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 LAND FLATWORM AMAGA EXPATRIA (GEOPLANIDAE) IN GUADELOUPE AND MARTINIQUE: NEW REPORTS AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION INCLUDING COMPLETE MITOGENOME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Fine.
Experimental design: Fine.
Validity of the findings: Fine.
Additional comments: The article "The land flatworm Amaga expatria (Geoplanidae) in Guadeloupe and Martinique: new reports and molecular characterization including complete mitogenome" is a good contribution to the knowledge of the distribution and characteristics of invasive land planarians, in this case, A. expatria, a species that has been rarely detected so far. The authors present an interesting article on the detection of this species on two islands (Martinique and Guadelupe) giving both morphological and molecular evidence of their identification, and moreover they present a mitochondrial genome of the species, helping to increase the number of mitogenomes available for terrestrial planarians (which is currently scarce).
The figures and the table are informative, necessary, and of good quality.
In summary, I consider that the article can be accepted for publication in PeerJ with some minor changes.
The authors will find my comments and suggestions in the attached 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 LAND FLATWORM AMAGA EXPATRIA (GEOPLANIDAE) IN GUADELOUPE AND MARTINIQUE: NEW REPORTS AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION INCLUDING COMPLETE MITOGENOME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: See "General comments for the author"
Experimental design: See "General comments for the author"
Validity of the findings: See "General comments for the author"
Additional comments: This paper is an important contribution for the knowledge of land planarians in general. In addition to presenting the complete mitogenome of Amaga expatria, the authors bring important information about diet and some taxonomic aspects (which could be expanded – see comments), complementing the description of the species. In general, the manuscript is clear and concise. Results are solid and informative, same for discussions. Some relatively minor comments and editorial suggestions follow. I do not comment on the language, since I am not a native English speaker. Congratulations to the authors!

Abstract, line 41: Include the author of Obama nungara.

Introduction, line 47: (Geoplanidae) sounds irrelevant, since the information is already in the title. If you want to keep it, I suggest expanding the taxonomic classification to (Platyhelminthes: Geoplanidae), thinking about the public that has no knowledge about land planarians.

Introduction, line 62: “We present here new records of A. expatria…. and provide the first barcoding characterisation”. The work also includes morphological information in its results. It must be mentioned here.

Line 61 and line 69: Gastineau & Justine 2019 and @Plathelminthe4 are not in the references list.

Histology, line 81: Information about number of sections per slide seems irrelevant to be mentioned, since it has no influence in the preparation of slides, nor in the final results. Same on line 84. It could be mentioned how the analyzes of histological sections were performed, changing the section title to “Morphology and histology”, as in the results.

Information obtained from citizen science and other scientists, line 138: Include the author of Helicina platychila.

Morphology and histology: in this section, information on the external morphology of the holotype is transcribed from the original description and after, there is a section “Description of Specimen MNHN JL146.” Since a specimen has had its morphology analyzed, it would be interesting for information about external aspects to be described here as results (and not just body measurements). For example: How is the coloring, eye arrangement, (among other characteristics) in this specimen? If this information is added, it must be included in Material and Methods, as already mentioned.

Description of Specimen MNHN JL146: How is the common muscle coat? By which muscle fibers is it formed? You could add as much information about the species morphology to complement the 2005 description.

Mitogenome, lines 189, 190 and Detection of an alien DNA, lines 202, 203, 205: Include the authors of these species.

Discussion, Anatomy: Did the specimen analyzed reach full maturity? This is an important point to be considered when comparing with the specimens of the original description of the species. Is there any variation in relation to external morphology characteristics? This information could be mentioned in the article!

Figure 1: Map scale is missing.

Figures 3, 4 and 5: Whenever it is possible to calculate a scale, please add it in the photos with a bar indicating the scale value and preferably standardized. Specimens that cannot have a calculated scale (due to not really knowing the size of the specimen, not even approximately) must be informed in the legend: “Scale bar for (XXX) not available”. Likewise, it would be better to standardize the location of the photo's indication (A, B, C….), always in the same position in all photos. Another point to be commented on the photos: the anterior tip of specimens must always be positioned on the same side, informing in the caption “Anterior tip to the left; or on the top…”. This facilitates the reader's understanding, especially if the reader is not familiar with land planarians. This standardization of information of the anterior tip may also be performed with an arrow, for example.

Figure 5C: Please, point in the photo the prey snail Helicina platychila.

Figure 5F: The photo shows the dorsal side and ventral side. It would be important to indicate the face to be observed.

Figure 5G: The posterior end was accidentally lost? It is not clear in the photo.

Figure 6: The indications (A, B, C and not a, b, c) must be standardized with the other photos in the article.

Figure 6B: It must present a scale.

Figures 6C, D: The scale value is not visible.

Figure 7: It could be improved so that the indications are visible.

Figure 8: "sp." is in italics?


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 LAND FLATWORM AMAGA EXPATRIA (GEOPLANIDAE) IN GUADELOUPE AND MARTINIQUE: NEW REPORTS AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION INCLUDING COMPLETE MITOGENOME
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: LOADING HISTORY CHANGES THE MORPHOLOGY AND COMPRESSIVE FORCE-INDUCED EXPRESSION OF RECEPTOR ACTIVATOR OF NUCLEAR FACTOR KAPPA B LIGAND/OSTEOPROTEGERIN IN MLO-Y4 OSTEOCYTES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) This reviewer suggests authors to cite the references appropriately. Please add missing references. Add appropriate reference for lines 219, 227-228, 230 and 258.

2) General comment for all figures: please provide more experimental details and expand the figure legends and describe x and y axis.
Experimental design: Line 143. Authors included a general statement  that all experiments were performed in triplicates. However throughout the results, it is not clear whether the experiment were performed independently three times and under identical conditions. Please describe in detail about the experimental conditions, set-up format and number of independent experiments for figure 3-6.
Validity of the findings: 1) Line 155. Please describe what was the criteria for selecting 31 and 63 CCF for studying osteocytes. Additionally, what is the physiological relevance for such CCF compression forces for osteocytes. Also, please discuss the overall implication of this study in context to both normal physiology and diseased conditions.

2) Line 234. Authors did not reported such analysis in the manuscript. Please explain.

3) Figure 2. There is a discrepancy for reported time points between cells exposed to 31 CCF (36, 39, 42 and 46h) and 63 CCF (36 h). Currently, results described with Figure 2A-B are misleading and not very clear.
Additional comments: 1) Figure 1. It would be beneficial for the readers if authors can provide the overview of the experimental design in figure legends.
2) Figure 1. scale bar is not visible.
3) Figure 2A scale bar is missing
4) Figure 2B scale bar is not visible
5) Figure 2A-B. Overall, the resolution of figures is very poor.


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: LOADING HISTORY CHANGES THE MORPHOLOGY AND COMPRESSIVE FORCE-INDUCED EXPRESSION OF RECEPTOR ACTIVATOR OF NUCLEAR FACTOR KAPPA B LIGAND/OSTEOPROTEGERIN IN MLO-Y4 OSTEOCYTES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: 1. Introduction section, first paragraph, first sentence does not make sense, rewrite it.
2. Application of CCF force magnitude and duration was determined based on which in vivo situation in human such as regular exercise, walking, running……and how was that determined?
3. What is the translational value of the findings of this study (in vivo or in preclinical studies)?


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

Input:
Title: LOADING HISTORY CHANGES THE MORPHOLOGY AND COMPRESSIVE FORCE-INDUCED EXPRESSION OF RECEPTOR ACTIVATOR OF NUCLEAR FACTOR KAPPA B LIGAND/OSTEOPROTEGERIN IN MLO-Y4 OSTEOCYTES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The phenotypes of cell line were insufficiently characterized. It was unclear if the cells were adequately differentiated and functional, especial that they were assayed at 39 passages.

Several statements were insufficiently supported by references or explanations see the minor comments.

1)	Introduction, p7, lines 55-56: Add references to  support “Therefore, the bone cell network is considered to be encoded with a unique system for maintaining the history of mechanical stimuli received.”

2)	Introduction, p7 lines 64-65: Add references to support “Therefore, bone cells may store and modify long-term mechanical memory through structural changes in the lacuna-canalicular system.”

3)	Introduction, p8 lines 70-71: Add references to support “Habituation is a term that describes the decrement in responsiveness to a repetitive stimulus in neuronal systems.”

4)	Introduction, p8 lines 75-76: Add references to support “The relative amount and distribution of RANKL and OPG proteins is thought to determine the destination of osteoclasts.”

5)	Introduction, p8 lines 79-80: Delete or add references in “However, very few studies have investigated the habituation of osteocytes to mechanical loading using an in vitro culture system.”

6)	Blockade of junctions partially rescued the habituation effect, line 219, p15: Move into the result section to explain the rationale of 18α-GA treatment  “18α-GA could block the gap junctions”
Experimental design: Cell culture and reagents, p9 lines 87-94: There were no information how phenotypes of MLO-Y4 cell line was checked and if they acted as osteocytes, especially that they were selected at 39 passages in “The MLO-Y4 cells line was purchased from Kerafast (Boston, MA, USA). MLO-Y4 cells (at 39 passages), an osteocyte-like cell line derived from long bone of a transgenic female mouse containing the osteocalcin promoter driving SV40 T-antigen (Kato et al., 1997), were seeded onto type I collagen-coated 24-well plates and cultured in alpha-modified Eagle's minimal essential medium (α-MEM; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) containing 5.0% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (HIFBS; HyClone Laboratories, Logan, UT, USA), 5.0% fetal calf serum (FCS; HyClone), 100 U/ml penicillin, and 100 mg/ml streptomycin (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 37 °C with 5% CO2.”
Validity of the findings: The statistical analysis was not adequately supported by independent experiments to validate the findings.

1)	Statistical analyses, line 143, p 11: It was unclear if there were independent measurements to obtain reliable statistics. Triplicates obtained from the same sample are insufficient to obtain reliable statistics in “All experiments in this study were performed in triplicate.”

There were a lack of experiments to support hypothesis as indicated:
1)	In vitro cultured MLO-Y4 osteocytes were successfully habituated, line 210-211, p15: Delete since there were no findings associated with plasma membrane disruption or perform experiments to support “The habituation phenomena that we observed in the present study may be related to plasma membrane disruption (PMD) and PMD repair under conditions of heavy mechanical loading.”

2)	Blockade of junctions partially rescued the habituation effect, line 219, p15: Move into the result section to explain the rationale of 18α-GA treatment  “18α-GA could block the gap junctions”

3)	Blockade of junctions partially rescued the habituation effect, line 219 p15 and lines 228-230 p16: Additional findings are needed to support adequately “Connexins are main components of gap junctions and hemichannels, and the most abundant connexin in bone is connexin43 (Cx43), which is also expressed by osteocytes (Ishihara et al., 2008).” And “Therefore, the conditional deletion of Cx43 in mice is likely to block the gap junction in MLO-Y4 osteocytes with a certain loading history but not in those without any history of mechanical stimuli exposure”

4)	The expression OPG showed significant correlation to cell morphological changes during recovery period, lines 273-275, p18: Additional experiments are needed to support “Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that mechanical stimuli-induced morphological changes may influence the gene expression profile in osteocytes for a considerably long time.”
Additional comments: Minor comments :
1)	Abstract, p1: Specify OPG in ” The RANKL/OPG expression, cell numbers, viability, and morphology were time-dependently examined at 0, 3, 6, and 10 h.”

2)	The morphology changed during the recovery period lines 161-162, p12:  Specify aspect ratio in “Figure 2C shows an example of the morphological measurements. After changing the CCF from 63 dynes/cm2 back to 31 dynes/cm2 for 10 h (recovery period), the aspect ratio was significantly increased only in the MLO-Y4 osteocytes without a loading history (Fig. 4A).”

3)	Conclusion, lines 309-314, p20: Delete conclusion since it was repeated in the discussions “In conclusion, in order to investigate the influence of the loading history on the RANKL/OPG expression and morphology of MLO-Y4 osteocytes, we established a useful in vitro model using osteocyte-like MLO-Y4 cells. In this study, the in vitro cultured MLO-Y4 osteocytes showed habituation of RANKL/OPG expression in their response to long-duration (36 h) CCF. Gap junctional intercellular communication and cell morphology may play a role in this habituation phenomena in MLO-Y4 osteocytes.”


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: LOADING HISTORY CHANGES THE MORPHOLOGY AND COMPRESSIVE FORCE-INDUCED EXPRESSION OF RECEPTOR ACTIVATOR OF NUCLEAR FACTOR KAPPA B LIGAND/OSTEOPROTEGERIN IN MLO-Y4 OSTEOCYTES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: Revised manuscript has incorporated all the suggestions and I do not have any 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: LOADING HISTORY CHANGES THE MORPHOLOGY AND COMPRESSIVE FORCE-INDUCED EXPRESSION OF RECEPTOR ACTIVATOR OF NUCLEAR FACTOR KAPPA B LIGAND/OSTEOPROTEGERIN IN MLO-Y4 OSTEOCYTES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: N/A
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: Current version is good enough to publish.


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: MUTRANK: AN R SHINY WEB-APPLICATION FOR EXPLORATORY TARGETED MUTUAL RANK-BASED COEXPRESSION ANALYSES INTEGRATED WITH USER-PROVIDED SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written with very few grammatical errors. It provides a good background of the field in the introduction and has sufficient citations to previous literature throughout. Figures are clear and legends provided a good description of the figures.

The introduction provides a nice background on coexpression analyses and methods used to explore datasets to find genes and pathways of interest. It highlights the Mutual Rank method of measuring coexpression and describes the utility of MutRank for coexpression analysis and visualization of results.

Line 76 - double word
Line 78 - Awkward sentence structure
Experimental design: MutRank is coded in R, which makes it relatively accessible to a scientist doing this type of research. It should be simple to integrate into existing analysis pipelines and launch the Shiny visualization tool to further analyze the results. I was able to download MutRank and be up and running with the example dataset in a matter of minutes. The documentation is thorough on what data formatting is necessary and example datasets make it easy to emulate the necessary format for input into the application. The application looks coded in a straightforward way that would make it relatively extensible for future researchers to add other types of scoring algorithms and analyses.
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: MUTRANK: AN R SHINY WEB-APPLICATION FOR EXPLORATORY TARGETED MUTUAL RANK-BASED COEXPRESSION ANALYSES INTEGRATED WITH USER-PROVIDED SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was written in unambiguous English and easy to read. Given that this is a manuscript to introduce new analysis tool (and therefore I do not think authors need to review background biological context in detail), I think literatures provided are good enough. Raw dataset (i.e., sample data) to replicate their results is provided. Two examples were illustrated to show their MutRank application is powerful and user-friendly tool to analyze expression data.
Experimental design: The manuscript may meet the scope of PeerJ journal, as the illustrated R-shiny application will contribute to many biologists to analyze their expression data. As authors mentioned in the introduction section, it is important to develop a flexible and user-friendly tool.

The authors clearly explained how to use MutRank application (such as what kind of input data is needed, what kind of parameters to be specified, and what kind of results to be generated), while some of the implemented statistical methods should be clearly explained. For example:

[2.1] In line 149, what is the definition of “top coexpressed genes”? As correlation is assigned for each “pair of two genes”, I could not understand how to define coexpressed genes (e.g., there are top 200 gene pairs showing largest correlation, but what are the top 200 genes?)

[2.2] In line 181, please describe GO term enrichment analysis more clearly. In the enrichment analysis, we have “full set” (such as all genes in the database or all genes in our dataset) and “subset” (such as genes in a module or genes coexpressed with a gene of interest). According to your example 2, I guess you used all genes in the GO database as a full set, but it is not clear.

There are some additional small comments on the methods. See the general comments section.
Validity of the findings: The authors provided two examples, which were used in previous studies, to illustrate the usage and potential of the MutRank application. The results imply that MutRank is a powerful tool to analyze expression data to find a biologically meaningful relationship among genes. Conclusion is clearly stated and supported from the two examples.
Additional comments: For me, who usually analyzes expression data in R, the implemented methods (such as calculation of mutual rank, data visualization via heatmap or network analysis, and the GO enrichment analysis) in this shiny application are not new. However, as there are many biologists or biochemists who is not good at using R, I agree that this application will be helpful for many researchers. Methods and results are clearly explained so that everyone can use this application.

I have some minor comments to be addressed. Read the below:
[4.1] Line 59: Add period after the citation “et al. 2020). Studies in plants”
[4.2] Line 76: Remove one of the duplicated “analyses”
[4.3] Line 76-77: Is the phrase “produce improved results when using raw data compared to PCC” correct? Was the raw data better than PCC?
[4.4] Line 111-113: This is an optional comment. I am not comfortable with the wrap-up sentence “The goal of MutRank is to... biological goals”, because what we can get from MutRank is the coexpressed genes. Probably you implied GO enrichment analysis by the phrase “connecting metabolic phenotypes to genotypes”, but I am not sure if this phrase is appropriate. When reading this phrase at the first time, I thought that we can analyze some phenotypes (e.g., metabolite abundance measured by mass spectrometry) in this application. Find another phrase if possible.
[4.5] Line 178: For the coexpression network visualization, how do you draw edges among genes? Do you simply draw edges between genes with smaller MR value than a threshold? Or do you somehow use PCC?
[4.6] Line 217: It may be better to rephrase “... displayed, as they are absent from the currently selected expression dataset”. I guess you did not include Bx6 and Bx7 in this analysis from the beginning (as they are not in the list of supplementary table 8), because the maize expression dataset (supplementary table 1) does not have these two genes. Then, for example, you should write “Bx6 and Bx7 were excluded from the analysis as they were not included in the expression dataset for this analysis.” (I mean, the word “displayed” may not be appropriate)
[4.7] Line 221: Is the threshold 25 correct? In the supplementary document, it seems you used 100. Please confirm and make correction if needed.
[4.8] Line 249: I think you should not include ZmAN2 in the identified genes, because it is trivial that ZmAN2 is included as a top gene (self-correlation is always one). You should write “identified one additional TPS gene” (and describe it; type I diterpene synthase).
[4.9] Line 256: No need to abbreviate GWAS. This is only used in this sentence, as far as I checked (or you have GWAS in your supplementary files? Then keep this as it is.).
[4.10] Line 199, 200, and 261: Some letters are not displayed in the 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: EFFECTS OF SUBSTRATE AND WATER DEPTH OF A EUTROPHIC POND ON THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STATUS OF A SUBMERGED PLANT, VALLISNERIA NATANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see the attachment.
Experimental design: Please see the attachment.
Validity of the findings: Please see the attachment.
Additional comments: In the manuscript entitled: Effects of substrate and water depth of a eutrophic pond on the physiological status of Vallisneria natans, a useful aquatic plant for water environment restoration in urban areas” authors explore the limiting factor for the growth of V. natans in eutrophic urban ponds. They measure various compounds in root and shoot to assess the stress level of V. natans when grown under different depth/light conditions and substrates.
General comments
1-	The title can be more concise. Try removing the second part: a useful aquatic plant…
2-	The study is conducted using a small laboratory experiment and then in the field using a eutrophic urban pond. But results and discussion on these two parts of the study are not well organized. The text needs to be reworked and reorganized to clarify what authors have found from each experiment separately and then what the pilot study (lab exp) contributed to the field study.
3-	Tables and figures are not consistent. They are not clear and lack the information necessary for the assessment of research findings. Most importantly, statistical analysis needs to be incorporated into the figures or shown to clearly demonstrate the differences across depths and substrates.
4-	Statistical analysis is not explained properly. With two experiments (lab and field) and different experimental designs, authors need to provide a complete explanation of how and why they decided to run the stats with the current method.
5-	Several compounds are measured and discussed in the text based on leaf analysis and the majority of the results and discussion are focused on these compounds without a word of how the plants actually performed at different treatments/depths. only plant assessment for lab exp was shown which seems unrealistic. The data are perhaps rounded up and somehow all stnd dev are 5! In addition, there is no description of how the authors assessed these data (height, fresh weight, etc.)
6-	Substrate is a big component of this study and it is even in the title. But there is no information on substrate texture and chemistry.

This manuscript can be significantly improved by English editing and requires careful attention to the disclosed comments.

Abstract
20	it is better to define “physiological status” or be more specific. Please state what physiological traits you have measured.
22	“water environmental conditions” sounds odd. Throughout the text.
26	“different physiological status” is vague. You could change the sentence to” MDA, SOD, CAT and POD content differed in leaves and roots when plants were grown in different substrates…”.
35	due to environmental stress. This is too general. If your treatments are depths, just make statements about the depth to avoid generalization.
34-38	needs reorganizing to make it clear what is compared to aquaria or sand. Try to separate the findings between the laboratory and field experiment to avoid confusion.
40	bottom mud has adverse effect?! Why is that expected? Please explain.
42	this study talks about water depth and ties that with light attenuation. But there is no mention to light intensity at different depths in the abstract.
53	please avoid using the word “purify”. Plants do not purify the water.
63	“because of less survival of planted individuals” sounds odd. Maybe change to ‘ because of low survival rate of transplants or introduced plants”
64	inhibits
69	shorten the sentences, here:   . but it is not clear whether…
70-72	I do not understand the connection between hydraulic forces of waves in large water bodies and lakes to this study on small urban ponds. I suggest removing this statement.
75-76	you measured both Chl a and b. explain their difference here and what different levels of each means.
77	isnt it better to say photosynthetic ability?!
79	you should state that ROS induce lipid peroxidation. Otherwise there is no connection between the two sentences.
80	please explain why under stress conditions, production of SOD, CAT and POD is increased but their activity (line 83) is reduced.
 97	remove “ of the park”. The pond is approximately 300 m long…
99-101	I recommend moving these statements about permits to the acknowledgement sections.
105-106	“… leaves on the water surface have shown an obvious black color in recent years.” I do not understand what the authors are trying to convey here.
108	remove “a location in”.
102-110	in this paragraph, authors could simply say that, in the study site/pond the restoration of V. natans has failed repeatedly despite… list all the failed trials including aerator installation.
111-117	how were these measured? Using what device/probes?
118	black color and anaerobic odor? Is this all we know about the collected sediment/mud?
136-138	The two substrates are being called different things throughout the text. Here is the longest name used have in the text: Bottom mud of the pond and River coarse sand. I suggest calling them simply mud and sand, and at first mention describe how you collected the mud (from the bottom of the pond) and sand. Also provide the chemical and physical properties of both substrates.
141	replace “allayed” with placed.
142	three different depths… what are the depths.
145-148	do you need all these (Temperature, pH, DO, ORP, EC, Turbidity, Chl a (what about Chl b?)) parameters? If you do not discuss them, you should remove them from the text.
153	remove “during the experiment”
153-155	other researchers do not need to know about the permitting agency. Move these to the acknowledgement section.
159-164	rephrase all these sentences. Do not start explaining each method with”By…”. For example, digested water samples were analyzed for TP using molybdenum…
172	“converted to mg g-1 of fresh leaf.” Also how did you measure the fresh weight? Did you ensure that there is no water on the plant tissue when weighting them? How did you deal with the clonal growth? Did you remove them? Are new clonal growth a part of the fresh weight measurement?
193-194	please expand on this statement.
205	statistical analysis
I suggest separating the statistical analysis into two sections and explain the design for lab and field experiments separately. In the result section, you explain the split plot design first but in the stats section, you described it in the latter section. These need to be consistent.
216	was there a depth factor in the aquaria design? I am getting confused.
224	are these reported numbers for both substrates?
227	report nitrate conc at the beginning and at the end.
229	nutrients? Or are you still talking about nitrate? Also, reduction in nutrient may indicate nutrient uptake but not plant growth. Please remove the statement about growth.
232	heterotrophic microbes… please provide supporting literature.
235	change to… was almost double than the growth in sand…
237	is there a statistical analysis done on this part to detect significant differences between the growth of V. natans in the two different substrates?
238-242	start this section by stating that there was a temporal difference between Chl a… content of the leaves and then point at the increased levels by reporting the concentration at the specific days into the experiment.
242	if statistical analysis was done on these measurements, why they are not incorporated in the figures?

246	if both Chl a and b had the same trend, you could revise this paragraph to reflect this observation. That would bes much more effective than making the reader go through them one by one.

248	MDA increased by 5 or 10 d in both leaves and roots. What does this mean?
258	the difference was small? Table 3 shows that there is No difference!
266	how much was the decline? 10%? 50%? Is this a statistically significant decline?
271-274	why are these important? Did temperature and rain both had a significant effect on the experiment? Daily rain and temperature have equal effect (if any) on the treatments. If this is the case, then reporting them does not add to this manuscript and I suggest removing all the statements and fig/tables related to temp and rain.
275	all the water equality parameters changed by day? Did this fluctuation have a sig effect on the treatments? What do you mean by …turbidity were recorded at 0 or 5 d. ? does it mean that they were recorded on 5-day intervals?

335	as mentioned before, the statistical analysis was not shown and it needs to be incorporated in figures or authors provide a table to show there was a statistically significant different between Chl level in leaves in mud than sand.

What was found in the laboratory experiment?

345	what is the hypothesis behind the mud having an adverse effect on the growth of v. natans?
350	I suggest saying that the light quantum or light penetration was reduced by 50% and 90% at depths…
355	sharply increased by 10 d? please mention the fig number. I do not understand what authors are trying to convey here.
359	please cite literature that also reported similar observation under low light conditions instead of chemical exposure. Also what does severe chemical conditions mean?

389	what is the day of peak activity? Please explain?

401-404	this is interesting but should move to the discussion section where you can cite the paper by Han and Cui and discuss their finding. Also this needs to be further discussed since you had a treatment at 0.5 m depth so explain how your treatment performed under this condition.

408	I do not recall where in the text you showed a correlation between rainfall and nutrient concentration! This needs to be removed.

Fig1 mud of pond bottom. Please change to “collected mud”.
Fig2 if these cages were used. Im afraid they might have blocked quite a lot of sunlight themselves!
Fig 3	what is d? please specify how many observation/data point is shown by each circle.
Table 1	the table and its caption does not indicate what each column represents. For example, what are the two “after”? also state the duration of the experiment.
Table 2	how are these measurements done? The numbers seem too clean and all appear to be rounded up. This table is for the lab experiment. What about the field experiment? Did the plants survive 30 day in that depth? How was the growth and other growth components?
Table 3	why was beaker/tray number the random factor and was not considered a replication? You have df for chl a/b in plant organs? This was not measured and there is no statistical analysis on it. Please leave it blank.
Table 4 is confusing. You have different parameters measured on 5-day interval, but at what depth? Then you have different depths that numbers do not differ by much! Should you replace them with a range to simplify the table? The significant difference for depth at the last column, is comparing the three depths (0.5,1.2 and 2 m)?
Why transparency is not measured at different depths? Secchi disk readings could be the most important measurement in this study since you are focusing only on water depth in the field experiment.
What is the + for the TP p value?
All the water quality parameters, those reported in mg/l are not different across depths. why report them for different depths?


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SUBSTRATE AND WATER DEPTH OF A EUTROPHIC POND ON THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STATUS OF A SUBMERGED PLANT, VALLISNERIA NATANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript investigated the effects of substrate type and water depth on the growth and physiological responses of submerged plant Vallisneria natans (Lour.) H.Hara by laboratory and field experiments. The experimental design is quite straightforward. Hence, the study and its results are very easily followed.
Experimental design: In this study, the authors compared the physiological responses of V. natans between bottom mud of the pond and quartz sand. The collected bottom mud was black and emitted anaerobic odors as mentioned by the authors, which may be stressful to V. natans. However, quartz sand may be also bad to the growth of V. natans because of its extremely low nutrition, which means quartz sand may be also stressful to V. natans. Thus, quartz sand may not be suitable as a reference substrate, and using quartz sand as a reference substrate can not achieve the purpose of the study. The authors should notice the limitation and should be more cautious when discussing the results. If I did this experiment, I would choose another suitable substrate as a reference  which lets V. natans growth well in the natural habitats (such as a mixture of sand and soil, please see the Xiao et al., 2007 in Hydrobiologia, the authors also cited in the text).
Validity of the findings: The authors investigated the physiological status of V. natans in response to substrate type and water depth in the field experiment, but they only compared the physiological responses of V. natans between two substrate types in laboratory experiment. The missed data about the response of V. natans to water depth may hinder the comprehensive understanding of the physiological status V. natans in response to substrate type and water depth.
Additional comments: The manuscript investigated the effects of substrate type and water depth on the growth and physiological responses of submerged plant Vallisneria natans (Lour.) H.Hara by laboratory and field experiments. The experimental design is quite straightforward. Hence, the study and its results are very easily followed. However, I still have some concerns that the authors need to deal with:
1.	In this study, the authors compared the physiological responses of V. natans between bottom mud of the pond and quartz sand. The collected bottom mud was black and emitted anaerobic odors as mentioned by the authors, which may be stressful to V. natans. However, quartz sand may be also bad to the growth of V. natans because of its extremely low nutrition, which means quartz sand may be also stressful to V. natans. Thus, quartz sand may not be suitable as a reference substrate, and using quartz sand as a reference substrate can not achieve the purpose of the study. The authors should notice the limitation and should be more cautious when discussing the results. If I did this experiment, I would choose another suitable substrate as a reference  which lets V. natans growth well in the natural habitats (such as a mixture of sand and soil, please see the Xiao et al., 2007 in Hydrobiologia, the authors also cited in the text).
2.	The authors investigated the physiological status of V. natans in response to substrate type and water depth in the field experiment, but they only compared the physiological responses of V. natans between two substrate types in laboratory experiment. The missed data about the response of V. natans to water depth may hinder the comprehensive understanding of the physiological status V. natans in response to substrate type and water depth.
3.	Specific comments：
Long tile, I suggest delete ‘a useful aquatic plant for water environment restoration in urban areas’
Line124-125. Please clarify how many repetitions in laboratory experiment?  A replication for each beaker, or each aquarium?
Line132. 500 L of water was sampled from each aquarium??? Or 500 mL?
Lin136-142. Again, how many repetitions in field experiment? Please clarify it.
Line 208. How could the experimental time be treated as a fixed factor? Experimental time should be a repeated factor, and thus a two-way repeated ANOVA should be conducted to investigate the effects of experiment time and depth on the variables measured by the water quality meter (i.e., temperature, pH, DO, ORP, EC, turbidity, and Chl-a).
Line 234. If the plant biomass included the biomass sampled for physiological measurements? Please clarify.
For the Results, there are too many tables and figures, I strongly suggest the authors do some consolidation and streamlining.
For the Discussion, the authors mainly listed the results but did not explain why these results occurred, and what is the ecological significance of the obtained results. Moreover, the authors discussed the effects of substrate type and water depth separately, but not mentioned their interactive effects which may be most interesting results!

The language is in general easy to understand, but there are minor problems throughout the text (according to my view, but I am not a native English speaker). The authors need to check the text carefully, and ideally also ask a native speaker to have a quick check.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SUBSTRATE AND WATER DEPTH OF A EUTROPHIC POND ON THE PHYSIOLOGICAL STATUS OF A SUBMERGED PLANT, VALLISNERIA NATANS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have made substantial changes according to my comments and addressed all my questions.I am generally satisfied with the revised version.The only question is that authors investigated the physiological status of V. natans in response to substrate type and water depth (two factors) in the field experiment, but they only compared the physiological responses of V. natans between two substrate types (one factor) in laboratory experiment. The two experiments can not be well matched and complement each other. The authors should notice the limitation.


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: FORAGING EFFICIENCY, SOCIAL STATUS AND BODY CONDITION IN GROUP-LIVING HORSES AND PONIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very well researched study and written report.
Experimental design: The design was explained well and was based on previous work.
Validity of the findings: Good
Additional comments: Thank you for a very nice study in an interesting area!


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: FORAGING EFFICIENCY, SOCIAL STATUS AND BODY CONDITION IN GROUP-LIVING HORSES AND PONIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction is about a theoretical framework that is interesting. However the conclusions do not fit with the introduction or for that matter the findings.

I think the methods, data and analysis is presented in a clear way.
Experimental design: I am fine with the design and I think the number of horses is sufficient.
Validity of the findings: I think that the results are interesting but I would add more information about the vigilance behaviour.
If you want to keep the conclusions about welfare you need to explain the obesity issue already in the introduction and be more clear about differences between the obese horses and the others.

My main issue is around the conclusions.
Additional comments: In general I think the study is interesting but the manuscript needs more work.


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

Input:
Title: FORAGING EFFICIENCY, SOCIAL STATUS AND BODY CONDITION IN GROUP-LIVING HORSES AND PONIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The subject of this manuscript is very interesting and fills a gap in the field.  But I consider some methodological aspects of the study quite problematic.

Introduction
Line 37: definition of foraging would be appreciated to make the introduction clearer
Line 49: a more detailed description of the modelling framework proposed by Rands et al. in their different papers will be important to recall here. Indeed, the impact of social status on foraging that will be investigated in this manuscript is not stated in the current explanation.

Lines 87 to 93 – Aims: if a correlation is found between dominance rank and body condition (which is actually the case, see line 277) (i), the two following aims (ii and iii) need to be reconsidered. As a consequence, only one association with interruption of foraging (dominance rank or body condition*) has to be investigated contrary to the analyses that have been conducted (lines 287 to 296).  Indeed, because these two characteristics are correlated, it is not surprising that the authors found that the total duration of interruptions decreased as adjusted dominance rank increased (lines 289-290) and that the number of incidences (frequency) of foraging interruptions occurring during foraging bouts was lower for animals with higher body condition scores (lines 296-298).

*because the two variables are correlated, I would prefer body condition since it is a more accurate individual measure than social rank. This will strengthen the results (cf. line 336-337).
Experimental design: - Lines 106-107: on my opinion, the sentence “The study explored the inter-relationships between foraging interruptions, dominance and body condition.” is unnecessary.
Moreover, the next sentences lines 107 to 110) will be better placed in the “Dominance rank” paragraph (line 203)
- Herd size between 2-10 individuals: the pressure from dominant individuals will be quite different in a group of 2 individuals (only one animal might displace the subordinate animal) than in a group with many individuals, where the pressure will be more important (a subordinate animal will be the target of more displacements/threats). This pressure might be estimated by a coefficient depending on herd size and then applied in the analysis.
- Line 124: the range of age raises some problems: young animals are not well situated in the hierarchy of a group. Moreover, these animals are in development and their body condition/physiology is certainly different from adults. The analysis will probably gain in robustness without these young individuals. Or their case might be considered separately. Moreover, older horses have a reduced digestive efficiency (See Ralston, S.L., Squires, E.L., Nockels, C.F. (1989). Digestion in the aged horse. J Equine Vet. Sci. 8(4), 203-205) that could influence the time spent foraging. It might be interesting to investigate this factor per se.
- What about the sex? If mares are pregnant or lactating, this will influence their body condition and energetic needs. More details are needed here.
- When I read the definition of Movement whilst foraging, I’m concerned by the fact that the two origins of such movement (displacement by another individual or simply changing of location at a walk) were not distinguished for subsequent analysis. Moreover, if a Movement whilst foraging is due to a displacement by another individual, it has to be recorded as a Displacements received. If this is the case, such event is accounted in two categories (and thus twice), which is incorrect. Logically, in the results section, the authors reported that they found a correlation between the frequency of ‘displacements received’ and ‘moving whilst foraging’ (line 304). I suggest reconsidering the classification of both behaviours.
- Dominance rank: I have no problem to infer Dominance rank from displacements  emitted and received which is a classical method for measuring dominance in social groups but I don’t understand the justification (lines 212 to 217, see after in italics) that renders the understanding confusing: The number of displacements both given and received was recorded for each herd individual, and then the number of other individuals that a focal individual both dominated and was dominated by was calculated (see Appleby, 1980). Note that frequency of displacements is not the same as dominance rank. Herds may have very interactive individuals who are not particularly high or low ranking, displacing others and being displaced often, whereas the highest-ranking individual may actually displace others infrequently.
Validity of the findings: I’ve previously commented some results in the experimental design section.
Lines 317-318: If I well understand, the Model for adjusted dominance rank investigates whether the frequency of ‘displacements received’ and ‘displacements given’ are linked to the adjusted dominance rank. However, dominance rank was determined thanks to these two behaviours. This analysis sounds odd for me.
Additional comments: Discussion: It is difficult to comment this part because the concerns I’ve raised above will have consequences on the results and thus, on the interpretations. This is illustrated in the first paragraph of the Discussion.
Concerning the interpretation between vigilance and body condition, I think that recording vigilance when animals were not foraging to compare their rates of vigilance when they forage would have allowed to verify whether some animals were more naturally vigilant than others. Unfortunately, in the protocol, the observer stopped observing an animal when this latter stopped to forage for more than one minute. This point needs to be discussed.
Lines 375-377: the authors wrote: Theoretical models and empirical studies have proposed increased vigilance in subordinate individuals due to more risky foraging positions (Hamilton, 1971; Hemelrijk, 2000) but this was not supported here. I could be wrong, but I didn't find nor in the methods neither in the results section any record and analysis of these risky foraging position.
Conclusions: On my opinion, this section is more perspectives than a conclusion about the study.


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

Input:
Title: FORAGING EFFICIENCY, SOCIAL STATUS AND BODY CONDITION IN GROUP-LIVING HORSES AND PONIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Looks good to me
Experimental design: Good
Validity of the findings: Looks good
Additional comments: I think the MS has improved a lot and is very interesting. Journals vary in how the aims and conclusions correspond so I leave for the editor to decide, however I prefer conclusions that very clearly corresponds to the aims. In this case the aims are very clear and defined whereas the conclusions are more speculative and include a statement on the obesity issue in pets, horses and humans.

However this may be a matter of taste and style in the journal (adding a new aspect in the conclusions, without really discussing it before hand).

Apart from that I am happy with the MS now.


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 INFECTION: DISEASE DETECTION AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Basic Reporting
Clear English-
•	Needs to be improved. Line 16 need an additional word between world and more. “…territories around the world affecting more than 48 hundred…”
•	Take out additional words that have no meaning such as Line 16 “At this time, there are no specific vaccines or…”
•	Line 17-18 needs re-wording. Example, line 18, “At this time the experts recommend precautions such as social distancing, hand washing and wearing face masks to reduce disease transmission.”
•	Line 19 needs re-wording. “…is to improve the readers awareness of the importance of…”
•	Strange capitalization of letters, wuch as line 23, “It” should not be capitalized as well as “Mobile”.
•	Line 24 reword…”it can help to aware” is not correct English.
•	Line 25 take out “to an extent.”
•	Line 33 should say “transmissible” instead of transmittable
•	Line 35 re-word for better English.
•	Line 41, change cause to “have been shown to progress in some patients to…”
•	Line 42 take out “results in”
•	Line 44 needs re-working
•	Line 46 take out “among peoples”
•	Line 51 re-word
•	Line 52- does it need to be via Bluetooth or just via mobile device?
•	Line 53 poor English
•	54 use the term applications instead of “apps” which is a shortened form of the word. You can use (apps) as an abbreviation throughout the manuscript if you introduce it in that way.
•	Line 56, start by writing out these locations with the abbreviation in parenthesis, then later in the paper you can use the abbreviations
•	Line 68, Diagnostic should not be capitalized
•	Line 125, once you specify (MOH) you can then use that abbreviation in line 126.
•	Line 130, “Monitoring” should not be capitazlized
•	Line 139, what is GDPR?
•	Line 142 should say “vital signs”
•	Line 144 needs re-wording for better English

Clear writing- I would recommend hiring someone who can assist with your English. I understand that it is a difficult language to write in, however, it is essential to have good English in order to get your message across.

Literature references
•	Need more references, such as line 50 where it says it was suggested by WHO but there is no referenced listed.
•	Several more sentences through the description of the applications need to be cited.
Sufficient background/context provided
•	Too much background on the testing. Just a short background on the virus itself can introduce the topic
•	I would add how mobile apps have helped in other disease outbreaks in the past in your background section
Professional article structure, figures and tables
Raw Data shared? None
Is it broad and cross-disciplinary? It is broad.
Experimental design: 2. Study Design
Article content aligns with the scope/aims?
•	Line 20, I would be more specific on the literature review you performed. It seems that it would be around mobile technology and COVID-19 and not just COVID-19?

Rigorous investigation performed to high technical and ethical standards?
•	This is hard to evaluate based on the methodology described in the paper. It appears that you did a good search and evaluation of the applications but I just need how you did it to be more specific.
Methods are in alignment, described in detail and able to be reproduced? No
Methodology consistent with the content
•	Your methodology should either be a systematic review or a different kind of review. I would clarify this in line 20-21 where it says “a form of systematic review”, but it doesn’t specify any form other than a general literature review which is a very broach term for reading literature. Additionally, I would add in the methodology section here how you searched the literature including databases used and search terms. Lines 59-66 I have the same comment. This is not a reproducible search- need to be clearer on what search terms you used in which databases. The Google search seems clear to me.
•	Line 23 “This Mobile technology” does not tell us what mobile technology you are referring to and needs to be re-written to be clear.
•	Line 68-92 seem unrelated to your research question about which mobile apps are available and useful
Sources adequately cited?
•	No, line 111 needs a reference
•	No, line 112-113 needs a reference
•	No, line 114 needs a reference
•	No, line 115 needs a reference
•	No, line 119 needs a reference
•	No, line 205-207 needs several references
•	No, line 208 needs a reference
•	You don’t need to acknowledge the WHO for their information, just properly cite them in your paper
Is it organized logically?
•	No, lines 94-110 belong in a background/intro statement.
•	162-163 should be moved up to the beginning of this App description.
Validity of the findings: 3. Validity of Findings
Impact and novelty assessed? Yes, this is a novel and good idea for a paper.
Conclusions well stated?
•	The conclusion starts with a statement that is novel to the manuscript on a topic that is unrelated to the apps.
Speculation is identified as such?
•	Line 195-196 could be seen as speculation. Is there evidence that these apps protect people? If so, cite it here. Otherwise you’ll need to explain your position.
Well designed argument that aligns with the Intro?
The conclusion identifies unresolved questions/gaps/future directions? No, future research directions should be identified and limitations of your paper should be identified (not limitations of the apps).
Additional comments: 4. General Comments
I would completely take out the section on testing and the related Figures. This does not relate to your paper which is aiming to focus on reviewing the available COVID 19 apps and their uses. I would expand of the use and function of the applications you described. I would try to organize the apps by location or at least state that it is a global perspective and that you will be reviewing one app from 10 (or however many use have) different countries to give an overview of the landscape of the current available apps.


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 INFECTION: DISEASE DETECTION AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: a) I would consider this a traditional or narrative literature review

My expectation is that it:
1. Critiques and summarizes a body of literature
2. Draws conclusions about the topic
3. Identifies gaps or inconsistencies in a body of knowledge
4. Requires a sufficiently focused research question

Broadly speaking, I believe that 1 and 2 have been accomplished here, however, 3 and 4 were somewhat vague.

b) The data collection detailed on lines 60 and 61 referencing articles Sheeran and Colson et al needs to be expounded upon further.

c) I would be grateful for more explanation around the rigor behind selecting the COVID mobile technologies.  What were the sub-types of app? (i.e., geolocation based contact tracing, Currently, it feels like a fairly simple search engine query was primarily utilized.  this is not problematic in an of itself, but if so, I'd like to know the rationale for the search term string(s).

d) Sections 2.1-2.3 seem unnecessary and in my opinion, take away from the main premise of the paper.  Perhaps condensing it into a simpler summary?
Experimental design: a) The survey methodology, as stated above, seems limited and I would appreciate greater clarity around how these particular apps were selected.

b) This should be further catagorized into by the types of technology used by the app and the strengths and weaknesses of each.

c) The most significant area appears to also be the most underdeveloped: The limitations of each type of technology.  This needs to be developed robustly or at least discussion should occur as to what areas need further research?  Examples might include the limitations of bluetooth based contact tracing, as well as practical implications for battery life.

d) Of particular interest is the privacy implications of gathering this location and contact tracing data.  This may be challenging as privacy laws differ based on state / country, however, a general discussion as to the challenges and concerns citizens may want to consider with the use of these apps might be helpful.
Validity of the findings: The information presented here appears helpful and may be valid to a certain degree.  Given the lack of explanation around the search methodology, it would be difficult to come to the conclusion that this is a comprehensive list of apps.

Furthermore, the efficacy of the apps in tying into public health initiatives and subsequent reduction of spread is what would send this article into the stratosphere in terms of usefulness.
Additional comments: An earnest first draft.

I would reduce the amount of unnecessary literature review around testing, and expand the discussion around the methodology behind why these apps where chosen to be studied.

Consider expanding the section around limitations and tie this to the inherent limitations of the various forms of technology.

Consider really understanding the privacy concerns (personal health information and location tracking) associated with these applications and sharing these with the reader.

Consider explaining what the limitations of this review are and what next steps might look like for further research.


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 INFECTION: DISEASE DETECTION AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The topic is relevant and timely. What is needed throughout the manuscript is clear dates for data. With the rapidly changing information, what is written within the manuscript has already had changes. If this article is to be used to guide decisions for future work or citations, it will be imperative that the dates of information retrieval are given.
2. The epidemiological summary moves from a broad overview of the disease, the current efforts to create a cure, and then move into technology; this is great. However, the move to using technology requires a smoother transition. Currently lines 82-83 say the easiest way to protect ourselves is using digital technologies. This is written as if the app itself has a healing property, which is not the case. Perhaps transitioning to the discussion of technology can be done by saying something like “Given the lengthy process of investigating therapies for stopping COVID-19, mitigation strategies are proving to be effective in slowing the spread. One such strategy is the use of mobile technology.” Then move into the discussion starting on line 85 about previous uses of technology in disaster response.
3. The limitation of smartphone technology (section 3.11) does not flow well. Lines 223-224 and 234-235 are confusing to the reader. When reading I see there are limitations in a few areas: the fact that success of the app in mitigating the spread is dependent on large numbers of downloads and user input, and data aggregation. Perhaps separate these limitations into paragraphs for easier reading. The discussion on impact of the app on battery life does not add value to this section. One area that could be further explored is the collection of personal information, it’s mentioned briefly but not really unpacked.
4. The entire manuscript requires edits for English language flow. To point to some specifics: lines 24-31, lines 46-50, line 196, line 201.
5. Line 207 should read: “Information, together with the Ministry of State Societies (SOE). The application allows user to”
6. Line 210 does not seem to connect to anything, it’s confusing.
7. It is not clear who the article is intended for, is it for healthcare personnel? Epedimiologists? Educators? Public Health officials?
Experimental design: 1. The aim is clear, but could be more focused. It’s currently stated that the aim is to improve the readers awareness of the important role of mobile technology for SARS-CoV-2. After reading the manuscript, I believe this can be narrowed to specifically focus on mobile applications role for SARS-CoV-2 (rather than mobile technology in a broader sense).
2. The methodology does not provide a clear description of what was done. It is hard to say if this was a comprehensive review. What were the search terms, the date ranges, the number of articles found? As this currently reads, there is not enough detail to replicate this review as the use of technologies and the pandemic progress.
3. The apps that you chose to highlight, were these all that were discussed in the literature? Where there some apps that you decided not to discuss (if so, this should be stated and why)? Did the literature show any data in the effectiveness of tracking and preventing? If so, these are things that should be discussed in the manuscript.
4. Lines 180-181, the sentence “The contact tracking application, currently developed by the National Health Service, which is the national health system funded by England” is a repeat from earlier in the paragraph and should be removed.
Validity of the findings: 1. I do not see a clear conclusion that wraps up the manuscript and links it to the aim of the literature review.
2. Lines 290-292 stating “The easy use and successful application of mobile technology to fight against COVID-19 pandemic will probably increase the extreme public acceptance soon.” This is speculation and should be noted as such, there is no data in the manuscript to support this claim.
3. Jumping from the use of an app for COVID monitoring chronic diseases in the future is disjointed and leaves the reader hanging at the end of the article.
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 INFECTION: DISEASE DETECTION AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Throughout the manuscript "this study" or "this article" is used. It's unclear if the meaning is studies/articles reviewed from published literature or the manuscript we are reading. Examples: line 54, "this study describes the strategic use..." there is no citation and it's unclear if "this study" is the current manuscript. Also occurs in line 97 "this paper", line 105 "this article". Line 109 "this review article" is assumed to mean the manuscript we are currently reading, but the confusion in using "this" earlier in the paper leads me to be unsure.

2. Line 147-149 are not understood by the reader. the sentence seems to start out talking about particular apps, but then ends with "No involvement of epidemiologists a problem", is this an app name? Or are you stating that there is no problem when epidemiologists are not involved with the data?

3. There should be a transition before section 3.3 to let the reader know you are moving on to talk about specific apps you found in the literature.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: 1. I see you added in references for the claim stating "The easy use and successful application of mobile technology to fight against COVID-19 pandemic will probably increase the extreme public acceptance soon.” You added the reference in the limitations of smartphone technology (section 3.11). I would reference the article where you make the claim.

2. My previous comment of jumping from the use of an app for COVID to monitoring chronic diseases in the future is disjointed still stands.
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 INFECTION: DISEASE DETECTION AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 6
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic Reporting
•	Clear, profession English
o	Line 13 should say “that is responsible”
o	Line 16 should say “treatments are available”
o	Line 17 should say “trials are evaluating”
o	Line 22 should say “data from the published articles”
o	Line 25 should say “precautions to mitigate”
o	Line 41 should say “coronaviruses.”
o	Lines 46-48 should be re-written, perhaps something like “Coronavirus is easily transmitted through coughing and sneezing. Due to its high rate of spread it is important to follow government guidelines to reduce transmission.”
o	Line 57-58 should be reworded to say “Samples can be taken nasally or via the back of the throat.”
o	Line 76 should say “institutes are continue”
o	Line 103 should say “these sorts’ apps” and “spread rate of”
o	Line 104 should say “within the context”
o	Line 106, I’m thinking this should say “Literature Review Methodology” instead of “Survey Methodology”
o	Line 114-115 should end with “10 mobile apps used to track COVID-19. The rest of line 115-116 should be moved to the findings of the literature review section.
o	Line 146 there is no need for a ‘ before Covid.
o	Line 172-173 should say “Based on the data analysis, a maximum…”
o	Line 96-97 need a citation.
o	Lines 109-112 need more explanation and integration of the literature review to the current research question. How did they guide the review or inform the results of this review? The discussion of what was found in the articles of the literature review should be moved to a later section instead of in the methodology.
o	End of line 121 needs a citation.
o	Lines 127-203 Overall, each line that is talking about an app needs to have a citation.
o	Line 209 should say “provide disease mitigation” and “and the population at large”
o	Line 213 should say “implement at scale if such app use remains decentralized and centralization…”
o	I would take out the sentence in line 234-235 that start with First. I would start the next sentence with “COVID-19 tracking apps fall into three main categories…”
o	Line 267 needs should say “providers must to ensure”
o	Lines 142-143 I’m not clear on the point of you mentioning these other apps, I would reword this to be more clear. Perhaps you want to say that it is better for an entire country to use one app or comment if the various apps cross-communicate with each other. I think this needs more explanation.
o	Line 257-259 needs citation.
o	I’m not sure which citation style you are using, so it is difficult for me to comment on if the citations are correct or not. My personal limitation is that I’m only really familiar with APA and Vancouver, neither of which are being used in the paper. Use of a free citation manager such as Mendeley or EndNote would assist if you are not already using one.
o	Line 272 I would not introduce new information here since it is the conclusion, so perhaps just restate the extent of the covid-19 spread and impact on the word here instead of the first sentence.
o	Line 277, take out “Our” and just start the sentence with “Scientists”
o	To me, figure 2 is not necessary because it is not adding to your research question of how mobile apps are useful. I do understand how Figure 1 and 3 are giving background information about the virus.
Experimental design: I do not have any issues with your study design. The methodlogy is clear and I think the overview of apps is an important topic.
Validity of the findings: Just see my comments about citations about. I think your conclusions/discussion make sense in  your paper, just be sure you are citing every sentence that has come from the literature.
Additional comments: Thank you for sharing your work and graciously accepting my edits. Overall, I think the paper reads better and is more focused than the first time I reviewed it. I think the topic is important. While I realize how difficult it can be to try to write in English when it is not your first language, it is extremely important that it reads and flows well with professional English, hence my comments and edits provided above. I would recommend hiring a native English speaker to review you paper after you make further edits. This will give you even more of a polished finish and assist you getting this paper published. I hope my comments are helpful.


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 INFECTION: DISEASE DETECTION AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 6
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please be sure to double check your within text citations. There are a few that have the author's first name and not the last name (ie. Angela in the abstract).

This edited version reads much easier than previous, thank you for the work put into the readability of the manuscript.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: I appreciate the inclusion of more app examples and their uses. The technology's  use in the prevention of spread and the collection of data is much more clear in the revisions.

The conclusion wraps it up well. As I've stated in previous reviews, I would suggest not including the last sentence of the conclusion which introduces the use of apps for chronic diseases, this is not what the article is about.
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 INFECTION: DISEASE DETECTION AND MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 7
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: •	Line 75 “continue” should be “continuing on work on vaccine development”.
•	Line 107/108 I think RSC and ACS should be spelled out (unless they were already spelled out earlier in the article, but I didn’t see that).
•	Line 113 should say “important role in the literature review…”
•	Line 114 I’m not entirely clear if this is your intention, but I think it should say “track COVID-19 which revealed www.geospatial...”
•	Line 121 should say “in the diagnosis of those affected”
•	Line 253 Assuming that INRIA is an acronym, it should be spelled out , same for ROBERT-ROBust in line 254
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: Overall, your manuscript has come a long way from what you initially submitted. Now, it reads well and make a succinct point about the utility of mobile apps in relation to COVID19. Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper and thank you for graciously accepting my edits and 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: NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT DIFFICULT GENERAL KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS CAUSE A “GOOGLE STROOP EFFECT”. A REPLICATION STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: GENERAL EVALUATION
This is a very straight-to-the-point and transparent manuscript describing the much-needed replication of a high impact cognitive psychology experiment. In recent years, many high-impact findings that describe implicit/unconscious effects of observers' cognitive states on subsequent perception and behavior have appeared to be less robust that initially believed, following failed replications. In this particular case, a previous replication that failed to replicate the effect-of-interest of the original study, differed from the original study in a number of potentially crucial ways (as pointed out by one of the original study's authors) due to missing information at the time of the previous replication. The current study has been set up with care to create a replication of the original experiment that satisfies all the recommendations and requirements laid out by the original authors, and constitutes a near-identical replication of the original study. This is important work, not only because it provides substantial evidence against a high-impact effect-of-interest, but also for its exemplary role in promoting transparent and robust science. I have only a number of minor suggestions, which are listed below.

STRENGTHS
o	All stimulus materials were pre-tested and validated (i.e., internet-related words were truly internet related, and significantly more internet related than general words, which were not; difficult tasks were truly more difficult than easy tasks, and difficulty was comparable to that of the original study; the current sample of participants confirmed having the urge to look up answers to difficult questions online; generally speaking, all sanity checks were conducted and were satisfactory).
o	All analysis and design choices were clearly and transparently motivated, in relation to the original study, the replication, the original author’s response to this replication, and the preregistration of the current experiment.
o	The manuscript ends with sound recommendations for analyzing the current type of data in future projects (using linear mixed effects models, better suited to the current data type), and with a number of caveats in the analysis/design of the original study that helps the readership to weigh the evidence provided of the original study as compared to that of the current (and previous) replication.

SUGGESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION OR IMPROVEMENT
o	Line 213 mentions that the author decided to skip the preregistered exploratory tests. Why?
o	Lines 227-233: in line with the original study, response times to incorrect RTs were analyzed as well. To me (and to the author as well, apparently), this seems very strange. Could the author perhaps confirm in the text body (or a footnote) whether or not the pattern of results is similar when only correct responses are analyzed? Somewhat related to this, was the accuracy on the color-naming task comparable to that of the original study?
o	Lines 265-266 states that the current data were 5 times more likely under the null model than under THE alternative model. But the correct way to phrase this, given the statistical test that was conducted, is that the current data were 5 times more likely under the null model than under ANY alternative model (i.e., it’s a two-sided test). Of course, the author needed to conduct this two-sided test because it was pre-registered, but it would be valuable to also add the Bayes Factor for the null model relative to THE (i.e., expected) alternative model (i.e., BF0+), which shows how much more likely the null is compared to the specific pattern of findings observed in the original study. (Please do mention explicitly that this is a non-registered, exploratory analysis.)
o	Lines 273-277 describes that most participants (57 in total) would use the internet to look up the answer to difficult questions. As such, it could be worthwhile to explore whether the observed pattern of data (i.e., the null effect) also holds for this specific subgroup of participants.
o	Lines 385 mentions “the effect” in “to what degree the effect depends on cognitive load”, but based on both the current replication and the previous one, there is no effect.
o	In the Results and General Discussion sections, the author – rightfully – mentions the caveat of post-hoc selection of a subset of the data for making inferences from the data (as was done in the original study, by presenting the results of 4 words out of the full stimulus set). To drive the point home, it could be valuable to show examples of a selection of 4 words for which such an effect would have been statistically significant in the present dataset (if any), and/or quantify how many random selections of 4 words would have yielded any pattern of significant effects.


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: NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT DIFFICULT GENERAL KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS CAUSE A “GOOGLE STROOP EFFECT”. A REPLICATION STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See main review.
Experimental design: See main review.
Validity of the findings: See main review.
Additional comments: The author reports the results of a direct replication of a priming study by Sparrow et al. (2011). A previous attempt to replicate the Sparrow et al. finding failed (Camerer et al., 2018), but the lead author of the original study (Sparrow) argued that the previous replication attempt was not a *direct* replication. The present replication attempt was much closer to the original study, but again the finding was negative.

I support the publication of direct replications, regardless of whether the replication is successful or not. So, for me, the question is whether this study is a direct replication. I think it is close enough, though I would argue that the author needs to carefully specify the differences between the present study and the original study (see #1). I have other concerns as well, though I believe these concerns can be addressed through revision.

1. I struggled to understand the differences between the method used in the present study and the method used in the original study. I suggest that the author list every known difference in clear, concrete language, perhaps in a numbered list.

2. On lines 222 through 226, the author writes that he removed older subjects from the sample because the sample in the original study included only undergraduate students, and this exclusion criterion was not listed in the preregistration. The author deserves kudos for making this disclosure. Still, I think readers need to see both version of the results: that is, a) with the older subjects, and b) without the older subjects. In fact, maybe the author could add a figure with three panels: one showing the results of the original study, one showing the results of the present study with all subjects, and showing the results of the present study without the older subjects.

3. I don’t think the present study needs a theoretical story, especially since the observed finding is a null result, so I would recommend omitting Figure 4 and much of the discussion. I think it makes more sense to frame the study as a replication attempt.


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: NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT DIFFICULT GENERAL KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS CAUSE A “GOOGLE STROOP EFFECT”. A REPLICATION STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The author has satisfactorily addressed all issues raised during the previous review round. I have no further concerns.

Kind regards,

Surya Gayet


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: NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT DIFFICULT GENERAL KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS CAUSE A “GOOGLE STROOP EFFECT”. A REPLICATION STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Writing is very clear. Figures are informative, and Figure 2 is one of the best figures I've seen.
Experimental design: Design is straightforward. Replication is very close to the original, and the differences between the present study and the original are minor and also clearly listed in Table 1.
Validity of the findings: The findings are clear. The Bayes Factor values make it clear that the data provide no good evidence for the claim of the original study by Sparrow et al.
Additional comments: I thought the revised manuscript was clear, and the author was quite responsive to my comments (he added Table 1 and included the results of an additional analysis). The data collection and analyses appear to be first rate, and I recommend publication.


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

Input:
Title: DEEP LEARNING PREDICTION OF LIKELIHOOD OF ICU ADMISSION AND MORTALITY IN COVID-19 PATIENTS USING CLINICAL VARIABLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: This retrospective study consisted of 5766 persons-under-investigation for
COVID-19 between February 7, 2020, and May 4, 2020. Demographics, chronic
comorbidities, vital signs, symptoms, and laboratory tests at admission were collected. A
deep neural network model and a risk score model were constructed to predict ICU
admission and mortality. Prediction performance used area under the curve (AUC) of the
receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC). The top ICU predictors were
procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and SpO2. The top
mortality predictors were age, lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin, cardiac troponin, C reactive protein, and SpO2.

The paper is well-written and contains interesting results. Minor comments include:
1) it would be good  to  make the code available for readers to reproduce the analysis;
2) Method:  A deep neural network (DNN) was constructed to predict ICU admission and
mortality using five fully connected dense layers classification. Could the authors elaborate on why you  choose the structure with 5 layers? How many neurons are there in each layer?
3) It would be essential to compare/discuss the findings with other using standard machine learning methods, such as (but not limited to) https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-41151/v1.


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: DEEP LEARNING PREDICTION OF LIKELIHOOD OF ICU ADMISSION AND MORTALITY IN COVID-19 PATIENTS USING CLINICAL VARIABLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper proposes a method for utilising deep neural nets (DNNs) in predicting ICU admission likelihood for COVID-19 patients based on critical parameters. Despite the task being interesting, there are some major concerns:-

1.  The ethical/research compliance approval pertains to "AI of lung images of COVID-19". The authors should clarify whether their study utilises lung images, or some numeric datasets (as the attached files in the raw data are .CSV and seem to pertain to numeric/categorical critical parameters). Please clarify this in the paper whether this data is derived based on the lung images or otherwise.
2. The title of the paper is ambiguous. "Deep-learning artificial intelligence prediction...". It is a well known factor that deep learning is a type of AI technique, so either use AI or deep learning in the title. Using both does not make clear sense for the context.
3. It would be better to have the figures in-text instead of appendices, which makes it difficult for the average reader of this journal.
4. The authors mention that the top 10 variables were significant in predicting ICU admission. Has the significance been medically correlated/verified or is it based on the experimental analysis by the authors?
5. There are several technical details from the point of view of AI missing in the paper- especially in terms of the DNN architecture utilised and its hyper-parameters, making the paper lack robustness.
Experimental design: The paper proposes utilisation of a deep neural network (DNN) for predicting ICU admission and mortality. However, their is insufficient details on the network choice and other hyperparameters:-

1. What was the basis to utilise 5 hidden layers for the DNN? Were smaller network architectures utilised?
2. The experiments use a 90% training dataset and 10% testing dataset for the study. With such a large amount of training data and experiments being only carried on the smaller testing data (10%) - were more conventional train test splits used e.g. 70-30%, 80-20% etc.? If not, please provide a reference on the choice of train-test split or more details on this choice, as it is a vital characteristic in AI experimentation.
3. It is mentioned that correlated variables were excluded from analysis (with corr. coff > 0.5), however, generally for DNNs, feature selection and dimensionality reduction are automatic and manual feature engineering is not required? Please justify the basis for identifying top predictors through this technique. There can be other methods e.g. XGBoost which can provide top predictors during classification, so a justification of choosing this methodology will help make this paper more robust.
4. Many relevant details are missing for the DNN which affect reproducibility and transparency in the results- what was the optimiser utilised, number of epochs over which the network was trained, activation function, learning rate.....?
Validity of the findings: 1. The approach presents an evaluation of the DNN on the test dataset for COVID-19 patients in the US with an AUC. The confusion which is present is regarding utilisation of simpler ML architectures or DNNs with fewer hidden layers- were these verified and experimented with? If so, please provide more information in the text.

2. What were the key performance metrics alongside the AUC? True/False Positives/Negatives, F Score obtained for classification using the DNN, accuracy/precision/recall et al.? A confusion matrix here would be useful to clearly make inferences from the model's performance.
Additional comments: The paper proposes an interesting application of DNNs for a real-world (and very significant problem) at the present time of COVID-19. However, there are insufficient technical details on the AI part of this work, making replication/reproducibility a concern. In addition, the results in the paper need more details and justifications to merit publication in this journal.


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

Input:
Title: DEEP LEARNING PREDICTION OF LIKELIHOOD OF ICU ADMISSION AND MORTALITY IN COVID-19 PATIENTS USING CLINICAL VARIABLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors' writing is clear and easy to follow. However, there are some points could be improved:

1.	The AUCs of models for mortality should be consistent in the abstract (0.848 and 0.845) and the text (0.882 and 0.048).
2.	Authors mentioned that a deep-learning artificial intelligence algorithm is novel and has distinct advantages over logistic regression and supervised learning approach (line 237-238, 72-73) but did not give in any details of what advantages they are.
3.	Figure 2 &4: More information should be provided: What values shown in the x-axis, which method used to retrieve these values, what information indicated by different colour codes?
4.	Figure 3: Legend indicates that scores ranged from 0 to 6, while the figure represents score range from 0 to 5. Which information do the numbers in each bar indicate?
5.	Table 1: Race values should be aligned. There are two bold p values without any indication.  Lack of explanation for the WBC abbreviation.
6.	Table 2: Race values should be aligned. Lack of explanation for the WBC abbreviation.
7.	Line 145: p values should be included.
8.	Line 209: lack of references.
9.	Minor typo error: line 223: identified f clinical.
Experimental design: The research question is well-fined. The study settings is also clearly described. However, details of methods used in the study need to be provided:

10.	Authors should explain in the text why Figure 2 mentions that top 10 variables were significant, but the models used only top 5 variables. Similarly, top 15 significant variables were mentioned in Figure 4 while the models used only top 6. If they were results from the collinearity analysis, please give details.

11.	What did authors do to avoid the overfitting issue?

12.   Although authors cited several references, all algorithms and parameter tuning strategies used in the study should be briefly described in the text or supplemental document to be useful for future reader. There is lack of references for the collinearity analysis.
Validity of the findings: Although your results are compelling, the data analysis should be improved in the following ways:
12.	Provide ROC curves for training and test data sets.
13.	Report performance of the models using other metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, and negative predictive value at the optional cut-off selected in training dataset because “change in AUC  has little direct clinical meaning for clinicians” (Halligan et al, Eur Radiol, 2015, V25, p 932–939). These values need to be reported in both training and test set to see how balance they are.
14.	Compare your DNN model with models using logistic regression/supervised learning approach algorithms on your data to show the advantages.
15.	To help the clinician visually interpret how the predictive score was generated by the deep-learning model, a monogram is recommended because DNN model is too complicated to interpret in practical settings.
16.	The simplified models use a cut-point for each top predictor. The underlying rational of these cut-points needs to be discussed in the discussion section.
Additional comments: Xiaoran Li and colleagues conducted a retrospective study to develop a deep learning model and a risk score model to predict ICU admission and mortality in 1108 hospitalized COVID-19 positive patients using their clinical information. The models were built in 90% of data set and tested in the 10% left. They found that top 5 ICU predictors included procalcitonin, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and SpO2, and top 6 mortality predictors included age, lactate dehydrogenase, procalcitonin, cardiac troponin, C-reactive protein, and SpO2. AUCs of the deep- learning model in test dataset were 0.780 for ICU admission and 0.882  for mortality. The simplified risk score model had slightly lower performance, yielding the AUC of 0.728 and 0.848, respectively. The findings of key predictors are not new as they have been reported elsewhere. The models need to be validated in external cohort before practical use. However, the models contribute to the growing need of quantitative tools to stratify hospitalized COVID-19 patients having need of ICU admission and high risk of mortality based on their clinical information.

Although the analysis is interesting and meaningful at the population level, there are still some extra work need to be done.


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

Input:
Title: DEEP LEARNING PREDICTION OF LIKELIHOOD OF ICU ADMISSION AND MORTALITY IN COVID-19 PATIENTS USING CLINICAL VARIABLES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have well addressed my concerns and now the paper is ready for publication.
Experimental design: The authors have well addressed my concerns and now the paper is ready for publication.
Validity of the findings: The authors have well addressed my concerns and now the paper is ready for publication.
Additional comments: The authors have well addressed my concerns and now the paper is ready for publication.


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

Input:
Title: DEEP LEARNING PREDICTION OF LIKELIHOOD OF ICU ADMISSION AND MORTALITY IN COVID-19 PATIENTS USING CLINICAL VARIABLES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have presented satisfactory responses to my queries, and I believe necessary changes have been incorporated to make the paper more informative and clearer now. No more changes are required in my opinion.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The paper has been substantially improved through the revision, and I believe it is now fit to be accepted in this journal.


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

Input:
Title: DEEP LEARNING PREDICTION OF LIKELIHOOD OF ICU ADMISSION AND MORTALITY IN COVID-19 PATIENTS USING CLINICAL VARIABLES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well-written and all relevant figures, tables, and raw data are now provided in desirable presentation.
Experimental design: No additional comment.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided. The results are well discussed, including the limitation of sample size and the need of external validation.
Additional comments: All my questions have been well addressed. The methods and results are now clearly described.

Minor comment: authors mentioned in the discussion that "Disadvantages of deep learning methods are that it requires comparatively large sample size", and that authors' study has "small sample sizes". So what is the rational when authors decided to choose DNN for developing a predictive model rather than other algorithms that are more suitable for small sample size study, such as Bayesian neural network?