Introduction and Discussion providing a more detailed, deeper discussion of why is the nativeness (or otherwise) important in the context of this study? As it reads now, (to me at least) - the paper is an inventory of the things you found and catalogued. But it would be good to know 'so what'? Why is more native important (or not)? Does it have societal/ecological value or are some other aspects of what you found of more significance? More discussion of socioeconomic status vs what's found in gardens would also be good. There are some papers published in the last 2-3 years on a topic of SE status/ownership vs attitudes and plant choices which you could use to compare. Any specific species which are of particular value? Don't be afraid of making paper more plant-y/ecological!
- could some examples be provided of what actual species were identified in various categories (native/non native but also tree class sizes). This would have real value for a more biologically-inclined readers.

As I stated in the initial review, Table 2 in the paper is not discussed in Results or Discussion. What is the significance of it and what is it telling us? Please provide this information somewhere in the paper if you are keen to include this data.
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: A TAXONOMICALLY DETAILED AND LARGE-SCALE VIEW OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TREE SPECIES PLANTED IN PRIVATE GARDENS OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY, NEW ZEALAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Concerns raised in my first review have been satisfactorily addressed. Thank you.
- Dan Potter, UC Davis


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

Input:
Title: A TAXONOMICALLY DETAILED AND LARGE-SCALE VIEW OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TREE SPECIES PLANTED IN PRIVATE GARDENS OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY, NEW ZEALAND
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: The revision is acceptable.


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: THE PROSPECTIVE COVID-19 VACCINE: WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN IBADAN, NIGERIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and easy to follow with appropriate and sufficient context provided. The use of English is appropriate.
Experimental design: Epidemiologically, appropriate Study and sampling design were used. All the expected procedures and technicalities of the use of questionnaires for an epidemiologic study were well observed.
Validity of the findings: The findings of the study are internally valid for the study population.
Additional comments: Please check throughout the manuscript for error in spellings especially COVOD 19 instead of COVID 19.
Line 165-198: You mentioned PCA was done but no result was shown. Also, I didnt see any inclusion of any principal component for socioeconomic index in the multivariable logistic regression model. OR do you mean line 169-170 represent this socioeconomic index? A more explicit explanation and coherent information in this section will avoid any ambiguity.
Please kindly dd 95% CI interval to Tables 1-3
Table 1-4: Please be consistent with your decimal places, You used 1,2 and 3 decimal places in all these tables.
Line 154-156: You indicated here that you have 2-3 outcomes of interest, why was only multivariable model done for only willingness to pay?
Line 117-127: Uf you look at your data and sampling design, you have 3 level hierarchical data structure with center location nested in political ward nested in the local government. On a good day, you should have accounted for this clustering in the data by building mixed effect logistic model, however considering no data was collected at stage 1 and stage 2, its permissible to build logistic regression without adjusting for clustering. Please add this explanation to the data analytic part 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: THE PROSPECTIVE COVID-19 VACCINE: WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN IBADAN, NIGERIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled & described.
No, detailed description of the figure should be provided.  Description should include percentage of respondents. The Y-axis was labeled as "Proportion" while the figure seems to display percentages. Please modify appropriately.
Raw data supplied.
Authors provided raw data, but no code
Experimental design: Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
The authors can do better by adding more details in the statistical analysis section.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
More detailed statistical analysis will be of benefit to reader.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: General comments
Abstract
Lines 11-13: Please, clearly state what score was assigned to each of the 5-point Likert scale.
Line 16: Please state what kind of multivariate analysis was conducted.
Line 19: Insert the unit for mean age
Line 20: Delete “and”
Line 23: Define AOR
Introduction
Line 37-40: Insert reference for the statement “In spite of these containment and control efforts, ……”
Line 79: In line with the study aim which include assessing the willingness to pay for the COVID 19 vaccine, the introduction section should be expanded to address cost of vaccine and vaccination on persons in community and its impact on willingness of the people to take it due to economic reasons
Materials and methods
Line 93: Insert space - 128 kilometres ......... 530 kilometres
Lines 94-95: Insert reference. “As of 28th September, 2020, Oyo State…..”
Line 112: Delete “be”
Lines 116-127: Consider writing this section in full sentence format
Line 118: What informed the selection of 4 out of 11 local government areas?
Line 126-127: A total of 440 persons sampled across 4 LGAs. Does this correspond to 440 households? Please clearly state how many households is represented in the sampled respondents.
Lines 129-137: Consider writing this section in full sentence format
Line 139-140: Consider stating the eight questions here OR reference the questionnaire in the supplementary material.
Line 158: State the computer program used for data entry.
Lines 165-166: Insert reference(s).
Lines 180-182: Repeat here that there were 8 questions addressing the perceptions of respondents about COVID-19, summing up to a possible 40 points score.
Line 183: Consider “≥ 32 points (≥ 80%)” for consistency
Line 187: “COVID-19vaccine” insert space
Lines 223-225: It might be interesting to understand the demographic distributions of the 311 respondents who had good knowledge. Is it different for the respondents with poor knowledge?
Lines 225-227: These are causes of COVID-19 predetermined by the authors in the interviewer-administered questionnaire. Did the respondents mentioned other causes of COVID-19 besides the ones listed in the questionnaire? What are the other causes of COVID-19 mentioned by respondents?
Line 237: Clearly state who you described here as "them". Questionnaire respondents?
Line 244: Consider including the dollar equivalent of this naira amount.
Lines 250-252: Add “%” to the numbers in parentheses
Discussions
Line 283: “..two -thirds of COVID-19..” remove space
Line 314: Insert reference(s)
Lines 340-342: Insert reference(s)
Lines 344-345: Consider adding "when available" at the end of the sentence ".....improve the uptake of the vaccine"
Line 361: “COVID-19 vaccine”, not COVOD-19 vaccine.
References
Lines 402-404: Insert version and page number
Line 416: “affect” not affect
Tables
Define "n" in tables 2-4
Consider detailed description of the tables in the titles
Figure
Consider detailed description for the figure. Description should include percentage of respondents. The Y-axis was labeled as "Proportion" while the figure seems to display percentages. Please modify appropriately.


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: THE PROSPECTIVE COVID-19 VACCINE: WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN IBADAN, NIGERIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written
Experimental design: The experimental design is sound and easy to follow.
Validity of the findings: Necessary corrections have been done by the authors with data and code provision.
Additional comments: Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics, for the age group, the 95% CI (using exact method) is as follows:

<=20: 68/440 =15.5% (12.2-19.2)
21-40: 202/440 =45.9% (41.2-50.7)
41-60: 131/440 =29.8% (25.5-34.3)
>60: 39/440 =8.9% (6.3-11.9)

So adding CI is possible and it doesn't have to be a bivariate analysis. This is a binomial distribution with n and p and therefore, 95% CI can be calculated.


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: THE PROSPECTIVE COVID-19 VACCINE: WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND PERCEPTION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN IBADAN, NIGERIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Comments for minor revision included in the uploaded annotated 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: THE DISTURBANCE LEG-LIFT RESPONSE (DLR): AN UNDESCRIBED BEHAVIOR IN BUMBLE BEES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Few typos to be corrected (see yellow and red corrections in the annotated PDF file).

The literature references in the introduction seem a little bit biased (see annotated PDF file for suggestions).

The structure of the article is somewhat unorthodox (each experiment was described and discussed separately), especially with regard to the structure of the results section where each paragraph corresponds to a figure or table. I think that reading the manuscript would benefit from focusing the writing on the story told and the main results instead of dissecting each element of the display separately when they clearly relate to the same result. In addition, when a result is stated in a sentence, the statistics should be reported in the same sentence to support that statement. In my opinion, it is not necessary to describe statistical tables separately from descriptive figures/tables (see annotated PDF file).
Experimental design: Be careful not to oversell your study, the DLR has already been described. Nevertheless, it is true that it has not been specifically studied, especially not in the context of learning (see the annotated PDF file for suggestions).

Controls are lacking to be certain of your interpretation of the bees' behavior as being the result of habituation (see annotated PDF file).

I missed a few details regarding the apparatus in Experiment 1 (see annotated PDF file).
Validity of the findings: I would advise to be more cautious regarding your conclusions on habituation, given the lack of appropriate controls (see annotated PDF file).
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: THE DISTURBANCE LEG-LIFT RESPONSE (DLR): AN UNDESCRIBED BEHAVIOR IN BUMBLE BEES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment. Please see in "General comments for the author"
Experimental design: No comment. Please see in "General comments for the author"
Validity of the findings: No comment. Please see in "General comments for the author"
Additional comments: In the paper titled “The disturbance leg-lift response (DLR): An undescribed behavior in bumble bees” Varnon and collaborators described and investigated the function of an undocumented behavior, the disturbance leg-lift response (DLR) that bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) showed after disturbance. In particular, in a first part of the study, they tried to induce visual and mechanical disturbance to focal bees and recorded the occurrence and sequence of DLR, biting, and stinging.  In a second part of the study, after having characterized the DLR response, they investigated if DLR could be altered by non-associative learning in a habituation assay. The authors concluded that DLR may function as a warning signal that a sting will occur and that DLR can be used in non-associative learning test.
Research questions are well defined, relevant, and meaningful. The paper is timely, original, and potentially useful for future studies, particularly on aversive learning and memory. The paper is clear. Structure conforms to PeerJ standards. Figures are all relevant and sufficiently described. As far as I can understand, the results are statistically sound. Methods are  described with sufficient detail (but see some minor points). The work potentially worth publishing. I have however, a main concern and several minor points that the authors should address prior to the publication of the manuscript. I have listed below all these points hoping that my comments will be helpful for revising the work.

Main point
My most significant concern about the manuscript is that the second experiments failed in demonstrating the occurrence of a true habituation of DLR.  After presenting the bumblebees with the habituation stimulus several times, the authors correctly induced dishabituation by recollecting them from the apparatus. This recollection served as dishabituating stimulus. However, I am afraid, the authors missed the final step to demonstrate that what they observed in the habitation assay was a case of true habituation. That is, after dishabituation, the bees should had been presented once again with the original habituation stimulus and observe the recovery from habituation in a very precise manner. Without this crucial final step, they authors cannot rule out fatigue or sensory adaptation. The authors seemed to be aware of this as in line 376-377 they said that they “informally observed 50% of the bees displaying DLR” when moved. At the very end of the habituation trial about the 25% and 20% of wild and captive bees displayed DLR (fig. 4). Whether this is statistically different from the vague and too approximate 50% is not known.

Minor points
Line 49-57 the entire paragraph needs to be improved a bit. Instead of making a list of learning/cognitive tasks/abilities, some of which are too narrow and punctiform examples (such as perception of time, learned helplessness, select and reject stimulus control) the authors might rather mentioned few important reviews or books (For Chittka e Thomson 2001;  Giurfa 2003, 2013; Galizia and Eisenhardt 2011). The literature should be better referenced.
Lines 58-61. I respectfully disagree. Bumblebees are a model system since many years. More importantly, I do not think these lines are needed.
Line 63 Authors mentioned the existence of several aversive conditioning protocols. They mentioned the sting extension response (SER) for honeybees. I guess it would be very relevant to mention others such as the aversive conditioning of the mandible opening response in ants (MOR,  Desment et al 2017) or the aversive conditioning in mosquito larvae (Banglan et al 2007).
Line 74 full dot is missing.
Line 79 it is not clear to me why the authors decided to compare the DLR in wild and captive bees. Please explain why you used this method.
Line 159 I guess 1.3 mm should be 1.3 centimetres. Please double check this
Line 177 What does it mean “context” here? Please try to be a bit clearer.
Line 261. I might be wrong here, but how the authors inferred that “DLR is sensitive to stimulus intensity, changing as stimuli become closer across groups” if the toothpick was always kept 12 mm apart from the body of the bumblebees in the experimental group? Please clarify this point.
Line 326. Is there any particular reason why each bee experienced 10 trials with a seven-minute ITI. Why seven? did you try other combinations in pilot study?
Line 375 Please report full stats
Line 284 Please report full stats
Line 388 The authors mentioned two populations. Yet, as far as I understand, they tested one single wild colony and one single reared colony. This is a confounding factor as one needs more replicates to say that the observed difference is due to rearing condition (wild  vs captive) and not colony differences.

Line 402 how did you collect captive bees? Please clarify. The fact of being or not a forager might be even more crucial than being big or small in displaying a DLR. Collecting foragers at a feeder may have solved this problem.


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: THE DISTURBANCE LEG-LIFT RESPONSE (DLR): AN UNDESCRIBED BEHAVIOR IN BUMBLE BEES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript reads well and the results of the added trials to demonstrate habituation are convincing.
I do not have any major comment, only minor ones (see below):
Line 70: “Desment et al. 2017” should read “Desmedt et al. 2017”.
Lines 214-216: I believe that the authors have forgotten to address my concern about the lack of reported statistical results to support such statements in my first review.
Line 254: I would report the p-values here, i.e. (p values < 0.009), for the comparison between the DLR:Sting sequence and other DLR-first sequences.
Line 268: “an primarily undocumented…” should read “a primarily undocumented…”.
Line 296: “innate response” should read “innate responses”.
Line 379: “proceeding” should read “preceding”.
Line 392: commas missing.
Line 407: Replace “Figure 3” by “Figure 4”.
Supplementary line 86: Replace “DLR are sting” by “DLR and sting”.
Suppl. Line 124: Delete “the from” before “their hive”, and “with a similar main colony”.


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: THE DISTURBANCE LEG-LIFT RESPONSE (DLR): AN UNDESCRIBED BEHAVIOR IN BUMBLE BEES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

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


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

Input:
Title: LARGE-SCALE MOVEMENTS OF COMMON BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS IN THE ATLANTIC: DOLPHINS WITH AN INTERNATIONAL COURTYARD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript provides important information of the movements of bottlenose dolphins in the NE Atlantic Ocean.
The article is well written with sufficient references, data and figures.
Grammatical changes are suggested in the "General comments for the author" section.
Experimental design: This study represents a well example of the importance of sharing information between research groups from different areas. It compiles information from three different countries, three autonomous regions and continental information, resulting in novel findings on the species movement patterns.
Validity of the findings: Even though the data used is sufficient, the results could be more robust if complemented with likelihood techniques as used by Alves et al 2019 for Short-finned pilot whales of Macaronesia.
However, the descriptive analysis provided in the manuscript has a significant contribution for the ecology of the species.
Additional comments: I suggest the authors to make the following grammatical changes to the manuscript:

L42: Replace “Canaries” with “Canary Islands” for consistency
L43: Replace “as well as among” with “neither between”
L60: The “s” is missing in “Wells”
L67: The “s” is missing in “Wells”
L69: Replace “Reynolds et al” with “Reynolds, Wells & Eide”
L89: Should be species’ instead of species, as it is a possessive noun
L111: Period “between” 2004 “and” 2016 instead of “period 2004 to 2016”
L115: Add “Islands” after the word Canary
L137: Replace “felled” with “grouped”
L178-180: This information is redundant since it is already included in the figure detail
L189: “and” is written in capital letters
L206: Replace “maintain” with “have”
L224: Replace “11” with the appropriate reference
L237-238: “This strongly […] Madeira” is redundant with the previous sentence
L242: Should be dolphins’ instead of dolphins, as it is a possessive noun
L250: Maybe include the reference “Louis et al 2014”
L251: Add “Islands” after the word Canary
L262: Replace “found” with “find”
L276: Replace “realized” with “performed”
L280: Remove the “s” in “accounts”
L282: Add an “s” to “dolphin”
L283: Replace “bycatch” with “by-catch” for consistency
L302: Replace “Canarias” with “Canary Islands” for consistency
L385: This reference is not included in the text
L451: Replace “trucatus” with “truncatus”
In figures 3, 4 and 5: Add an “s” to the word “dolphin”
Along the manuscript there are many times where there are commas preceding the word "and". I recommed not using commas before "and" when enumerating. For instance, "Azores, Canary islands and Madeira" instead of "Azores, Canary islands, and Madeira"