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: TET1 MAY CONTRIBUTE TO HYPOXIA-INDUCED EPITHELIAL TO MESENCHYMAL TRANSITION OF ENDOMETRIAL EPITHELIAL CELLS IN ENDOMETRIOSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Tis article have improved its English expression.
The figures are OK.
Experimental design: The experimental design is OK.
Validity of the findings: The validity of findings is OK and the discussion is concise and logical.
Additional comments: Thank you for your careful revision. It's good.


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: SEASONAL AND SUCCESSIONAL DYNAMICS OF SIZE-DEPENDENT PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC RATES IN A TROPICAL DRY FOREST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is clearly written, the literature is good and vast, although it would be good to incorporate a little more recent literature. Figure 1 has very poor quality and is not clearly located in the geographical context. The graphs should explain or know what the gray lines are. Figures 2, 3 and 4, try to improve them, or put the results in tables. The hypotheses are quite evident.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: The hypotheses and predictions are very obvious, an effort should be made to understand the ecological mechanisms behind the approach. It is not clear why they divide between small and large trees, and the inferences they make about the effect of climate change are very risky because they only have six years of data.


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

Input:
Title: SEASONAL AND SUCCESSIONAL DYNAMICS OF SIZE-DEPENDENT PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC RATES IN A TROPICAL DRY FOREST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. General writing can be improved. There are sections with very large paragraphs, making it difficult for the reader to focus and identify the main ideas. See particularly lines 72-118 in the introduction section and lines 380-451 of the discussion. For the introduction section, I suggest authors to split those lines into two to three paragraphs, focused on 1) current knowledge of successional patterns of density, species, density, and demographic rates, 2) what is known about differences in seasons and why it is expected to modify those patterns, and 3) the effect of plant size on those patterns and the possibility of interaction with season. For the discussion section, it seems that by simply splitting the current paragraph at lines 390 and 408 would be enough. However, please begin each of these paragraphs with a line describing the main idea to be discussed.

Also, in lines 125-127 hypothesis should be rephrased. Authors say: “We hypothesize that the successional patterns of plant and species density, and the underlying demographic rates will differ between seasons as well as between large and small plants”. For it to be sound ecological hypothesis it should propose some mechanism(s) from which such a result is expected, rather than simply expressing an expectation. Authors have provided background on previous lines of the introduction, so they just have to summarize it here.

2. Authors have made an exhaustive bibliographic review of the existing literature for tropical forests on the topics addressed in the manuscript. However, in order to bring their results to a broader context, such as that of tropical forests in general, authors could search for references from other kind of systems and discuss their results in such a context. Otherwise, it is not clear how generalizable or not are their results.

In line 95 Mendez-Alonso et al. 2013 may not be the adequate citation here, as they do not assess successional gradients. Probably better to cite Pineda et al. 2013 Plant, Cell & Environment. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2012.02582.x. Also in line 282. Maza-Villalobos et al., 2013 did actually assessed the effects of seasonality in their work. Please be specific or highlight here (and in the introduction section) that this is the only work doing that (although they did not assess the effect of different size classes).

3. Figures can be modified to improve clarity in the presentation of results. Main suggestions are:
- Instead of presenting two different variables in a graph but for the same size class, I suggest authors present all the results for the same variable in a single graph. That would allow the reader to directly compare the results for different size classes and not moving between plots for making such comparisons.
- Although presenting the results as the prediction from the fitted models is a good idea, lacking the data in the figures do not allow readers to graphically assess how well the model fitted to the data. So please present the original data as points in the figures.
In all figures, I do not understand why authors present significance of both seasons. - Season is categorical predictor with two levels. So in the model one of the seasons should be included as part of the “basal” level (defining the intercept) and the other defines a contrast in relation to that level. So it should be there only one test and P-value associated with the season main effect. When looking at Fig_S1 it seems that what the authors are reporting as the effect of “Dry_season” is a test of the null that the intercept (i.e. the dry condition) is 0. That is not a relevant test in this case, and as such only the test for the wet period (which is actually a test for the difference between dry and wet main effects) should be reported.
- Supplementary Figures must be checked, as they seem to have some errors. For example, Figure_S1 reports a negative effect of dry season at early stage in both panels a and b. However, it seems those effects are positive, as deduced from the values reported above the error bars but also from the general coherence of the results. Similar problems are presented in other supplementary figures. Please double-check all the model parameter estimations and the values reported in these figures.

4. The article is a self-contained work, with all the relevant results to test the proposed hypotheses.
Experimental design: 1. The article is without doubt primary research.

2. Research questions are clearly stated at the last paragraph of the introduction. I consider they are interesting and relevant for those working on forest recovery in tropical landscapes. However, due to the lack of clarity while framing the current knowledge, knowledge gaps and relevance of the work in the previous paragraphs of the introduction, I consider it will not be clear for the general audience why the work is relevant and meaningful. As suggested before, writing of the introduction needs to be improved. See my previous comments on how to do it.

3. Sampling methods are detailed enough. However, in line 141 please specify if sites were excluded from human use during forest regrowth or if they are used for some kind of forest products extraction or cattle ranching.

Regarding analytic methods there are some details to be further explained and other may need to be modified:

- Given that one of the main purposes of the work is to assess seasonal variation in community properties and demographic rates and how they change with successional stage/age and plant sizes, it would be ideal to fit a single model including all these predictors. However, authors fit independent models for different plant size classes. This approach does not allow to formally test the interaction between size class and season or successional stage, which is a central point of the second question and included in all the predictions presented. Therefore, I suggest the authors fit a complete model. If it is not possible because not enough data is available, please say so in the text.
- I find questionable to nest the random effect of site within the successional category. The random effect of site is included to account for the non-independency and therefore a possible systematic effect of site on response variables. Such an effect should in principle not be related with successional category and if so, it would be accounted by the fixed effect of successional category. So It does not seem to be necessary and in fact could make the model harder to fit. So please consider to remove successional category as a nesting variable in the definition of such random effect.
- Also regarding random effects, please consider to include the sampling date as second random effect orthogonal to the site effect. This is because observations from the same date in different sites are not truly independent: they could all be biased on the same direction if, for example, the same uncalibrated measurement tool (or observer) was used across all the plots in that sampling date. It may not be relevant, but you do not know that in advance. lmer allows for crossed random effects.
- It is not clear if random effects were applied only on the intercept of the model or also on the slope of time or some other fixed predictor. It seems it was only on the intercept, but please specify. Authors can add random effects in the model formula (formula 3) for clarity.
- Please provide a description of which kind of hypothesis tests are presented: are they single parameter tests or tests of complete effects (Anova-type tests)? As lmer function does not provide such tests, please specify which library and/or function did you use.
- In lines 205-206 authors explain they include time as a fixed predictor to take into account the possibility that the effect of seasonality may vary over time. Seeing the results, it seems that the main reason to include time as a fixed predictor is because response variables change over successional time, particularly in early successional sites, so not including time would make the model to fall short in representing data.
Validity of the findings: 1. Results are fairly valid. However, claim made in lines 452-455 of the discussion and repeated in lines 469-472 of the conclusions section does not seem to be well linked to results or the discussion. This lines are disconnected from previous discussion and therefore not well supported. Please try to provide further support for them, for example, by returning to lines 69-71 in the introductory section.

2. One way to assess the validity of the findings in a work like this, where statistical modelling is central, is to provide at least a graphical summary of the adequacy of the models fitted. Diagnosing models through tools like a graphical summary of the residuals (their relation to predicted values or if their distribution is close to normal) is commonly enough to assess model validity. So please provide, as supplementary material such a diagnosis.
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: SEASONAL AND SUCCESSIONAL DYNAMICS OF SIZE-DEPENDENT PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC RATES IN A TROPICAL DRY FOREST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Review on “Seasonal and successional dynamics of size-dependent plant demographic rates in a tropical dry forest (#44799)” by Saénz et al.

The manuscript presented by Saénz et al. on secondary succession of TDF in the Yucatán Peninsula shows the importance to consider, not only the effects of successional stage, but also the seasonality, which is characteristic of this important forest in the neotropics. The authors also show elegantly that size of plants display different responses, which can be explained on limiting-resources competence basis.
Overall, I found the manuscript very interesting, however, there are some issues, which I´d like to see addressed in a new version. Below, the authors will find some observations/suggestions, which the author may consider the recommended new version.

Introduction
L75-77. Can you expand a little this part of the introduction? Or why the authors argument between wet and dry forest?
L123-124. Be consistent with how/How.
L125. The hypothesis sound very simplistic. Can you elaborate a stronger hypothesis based on your conceptual framework?
L127. Is “P1A” a part of the prediction 1? I suggest to number it or explain what does “P1A” stand for?
Experimental design: Methods
L142. The map does not need state division. I suggest to include the border limits with countries at North and South and other landmarks, at least the names of Ocean Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, United States and Guatemala/Belize. You definitively may not believe it, but some people in the other side of the world do not know the location of Mexico.

L143-149. Given the rainfall and temperature are very relevant for their study, I suggest authors to include more detailed information on climate patterns. For example, authors can provide total rainfall for the rainy and dry season and they can provide an estimation of interannual variation. I do not understand what the authors mean with “mean annual precipitation ranges” the mean annual precipitation should be only one number. If they provide two numbers this is a range, not a mean.
Authors say that most of the rainfall falls during the rainy season, but how much? The same should be presented for temp. May I recommended to explore the relationship of your response variables with the rainfall/temp of the dray and wet season, instead the seasonality (as a categorical variable).

Sampling design
Do the authors have information for rainfall for the wet and dry season for the six years of the study? Is there any way you can use this information for the analysis, instead just the categorical variable (seasonality)?

L160-167. Authors should include a table with information for this site, including the specific age obtained from interviews to local residents.
L165. It sound odd that local residents living for at least 40 yr. can give information for stands >50 years old stands (and from the plots in results, I can see there are ages of 65 yrs). Local residents have been living there for at least 65 ys., right? Probably more, but you have evidence that at least they´ve been living there for 65 ys.
L172. I suggest to name your institution in Spanish. Only my opinion.
L177. How was the interannual variation of temp and rainfall in the six years? Why do the authors include seven censuses in the rain and six in the dry season? They probably can include in an Appendix a plot showing the rainfall and temp variation during six years.
L203-206. Not sure to understand why year was included as a fixed effect? How successional stage and seasonality was included in the model? Are not they fixed effects too? Looking at the model, I believe they are fixed effect? If they are not, what are they then?

L215-224. This is indeed a complex model. Did the authors remove non-significant terms? Or were included in the model, even when they are not significant. The authors should explain how they did use their model to predict and plot the predicted values as a function of age.
Also in results and plots, authors refer to “Time”. Are they referring to Successional stages?
If Succesional stage was included in the model as categorical variable, I cannot understand how the models (and plots) were obtained, as “Age” is numerical.

Can the authors explain how they make the prediction for each successional stage as a function of age? Did they make a model for each stage? Why each successional stage have different ages (5-10, 20-25 and 60-65) than those of the included in each stage (3-5, 8-20 and >50 ys).
Validity of the findings: The findings are interesting, however, I believe the author may improve their finding with the suggestions made. Below there are some suggestions for the Results section,

Results
How do the authors make the predictions and produced their figures? Authors should explain more detailed.
“Succesional stage” is a categorical variable, which is not reflected in the plots or at least, authors do not explain.
It is not clear to me, why each panel (early, intermediate and advance) do have their own prediction (I mean why is not a continuum sequence)? Did they produce a model separately? Can the authors to explain all these details?

What are the shaded sections in all figures? Are they confidence intervals? Authors should explain.

The legend of all figures is confused, you may be want to include the R2m and R2c in the plots or in a table. It is somewhat confused the way you describe the that (a-c) figures are for mortality rates and (d-f) for species loss rate. You should mention, that capital letters represent significant effects based on the mixed model, right?. Do the other terms were not significant? And did you remove them? Or were they non-significant, but you leave them in the model.
It is necessary that authors include a table with all the terms and give the statistics to determine if were significant or not of the estimates of the model. With the information presented is not clear.

It is not clear if “year”, “Successional stage” and the other terms were non-significant?
How do the authors did know the p-value of “D”, “W”, “TxW”, etc?
lmer does not provide p-values. Were they obtained based with other package?
Authors definitively need to explain.
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: SEASONAL AND SUCCESSIONAL DYNAMICS OF SIZE-DEPENDENT PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC RATES IN A TROPICAL DRY FOREST
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I agree with the changes made to the document. The new manuscript is more robust and supports hypotheses, as well as greater clarity in all sections of the article. I consider that in its current form it is ready to be published in PeerJ
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: The findings presented here represent a good contribution to the state of the art in community ecology.
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: SEASONAL AND SUCCESSIONAL DYNAMICS OF SIZE-DEPENDENT PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC RATES IN A TROPICAL DRY FOREST
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have addressed or explained all my observations and comments on basic reporting from my previous review. I have no comments in the new version.
Experimental design: Authors attended all observations on experimental design and I believe the current version is now much more clear. I have no comments
Validity of the findings: Results are clear and, apart from that I was not able to see Figure S1, I have no comments.
Additional comments: Authors have made a great effort and have fairly addressed, not only all my comments, but those from the three reviewers.
I believe manuscript is ready to be published.


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

Input:
Title: POTENTIAL ROLE OF CELLULAR MIRNAS IN CORONAVIRUS-HOST INTERPLAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript reads well. The topic is highly relevant to the current pandemic and sufficient background and literature were searched for the current work.
Experimental design: The experiments have been well designed and conducted. However, I have a few questions regarding the experiments and potentially, some other data could be provided, the manuscript will be even better.
1. As authors suggest Virus infection could soak up the miRNA to prevent its function. Is it possible to show the potential targets of this miRNA in human lungs mRNA, which could be altered by the miRNA-21-3p
2. GISAID website divided the SARSCov2 genome into five clades, S, Gr, GH, G, S, and V. Is possible to test whether miRNA-21-3p binding sequences remain intact in all of these clades or its potential binding will be limited to viruses of certain clades only.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript dealt with the use of various bioinformatic tools and they seem appropriate.
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: POTENTIAL ROLE OF CELLULAR MIRNAS IN CORONAVIRUS-HOST INTERPLAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript “The potential role of miR-21-3p in coronavirus-host interplay " is interesting, the aim is clear and the methods seem appropriate. In this work, authors performed computational prediction of high-confidence direct interactions between miRNAs and seven human coronavirus RNAs.
Experimental design: At this unprecedented time, researchers are performing number of hypothesized based studies. I completely support such studies but this study has one big flaws. Authors gave too much importance to one miR-21-3p. This study is good and made some valid points but focusing on one miRNA made study looks bad.
Validity of the findings: 1.	I recommend changing title (not focusing on one miRNA)
2.	Change discussion and mention about other miRNAs like 16-5p, 195-5p
3.	Delete portion of miR-21-3p and 5p discussion part. It looks great on paper about discussing 5p and 3p…unless in-vivo or in-vitro studies. We perform such studies and outcomes are disappointing.
4.	Make this manuscript generalize, don’t focus on one miRNA.
5.	Mice lung data is ok but in reality miRNA targets are different in human and mice.
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: POTENTIAL ROLE OF CELLULAR MIRNAS IN CORONAVIRUS-HOST INTERPLAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Major:
1.	Functionality of miR-21-3p in different viral disease conditions are missing in the introduction.
2.	Which part of the lungs was used for this study?
3.	Is this miRNA (21-3p) cross species conserved?
4.	Statistical analysis for Fig. 2 is missing.
5.	It will be interesting to know about the other targets of miR-21-3p.
6.	A table summarizing the fold change and targets of miR-21-3p in different disease conditions will be interesting to note.

Minor:
1.	English language editing required.
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: Statistical analysis for Fig. 2 is missing.
Additional comments: The review article by Nersisyan et al. entitled “The potential role of miR-21-3p in coronavirus-host interplay” discusses the novel role of miRNA miR-21-3p in binding to the human coronavirus RNAs and its role in SARS-CoV infection. The article is timely, descriptive, interesting, however, there are few concerns which the author needs to address:


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: POTENTIAL ROLE OF CELLULAR MIRNAS IN CORONAVIRUS-HOST INTERPLAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors showed the potential role of miR-21-3p in coronavirus-host interplay via bioinformatic analysis. Since the idea is of interest, there are some points that need to be addressed to improve the quality of study.

There still have some grammatical errors and typos. The authors should re-check and revise carefully.

One of the important concerns is that the authors have not compared the performance results to the previous works on mRNA binding site prediction. Even currently no study focused on coronavirus specifically but the authors could also compare to the general one.

There are many mRNA samples in TCGA-LUAD, why did the authors only select 46 tissues? Any criteria for this?

Why did the authors select genes with target score > 75?


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: POTENTIAL ROLE OF CELLULAR MIRNAS IN CORONAVIRUS-HOST INTERPLAY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: My previous comments have been addressed well.


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 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FLOW CONDITIONS AND WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS IN THE LOWER BIEBRZA RIVER (POLAND)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the literature review/methodology/results about the SWAT model is missing or very poor.
Experimental design: There is no description about the Calibration and Validation of the SWAT model.
The authors should be explained which period have used for the calibration/validation of the SWAT model?
How did they calibrate the SWAT model? Which environment/software has been used for calibrating?
There is not any literature review about the SWAT model. For example, the following paper has been recently published:
Choubin et al., 2019. Streamﬂow regionalization using a similarity approach in ungauged basins: Application of the geo-environmental signatures in the Karkheh River Basin, Iran. Catena
Validity of the findings: Validation results of the SWAT model are missing.
Uncertainty analysis is missing, too. R-factor and P-factor are two statistics that are used to investigate uncertainty in the SWAT model when calibrating it by the SUFI2 algorithm (Choubin et al., 2019).
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FLOW CONDITIONS AND WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS IN THE LOWER BIEBRZA RIVER (POLAND)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
The paper is well-written and professional English language is used throughout

Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided:
Literature references are appropriate for the statements made in the introduction. However, the background provided in the introduction does not fit to the analyses made. Two examples: Lines 18-22 highlight the importance of feedback relationships between human activities, climate change and ecological dependencies - however these feedbacks have not been made clear in the analyses. In lines 30-31 it is mentioned that spring melt is the main inundation driver. In the paper, only lines 466-470 in the conclusions refer to this important dependency. Especially since the results show opposite tendencies as comparable studies, this should have been investigated in detail.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared:
The structure of the article the authors were aiming for is clear, but the content is not appropriate. One example: The investigations of inundation are presented in the discussion section without having been explained in the methods or shown in the results.
Figures are well designed, Figures 4 to 7 require larger font to be clearly readable. No table is provided.
Raw data shared is accessible, but lacks explanation. It remains unclear from what analysis step the data is provided. Is this the raw SWAT model output at the gauge Osowiec? What does the entry "IMGW" mean? Where is the data you mention is being used for the analysis (line 59) ranging from 1955-2011? Mention somewhere that only flows higher 25m³/s are provided. It would have helped to also provide the three datasets mentioned in lines 125-129.

Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses:
I have difficulties to relate the results to the aims given in the introduction (no hypotheses are given). The results are not well structured according to these aims. I would have expected to see the methods and also results structured according to: 1. trends in duration, volume and max discharge; 2. change in flood characteristics with respect to time horizon (what is actually meant by that? it is not explained in the paper); 3. same as 2 but also for seasonality; 4. Inundation and potential changes to the ecosystem.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal:
It is written in the "Aims&Scope" of PeerJ: "PeerJ only considers Research Articles and Literature Review Articles. It does not accept Hypothesis Papers, Commentaries, Opinion Pieces, Case Studies, Case Reports.". But the title of this article (and the content, too) mark the work as a "case study" and hence does not seem eligible for PeerJ.

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap:
There is a lack of well defined research questions and knowledge gaps. One could argue, that (1) anthropopressure, line 12-15; (2) feedback relationships, line 20-22; (3) relationship between spring thaws and melt from precipitation, lines 30-31 and (4) climatic pressures impact on ecosystem management, lines 38-39 are meant to be knowledge gaps, but those are not tackled in the manuscript.
Further, it is stated in the introduction that "In this article, the impact of climate change on the hydrological characteristics of floods (duration, volume, maximum flow) was quantified". The impact of climate change on hydrological characteristics is not a knowledge gap - many studies are available carrying out such research and the present work provides a case study of this topic.

Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Partly true. As mentioned above, the gaps and aims defined are not dealt with properly.

Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
No. I am unable to replicate the work. Especially the whole trend analysis section lacks detail and information to be replicable and I miss the explanation of the purpose. It is impossible for me to replicate or understand how figures 4-7 were produced. I do not understand why you need these statistical distributions when all the data you need for the analysis is already contained in the time series of the SWAT models. Please explain that in detail.
The inundation analysis is not described in methods (and also not in results) - How Figs 8-12 are produced is not explained in methods.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty not assessed:
Yes

Negative/inconclusive results accepted:
Not applicable

Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated
Not applicable

All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled:
Yes

Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results, Speculation is welcome, but should be identified as such:
It is difficult for me to understand the results since the methods lack detail and information to reproduce Figures 4-7.

I understand why the authors conclude that the wetland is impacted negatively and may be under threat. However, based on what I learned from the wetland description in the paper, I do not agree with the solely negative ecological impact of increasing inundation duration and extent. If inundation increases in a wetland, yes, conversion of certain vegetation types are occurring (e.g. as stated from sedge meadows to reeds or bush and wood to meadows or wetland grasses) but this can eventually also lead to more habitat diversity and the wetland covering a larger area (e.g. fringe vegetation of meadows is shifting further outwards). Testing these conclusions requires e.g. a distributed hydraulic model to check which areas get inundated with which depth and duration which may lead to a possible shift of wetland vegetation areas over longer time periods. Or you need to explain why this shift/any positive effect is unlikely / not possible to happen.
Additional comments: Title and Abstract
"impact of climate change on wetland ecosystems" is not reflected in the abstract, where you mention changes in flow conditions only. The impact on the wetland needs to be mentioned in the abstract, otherwise the title is misleading. Also, the impact on wetland ecosystem is only described in the discussion and has not been investigated in detail across the papers methods and results.

Introduction:
- You cite studies directly related to your work, e.g. lines 38-48 and line 52. I suggest to link your discussion to e.g. Grygoruk and Rannow (2017) and how one can deal with forecasted climate changes and maybe even translate it into positive. Also, what did the tests of Maksymiuk reveal compared to your historical analysis?
- I suggest to clearly define research gaps throughout the introduction, formulate research questions and aims at the end of the introduction (see comments above) and use this structure also for methods and results. Currently, the reader is lost which method and results relate to which aim.

Study area:
Line 71: Add the size of the wetland.
Also, add the main flooding mechanisms (is it solely governed by inflows or is there also an impact of precipitation or groundwater, for instance).

SWAT model:
While the SWAT model is generally well calibrated for the Vistula and Odra river basins, it is required to give information for the applicability for this study: What is the performance (calibration and validation including time periods used), e.g. use the KGE and its three components that were used as performance criteria in Piniewski's paper for the Osowiec gauge. Also, how does the model perform in depicting the snowmelt mechanisms (e.g. in dry, wet, warm and cold years) which are of extreme importance when analysing climate change impacts in your study area?

Climate Change Scenarios:
It would help to provide a figure that shows the actual time series (maybe even in supplementary material) of the three datasets for which trend tests are carried out.

Trend Analysis - the method
I do not understand large parts of this section. Why don't you just extract the annual SWAT results and then run an Anova test on the three datasets to see if the change is significant or not?
l.138-145: water management in the modelled catchment: Any management that impacts peak, volume and duration is considered in your analysis, or?
l.146-150: Why gaps? You use modelled data. There should be no gaps?
l.157-158: Why are these distributions used because they can "model annual and seasonal peak flows"? I understand that SWAT was used to model annual and seasonal peak flows. This leads to further confusion throughout the paper: I don't understand the term 'models' in your paper. Once you seem to refer to the 9 climate "models" used to drive SWAT, then you refer to the statistical "models" developed. This is extremely confusing.
l.177-205: I do not understand this section at all and why it is needed in your analysis. Number equations in l.183-184. Why do you have 5 non-linear equations? What are the '?' in Eq.1? Can you provide an example of what you are actually doing in the supplementary material? (e.g. show the SWAT data and then the fitted distributions)
l.200-201: 'we developed software' but this is referenced to another author? What software was developed and where can it be accessed? The software can now cope with measurement gaps? Why is this needed? You analyse only modelled data (at least I could not find observed data in the raw data provided)?

Results
Fig 2 and 3: Explain what the rectangle and the box mean in the boxplot (probably mean and median)
l.228-229. I do not understand this sentence at all.
l.229 ff. It needs to be made clearer in the methods. I am unable to understand this.
l.248ff. Why did you choose the 'mid-term year' (14) to analyse the results? You neglect the natural variability here by picking one arbitrary year from the 30 year time series? Why not considering all years? Why is this not properly described in methods? I cannot reproduce how Figures 4-7 are produced.
l.281ff. My lack of understanding the methods makes it impossible to understand these results. Also, I suggest to structure the results according to the aims in the introduction. In the raw data winter months are given as numbers from 1-6, summer discharges from 7-12. Does it mean the year is divided into January - June = Winter and July - December = Summer? Clearly, this is not an appropriate distinction of north-eastern European seasonality.

Discussion
l.371-388: This is a mix of methods, results and discussion. As mentioned earlier, I suggest to structure the article properly according to the research questions to be defined in the introduction.
line 397-400. Fig 4 is not a trend figure. Also, I see a trend for volume of floods for 85FF in Fig 5. But what do you mean with "significant"? Were any significance tests carried out?
Fig 5 what do "dominating models" mean? Again, confusion between the 9 climate models and the statistical distribution functions (also termed "models") (in brackets).
l.407ff: "seasonal mowing" (l.79) is highlighted as a positive factor for the wetland. However, please note that significantly longer mowing intervals are better (Antoniazaa et al. 2018)
l. 416-418: I don't understand. Figure 3 is not about an increase of discharges in near and distant past and Figure 6 not about flood extent.
l.423: Why is there an increase in nutrient content?
l.451-452: I understand the reasons you give that lead to different results in different studies. But is it really not possible to investigate reasons for having totally opposite results, e.g. is it due to different climate change data (increase vs decrease in pcp)? If this is similar, do the hydrological models give non-linear results so that SWAT is different to the models in the other studies?

References:

Antoniazza, M., Clerc, C., Le Nédic, C. et al. Long-term effects of rotational wetland mowing on breeding birds: evidence from a 30-year experiment. Biodivers Conserv 27, 749–763 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1462-1


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 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FLOW CONDITIONS AND WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS IN THE LOWER BIEBRZA RIVER (POLAND)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: It has been revised
Experimental design: It has been revised
Validity of the findings: It has been revised
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FLOW CONDITIONS AND WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS IN THE LOWER BIEBRZA RIVER (POLAND)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have revised the manuscript in detail! Thank you for considering the comments and for the extensive explanations.

I observed the following points that the authors may want to consider before publication:

l.30-31 vegetation shifts and nutrient availibility and algal blooms: This is not particularly backed up by modelling or observation, right? And this is based on your discussion and in my view should also be treated in the abstract as such. So, be more cautious by adding "will likely take place" "This may lead to..."
l.108 either Lower Biebrza River or Lower Biebrza Basin
l.109 suggest not to refer to figures in the introduction, just write: "...related to the characteristics of floods."
l.182 by snowmelt processes
l.184 Fig 2A: The KGE of 0.8 for the validation period seems strange. The fit is visually worse than the baseline, the r2 is lower, but KGE is higher, please double check the calculation
l.184 one of the wettest
l.300-304 this sentence requires language correction and suggest to split it in two sentences
l.335 ...revealed that a certain dataset, i.e. ....
l.341 bestaccording (space missing)
l.408 please explain LBB on first use
l.487 strong linear relationship with the correlation coefficients R=...
l.493 you use DEM and DTM throughout your text. In case you used only one, please stick to the correct one.
l.514 "intensification of RCP" - better to rephrase to "and from RCP4.5 to RCP8.5"
l.525 moderate
l.566 Osowiec gauge. (and subsequent occurences of "water gauge")
l.589-590 this does not necessarily lead to lower uncertainty. I suggest to remove that sentence. You have mentioned that you are using a different forcing dataset, so that is fine.
l.651 gracilis, possible replacing less flood.... ?

comments:
It would help to provide a figure that shows the actual time series (maybe even in supplementary material) of the three datasets for which trend tests are carried out.
It has been added to the supplementary material.
-> I cannot see this figure in the supplementary material, the supplementary material is made of one Excel table.

l.157-158: Why are these distributions used because they can "model annual and seasonal peak flows"? I understand that SWAT was used to model annual and seasonal peak flows. This leads to further confusion throughout the paper: I don't understand the term 'models' in your paper. Once you seem to refer to the 9 climate "models" used to drive SWAT, then you refer to the statistical "models" developed. This is extremely confusing.
In the paper we use SWAT for crating the datasets for further analysis of trends. The statistical models (or probability distribution functions) were used for parametric calculation (modelling) of the trends in mean and standard deviation in time series ‘produced’ by SWAT. The term ‘statistical model’ is the approved synonym of probability distribution function in hydrological sciences, especially that the latter is mathematical rather than the hydrological term.
-> Yes, I understand these differences. But you need to make sure that every one of these three aspects are named differently. These three components of your work cannot be named just "model" because the reader then does not know about which you are referring to. Stick to the proper names (climate model, SWAT or hydrological model, statistical model) even though it means a few more words

l.451-452: I understand the reasons you give that lead to different results in different studies. But is it really not possible to investigate reasons for having totally opposite results, e.g. is it due to different climate change data (increase vs decrease in pcp)? If this is similar, do the hydrological models give non-linear results so that SWAT is different to the models in the other studies?
The differenced in results between these studies comes from two main facts:
1)	Difference in model resolution – LISFLOOD model (Dankers and Feyen, 2008) was set-up for the whole European continent and VOB (Piniewski et al., 2017) for two Polish basins (Vistula and Odra). Results for the Biebrza Valley presented in the scale of the whole European continent is far more uncertain.
2)	Difference in climate projections representation - Dankers and Feyen (2008) used only one regional climate model, which is not in line with the IPCC recommendations (2014) to use the ensemble of models in order to decrease the uncertainty of predictions. Piniewski et al. (2017) used 9 Regional Climate Models and draw conclusion based on their median response.
-> I suggest to briefly (e.g. max one sentence each) mention these reasons in the text so that the reader know why these differences occur.


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 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON FLOW CONDITIONS AND WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS IN THE LOWER BIEBRZA RIVER (POLAND)
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for the second round of revisions.

I only noticed a typo in your corrections (there may be more in the paper, please carefully check the print proof):

l.300-304: ...were descripted in details in the Chormański article (Chormanski et al., 2009)...
correct to ...were described in detailn in Chormanski et al. (2009)...

It is not needed to return the paper to me and it is acceptable now in my opinion. Congratulations for your paper.


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

Input:
Title: METHYLASE-ASSISTED SUBCLONING FOR HIGH THROUGHPUT BIOBRICK ASSEMBLY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The quality of the language and writing is excellent.  I found the paper clear, and the general subject of assembly chemistries well-reviewed and insightful.  The experiments performed are adequate evidence of the claims made.  There is a prior study from my own lab:  "2ab assembly: a methodology for automatable, high-throughput assembly of standard biological parts" PMID: 23305072 that describes a similar method to the subject of this paper, and is worth comparing.  The 2AB method was a BioBrick-like scheme employing the in vivo methylation of BamHI and BglII restriction sites.  Those methyltransferases were well behaved and sufficiently complete in their methylation to enable one-pot assembly reactions.
Experimental design: I found this research interesting.  The purpose of the research was very clear. Doing DNA chemistry in vivo is a challenging subject, and each new system presents new insights. It is interesting to see this applied to the BioBrick system.  It is fine for the journal.  The experiments were performed and described appropriately.
Validity of the findings: I suspect that In vivo assembly methods will one day eclipse the in vitro methods.  This publication does not achieve that lofty goal, but I found the work insightful and presenting an interesting datapoint about controlling DNA modification reaction in vivo.

I was a little unclear about the claims about one-pot reactions.  The statement "The 2RM assembly technique shows how site-specific methylation could potentially enable one pot digestion/ligation reactions." sounds like you are saying that one-pot doesn't work yet.  But in other places it seems like you are saying it does work, and I don't see any description of what goes wrong if that does not work.  There are protocols talking about stepwise digestions, and others as one-pot.  I got a little lost on those details.
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: METHYLASE-ASSISTED SUBCLONING FOR HIGH THROUGHPUT BIOBRICK ASSEMBLY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript presents a new method for assembling BioBricks using differential methylation and related non-gel-based DNA ligation approaches. The idea seems sound, the implementation is detailed in general though missing some key analyses. The presentation, however, limits the impact of this work.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript presents colony counts as the main evidence to support its claims on correct plasmid assembly. This is indirect evidence and as such I would suggest that a sample of the resulting plasmids are sequenced to directly confirm that the plasmid was assembled as expected and to screen for any systematic sequence artifacts that may arise.
Additional comments: Major presentation issues:
1.	Thank you for a thorough description of your technique and thought process. However, your message is lost amidst the figures. In general, they would benefit from being more schematic and displaying only the information necessary to get the point across. Figure 1 does a better job at this by only labeling the relevant sites and color coding the general segments of the plasmids. However, although Figure 1 summarizes the technique successfully, it would be better to organize the method in step-wise columns so the figure can convey the same information quicker. In particular, a large figure side-by-side comparisons of the different cloning techniques utilized in the manuscript would be extremely useful (gold standard, trip snip, 3A, 2RM and 4R/2M).
2.	Figures 3,4,7-15 share enough context to consolidate into a fewer, maybe a single large figure that summarizes all the cloning comparisons. Figures 2 and 5 can also be combined.
3.	Figure 5 is not mentioned in the main text.
4.	Why are none of the students acknowledged authors of the manuscript?
5.	Some examples where the language could be improved and or concepts could be expanded upon include:
a.	Line 51. Can you expand and provide references on what you mean by improvements in ‘miniturization and automation’?
b.	Line 61. The current BioBrick RCF paradigm could use a Figure.
c.	Line 71. For the sake of clarity, it would be useful to have a Figure that shows the gold standard process and highlight where the pain point is (i.e. gel purification step).
d.	Lines 93 and 99. Can you provide evidence about BioBrick technology being ‘easier to comprehend’ and your method being ‘easier to understand’?
e.	Line 102. Can you be more specific with the phrasings ‘protect sites within inserts’ [from what?] and ‘mark sites at their ends’?
f.	Line 104. Use a different term than ‘decorate DNA’ to describe the addition of methyl groups to DNA.
g.	Line 106. What do you mean by ‘smaller scale’?
h.	Line 144. Include how did you determine transformation efficiency in methods.
i.	Line 268. Can you provide further evidence about the 3A method not ‘working well’ in people’s hands? Also, can you be more specific about what you mean by ‘working well’?
j.	Line 258. Grammar, ‘ligation’ should be ‘ligate’.
k.	Line 443. Grammar? What do you mean by ‘multiply methylated’?
6.	I recommend using RRIDs (Research Resource Identifiers) to better document the materials used in the experiments.


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: METHYLASE-ASSISTED SUBCLONING FOR HIGH THROUGHPUT BIOBRICK ASSEMBLY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I am fine with the modified manuscript
Experimental design: I am fine with the modified manuscript
Validity of the findings: I am fine with the modified manuscript
Additional comments: I am fine with the modified 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: PROMINTOOLS: SHEDDING LIGHT ON PROTEINS OF UNKNOWN FUNCTION IN BIOMINERALIZATION WITH USER FRIENDLY TOOLS ILLUSTRATED USING MOLLUSC SHELL MATRIX PROTEIN SEQUENCES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Present study claims taking advantage of using a protein sequence specific set of collection available in databases (limpet shell matrix proteins) to carry out a bioinformatics analysis aiming at providing an easy visualizing of protein sequences profile clustering.

The subject clearly matters in the context of biomineralization control. In fact many of the proteins recovered from proteomics methods in biomineralized biological systems (including mollusc shell), do not give rise to identification and functional characterization by searching for sequence similarities in general databases. The “unknown” status represents a significant fraction of the shell proteomes, in part due to the structure of these proteins. Thus, the development of meaningful molecular descriptions of these proteins remains a key challenge for now in different structural- ,functional-, evolutionary biology issues also for different prospects, e.g. biomimetics, …
Experimental design: The manuscript provides a detailed and illustrated operating mode of a user-frendly tool package designed to help expose patterns in a set of proteins of interest in comparison to an alternative set of proteins.

This is an effective and elegant way to do so since a molecular representation of the disordered state based on diverse sources of structural data may exhibit complex and very different averaging behavior which is presently a big deal in understanding biomineralization mechanism, in the context of biochemistry and evolutionary biology.
Validity of the findings: Though, there are several concerns in the manuscript, arising from unbalanced consideration of the biological context, limited and even oversimplified in some places.

This can be examplified early in the introduction section and proceeds along with the discussion:

l.15 – molluscs are definitely metazoans

l.33 – general references for proteins involved in biomineralization, as the backbones of present report assessments, may come from works prior to 2019, even 2012

l.35 – Pif protein in molluscs should be referred to with Suzuki et al. 2009 (instead of Song et al. 2019). The whole sentence containing this reference should be reworked to be tightly reframed with better focus.

l.39 onwards – Proteomics method (the highway to recover the dedicated protein sequences) is introduced with kind of workflow and upstream cleaning procedures (required for cautiousness) mix up. Irrelevant to the present work purpose, with regard to the latter. On the contrary, critical limits for sequence identification, e.g. amino acid composition, presence of multiple repeats and low-complexity domains, solubility properties, glycosylations / phosphorylations sites, cleavage sites availability, … or fragmentation techniques have been overlooked even though several issues have driven some packages of the tool.

Then in the ‘analysis’ (Motif Finder) section

- What is the guideline for providing two different ‘sets’ of protein sequences to compare the sequences of interest with? Do the authors take each set apart for the specific package application. This point should be clarified.

Careful attention should be paid by the author when writing :
- ‘Although the human eye is good at detecting patterns, this method has the risk that important patterns in the data are missed … .’(l.57)
- ‘Protein Motif Finder can facilitate researchers in detecting the important patterns in
their data’ (l. 267)
Oversimplification or statement driven deduction are both compelling reasons to ask for a step further discussion of these issues.

Minor issues :
A few spelling errors (e.g. l. 75, 195, 217, 329) indicate at least thorough editing is needed.
Additional comments: In conclusion, present manuscript reports for sure on original primary work as for the tool development.
Wether or not it falls within the scope of the journal is not within my discretion.


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: PROMINTOOLS: SHEDDING LIGHT ON PROTEINS OF UNKNOWN FUNCTION IN BIOMINERALIZATION WITH USER FRIENDLY TOOLS ILLUSTRATED USING MOLLUSC SHELL MATRIX PROTEIN SEQUENCES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please refer to the attached document.
Experimental design: Please refer to the attached document.
Validity of the findings: Please refer to the attached document.
Additional comments: Please refer to the attached document


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: PROMINTOOLS: SHEDDING LIGHT ON PROTEINS OF UNKNOWN FUNCTION IN BIOMINERALIZATION WITH USER FRIENDLY TOOLS ILLUSTRATED USING MOLLUSC SHELL MATRIX PROTEIN SEQUENCES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments.
Experimental design: The article presents a useful tool, which could compare two sets of protein sequences in terms of their global properties and motif content.  It will surely help the user to discover the potential characteristics of interested proteins in a user-friendly way.
But as for the computing methods, I have several questions:

1. Are there any other useful tools which can be compared with your tools? And what are the performances of these tools and what are the advantages of ProminTools? You should provide strong evidence to show that ProminTools are in high accuracy and efficiency.

2. Another questions are about the test sets.
(1) Why do you use the proteome of the giant limpet? Given that there are two different results based on the same raw sets, how could you illustrate the superiority of ProminTools？
(2) Have you ever used any other data sets to prove the utility of ProminTools?
(3) How many shell matrix proteins do you select as the foreground sequences? I couldn't find the exact number only if I look back to the data in the paper of Mann 2014.
(4) Have you ever set negative control ground in the case of the giant limpet?  A group of randomly selected proteins is strongly suggested.

3. As for the methods:
(1) In terms of the runtime, have you ever tried to run the scripts in parallel on the GPU? It may be helpful to decrease the runtimes in future.
(2) The function of low complexity proteins is surely a hard question. Have you ever machine learning algorithm to solve this problem?
Validity of the findings: ProminTools are designed to deal with the biomineral associated proteins, and the author also mentioned that the tool can also be used in many other cases. It seems to be a powerful tools, but I have one major questions:

The tool did provide the motif and sequence properties, but could the tool give a scoring report for POI set and potential shell matrix protein lists？It will be more useful for the investigators.
Additional comments: No more 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: PROMINTOOLS: SHEDDING LIGHT ON PROTEINS OF UNKNOWN FUNCTION IN BIOMINERALIZATION WITH USER FRIENDLY TOOLS ILLUSTRATED USING MOLLUSC SHELL MATRIX PROTEIN SEQUENCES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have  improved the manucscript  by taking into account my earlier comments.  I recommend the article for publication without the need for further revision.
Experimental design: Not applicable
Validity of the findings: The authors have included new data set to demonstrate the usefulness of their workflow and valditate the tool.
Additional comments: The authors have  improved the manucscript  by taking into account my earlier comments.  I recommend the article for publication without the need for further revision.


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

Input:
Title: INTERGENERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOL INTAKE: METABOLIC DISORDERS IN ALCOHOL-NAÏVE RAT OFFSPRING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is written clearly and well referenced.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined, however, the experiments are very limited in scope. No mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance are assayed nor do the authors perform any pathophysiological examinations of the offspring liver. The altered measures of hepatic function are compelling.

From the materials and methods, it is unclear how long the male rats (paternal) were exposed to alcohol prior to mating.

What % alcohol did the paternal rats drink?

When were the body weights of the male offspring examined? Do the authors have any data prior to weaning?

How old were the male offspring when they were terminated? (Were these three-month-old animals as well?)

Why were only the male offspring examined? (why not include females as well?)
Validity of the findings: Although the scope of this study is limited, the data clearly show an impact of paternal drinking on base measures of hepatic function within the male offspring. As can be seen above, I have just a few technical comments and questions for the authors.
Additional comments: The questions posed in section 2 above need to be included in the materials and methods.


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: INTERGENERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOL INTAKE: METABOLIC DISORDERS IN ALCOHOL-NAÏVE RAT OFFSPRING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study proposes that consumption of alcohol can result in transgenerational programming of metabolic disorders in offspring. The authors tested this by examining systemic biomarkers for metabolic disorders in alcohol naïve offspring from rat lines selectively bred for alcohol preference and compared this with wild-type Wistar rats. Although this is an interesting approach, there are some flaws in the design and presentation/analysis of data that make it difficult to follow through to the conclusions drawn by the authors.

Raw data was shared and the article followed the appropriate structure. Sufficient field background/context was provided and appropriate, recent references were cited. However, there was repetition of data from figures in the table (see comment below).

Grammatical/writing style/spelling errors: Some examples where the language could be improved or there were typos include lines 52, 119, 192, 202, 227 but there are also other examples. Please review the text.
Experimental design: Lines 38-39: The abstract states that “Most markers in the alcohol-naïve offspring of WHP rats were altered similarly to heavy alcohol abusers”. However, there was no control group of offspring that were not alcohol-naïve as they describe to draw this conclusion. Can the authors please comment on why they did not include such a group that would allow a direct comparison of measured outcomes in their study?

What is the justification for only including male offspring in the study? There are well-known sex-specific differences in programming of metabolic outcomes by different maternal insults so this needs to be at least acknowledged in the discussion.

Line 121 Methods: 8 male rat offspring from each line were used in the study, but it is unclear how many litters these came from. How many offspring were used per litter? Anything >1-2 per litter will introduce litter effects. Also, although the overall weight range for offspring was provided, what was the mean +/- SD weight of offspring within each group?

Statistics: Were data sets tested for a normal distribution before using the parametric one-way ANOVA? This should be done and stated in the methods. If not normally distributed, a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test should be used. Given the difference in variance in the WHP group in the triglyceride data, Welch’s correction (or something equivalent) needs to be applied. Similarly for the ALT data.
Validity of the findings: Although the authors state that the offspring were not directly exposed to alcohol, ethanol exposure only ceased 24h prior to mating in both males and females. This means that the last estrous cycle for females was exposed and so the final stages of oocyte growth and maturation were exposed to alcohol. Similarly, spermatogenesis was exposed to alcohol in males. 5g/kg is a high dose of EtOH for the WHP rats and could directly impact on these gametes. The authors very briefly mention this as a limitation of the study at the end of the discussion, but it is a fundamental point that impacts on whether this is a genetically inherited phenotype or purely the result of epigenetic changes to the germline in male and female breeders used for this study. Can the authors please comment further on this?

Figures: As submitted, these are not of sufficient quality for publication. The labels on the X and Y axes are unclear, as are the axes labels. Graphs within each figure should be designated as A) and B) and referred to in the figure legend. It is convention to arrange the data with the control group, in this case the Wistar rats, to the left of the graph and then treatments of increasing severity to the right. Therefore, these figures should have data columns rearranged as Wistar, WLP, WHP. Figures should graph mean +/- SD (or SEM) rather than 95% confidence interval and provide the n numbers for each group. The box to represent the mean is not required, as the column graph already does this. The Y-axis should have the origin at 0. The p values for the significant differences shown in the Figures needs to be indicated (i.e. different symbols for P<0.05, P<0.01, P<0.001 etc).

Table: Data for glucose, ALT, triglycerides and GGT should be removed as they are already presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Supp file: Raw data should show units for all measures and define all abbreviations for clarity. Why is glucose and ASPAT data for the WHP group not shown to 1 decimal place, as per the other groups?
Additional comments: There is not enough data presented here to warrant a full publication. Perhaps a brief report?


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: INTERGENERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOL INTAKE: METABOLIC DISORDERS IN ALCOHOL-NAÏVE RAT OFFSPRING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written, in clear English. There are only a few minor typographical and grammatical errors.

The introduction provides context. I think it would be useful to include a brief description of the scale of the problem for humans. For example, are there appropriate references that could be cited in terms of the number of children with developmental issues resulting from Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders?

In the table, the alignment of the p-values for the first two rows makes these a little unclear.

For both figures, the text on the axes (including axis titles) is narrow and very difficult to read. A different font should be used. In addition, the symbols to denote statistically significant results are too small to be easily seen and interpreted.

In general, the results are clear and relate to the stated aims. However, I believe the authors could have included a clear hypothesis.
Experimental design: The purpose of the studies is clear, and the authors describe the importance of understanding effects of alcohol abuse. As noted already, a clear hypothesis would be helpful.

In the introduction, the authors state that (line 71): “Paternal alcohol intake during the preconception period induces a spectrum of health problems and alters gene expression in rodent offspring.” However, in their experimental design (line 111): “[all parents].. were mated 24 hours after the last ethanol consumption and subsequent offspring were produced. The parents were not intoxicated at the time of mating.” Does this mean that both male and female parents consumed alcohol prior to mating? In that case, presumably the authors were not attempting to distinguish between paternal and maternal effects. I think this should be made clear, because in the introduction both maternal and paternal effects are described. Is there a reason why either maternal or paternal effects were not investigated, rather than having both?

Methods

Animal study:
The animal studies generally appear to have been carried out carefully and appropriately. For example, it is reassuring (line 115) that the rats were handled by the same experimenters for at least 30 days before blood sampling.

There are a few items I think should be addressed:

Line 101: On what basis did the authors choose 8 animals per group? Had some form of power analysis been undertaken? If so, what data was this based on? If not, why not? Did the authors have prior data to suggest 8 was sufficient?

Methods, line 127: Centrifugation is reported as 4500 rpm. Please report this as x g.

The authors describe analysis of both serum and plasma, but they only report on collection of serum. Were both serum and plasma collected, or were all analyses only done using serum?

In general, the statistical methods seem appropriate. My question is with the use of the Newman-Keuls test; one of the assumptions for this test is that the observations are independent. Can the authors comment on whether, for example, AST and ALT levels can be considered independent? If not, would another post-hoc analysis be more appropriate in this case?
Validity of the findings: My main issue with the discussion is that, in the introduction and discussion, it is noted that there are potential epigenetic mechanisms relating to effects of parental alcohol consumption on outcomes in offspring, and that seems to be an important factor in the observed results. The authors also note that these may be a subject for further studies. Some explanation of why no genetic or epigenetic outcomes were assessed in the current study would be helpful. Given these were identified as possibly important, it would have been helpful to include them. Do the authors plan to investigate such mechanisms?

Lines 181 to 183, the authors mention increased leptin levels in a previous study, but don’t link this to their current study. How might this be related to the current results?

The authors comment that the unexpected change in GGT might be due to different epigenetic mechanisms (line 223). Other than the single reference they cite, are there any other studies to support this, or which describe other mechanisms which may be relevant? If so, these should be included.
Additional comments: No further comments.


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

Input:
Title: INTERGENERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOL INTAKE: METABOLIC DISORDERS IN ALCOHOL-NAÏVE RAT OFFSPRING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - Although figure 1 has been altered, it still essentially repeats the data provided in Table 1 and, as such, does not add additional information. Therefore, only either Figure 1, with data presented as mean and SD, or Table 1 should be presented. What does the % on the Y-axis for Figure 1 represent? This is presumably as a % of the control group? This is unclear.
- There are still issues with grammar/writing style/spelling errors: Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 115, 166, 202-203, 266, 285 but there are also other examples. Please review the text.
Experimental design: - It needs to be made clearer in the methods how many litters the experimental animals came from. The authors addressed this in their response (i.e. 2 rats per litter were used, therefore 4 litters total for each treatment to provide n=8 per group) but it needs to be explicitly stated.
- It is appreciated that the authors have updated their description of the analysis to include mention of testing for normality and adjustment to a non-parametric test where appropriate. However, use of the Mann-Whitney U test as a post-hoc test between groups following the Kruskal Wallis test is not an appropriate test, as it does not adjust for multiple testing. A test such as Dunn’s multiple comparison procedure is required. This is the equivalent of using the Student Newman-Keuls test following a parametric one-way ANOVA.
Validity of the findings: It has been made clearer that this is a preliminary study, and the authors appear well aware of any limitations because of this and directions for future research. I agree with a comment made by one of the other reviewers that their preliminary results are compelling, but may be more reflective of epigenetic changes at the level of the gametes, rather than evidence for a genetically inherited phenotype.
Additional comments: The authors have adequately addressed most of the reviewers’ comments, but some issues with data presentation/analysis remain. In my opinion, this manuscript does not provide enough data to warrant a full publication, but perhaps a brief research report is appropriate.


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: INTERGENERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF ALCOHOL INTAKE: METABOLIC DISORDERS IN ALCOHOL-NAÏVE RAT OFFSPRING
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adequately addressed all previous comments. However, there are still some minor errors in grammar/writing style as detailed below (NB: line numbers refer to the tracked changes version of the manuscript when viewed in ‘All Markup’ mode):
line 90-92. Rewrite to: “In light of the metabolic changes associated with alcohol consumption, whether common metabolic markers differ in alcohol-naïve offspring of high- and low-preferring rats is of interest.”
line 104, 280: remove “the”
line 117-119. Rewrite to: “During the selection, which is a standardized procedure repeated in every generation, WHP and WLP rats were exposed to alcohol for 30 days, after reaching a weight of 250 g. In males, this occurs at around 60 days of age.”
line 120: should be “drank”
line 126: rewrite to: “…never directly exposed to alcohol.”
line 198: rewrite to “This is the first study to show changes in selected biochemical markers of metabolic disorders in naïve Wistar rats selected for high alcohol preference (WHP rats).”
line 229: should be “phenotypic”
line 243: “…paternally inherited alterations in liver x receptor activity.”
line 244-247. Rewrite to: “Similar findings were reported by Chang et al. (2019b), assessing long-term impacts of chronic preconception paternal alcohol use in mice. Evidence of metabolic programming in offspring included suppressed cytokine profiles within the liver and pancreas, consistent with findings from this study.”
line 250: “…specific alcohol-related biomarker, GGT, was decreased…”
line 258: remove “the” before light.
line 264: replace “allowed” with able.
line 268. rewrite to: “…the last estrogenic cycle for females, as well as spermatogenesis in males, were exposed…”
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Additionally, remove the sentence beginning “Based on this study…” at lines 282-284. Rewrite following sentence to “One can hypothesise that these changes are associated with epigenetic changes at the level of the gametes and/or with the genetically inherited phenotype. Either way, this study suggests that parental alcohol abuse can have a detrimental influence on offspring vulnerability to metabolic disorders.”


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

Input:
Title: A PREDICTION MODELING BASED ON SNOT-22 SCORE FOR ENDOSCOPIC NASAL SEPTOPLASTY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Determination of the curative effect of nasal septoplasty is a good idea.
The study is well done.
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: Determination of the curative effect of nasal septoplasty is a good idea.
The study is well 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: A PREDICTION MODELING BASED ON SNOT-22 SCORE FOR ENDOSCOPIC NASAL SEPTOPLASTY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Interesting article
Experimental design: Clear experimental design
Validity of the findings: Great validity of findings
Additional comments: Really interesting and well written article


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

Input:
Title: A PREDICTION MODELING BASED ON SNOT-22 SCORE FOR ENDOSCOPIC NASAL SEPTOPLASTY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I commend the authors for their extensive data analysis using SNOTT-22 score for the efficacy prediction of endoscopic nasal septum deviation correction.  A normogram was created as a predictive model for the efficacy of nasal surgery.The manuscript is clearly written in professional English. The manuscript is structured well 3 descriptive figures and 2 tables. It is highlighted that the surgical outcome of nasal septal correction is affected by many factors including disease related factors, treatment related factors and patient related factors. The literature is well referenced and relevent.
Experimental design: A retrospective ethical approved study to  develop  a simple and effective tool that can be used by clinicians for the efficacy prediction of endoscopic nasal septoplasty. All the patients had to fulfill and inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 155 patients were included in the study with 109 males and 46 females with a mean age of 36.7 years. The methodology is well descibed with adequate details.
Validity of the findings: This novel study demonstrates that the use of normogram for nasal septal deviation surgery is both effective and economical.The limitation of this study was the gender was not equally represented and its limitation to mainland China only and a small sample study.
Additional comments: An extensive data analysis using SNOTT-22 score for the efficacy prediction of endoscopic nasal septum deviation correction. This study demonstrates that the use of normogram for nasal septal deviation surgery is both effective and economical.The limitation of this study was the gender was not equally represented and its limitation to mainland China only and a small sample study. It is a well written original primary research manuscript within the scope of the journal.


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

Input:
Title: A PREDICTION MODELING BASED ON SNOT-22 SCORE FOR ENDOSCOPIC NASAL SEPTOPLASTY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: clinical implications should be better explain
Validity of the findings: Among limitations the authors reported that all the factors affecting the efficacy of nasal endoscopic septal deviation correction were not included in the risk factor analysis. This is a crucial pont. In addition, a morphologic classification about preoperative type of septal deviation should be added
Additional comments: Please add clinical and not only economical implications


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

Input:
Title: A PREDICTION MODELING BASED ON SNOT-22 SCORE FOR ENDOSCOPIC NASAL SEPTOPLASTY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 5

Output:
Basic reporting: - The authors proposed a prediction model for endoscopic nasal septoplasty. The idea is of interest and the use of English is acceptable.
- It is better to provide more background and literature reviews
- Article structure is ok, however some tables are displayed not too scientific. It is suggested to improve the display of their tables.
- SVM has been used in previous biomedical works such as PMID: 30822398 and PMID: 31055655, thus the authors are suggested to provide more references in this description.
Experimental design: - Why did the authors use SVM for feature selection, but logistic regression for classification? If the authors also use SVM for classification purpose, was the performance lower than logistic regression?
- When showing the patient characteristics, it is better to show p-value together to see the significant differences between two classes
- It is also better if the authors could report the training and validation cohort separately in Table 1.
- Measurement metrics or cross-validation had been used in different works e.g., PMID: 31277574 and PMID: 31380767. Therefore, it is important to refer more works to attract broader readership on this paper.
Validity of the findings: - It is important if the authors could validate their model on an external dataset.
- The authors should compare their performance results with the previous works on the same problem.
- How did the authors rank the order of features in their RFE method?
- From Fig. 2, it is easy to say that the model has overfitting (training performance was better than testing one). The authors should address this problem and discuss some solutions on it.
- In Fig. 2C, the legends stand in front of the curves, it makes the readers cannot see the curves.
- What are "All" and "None" lines in Fig. 2C?
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: A PREDICTION MODELING BASED ON SNOT-22 SCORE FOR ENDOSCOPIC NASAL SEPTOPLASTY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: My previous comments have been addressed satisfactorily.


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: NEPENTHES MAXIMOIDES (NEPENTHACEAE) A NEW, CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (POSSIBLY EXTINCT) SPECIES IN SECT. ALATAE FROM LUZON, PHILIPPINES SHOWING STRIKING PITCHER CONVERGENCE WITH N. MAXIMA (SECT. REGIAE) OF INDONESIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: •	The manuscript is well written and clear. I have pointed out a few minor typing errors below.
•	The manuscript is contains sufficient background information (although see a few minor comments below) and contains appropriate literature references (but see below).
•	The authors wrote in the first paragraph of the Introduction that 12 species of Nepenthes were published in 2013 and provide literature references to these. Although, I think there were indeed 12 new species described in that year, the references do not include a reference to the publication of Nepenthes viridis Micheler, Gronem., Wistuba, Marwinski, W.Suarez & V.B.Amoroso. I suggest to add this.
•	I suggest to include a photo of the type specimen with a close-up of the herbarium label. I think that this would be informative, because this specimen is discussed in quite a bit of detail in the Introduction and Discussion. If available, it would also be nice if the authors could present photographs or an illustration of N. maxima, so that the readers can compare the morphology of the new species with that of the latter.
•	I suggest to show the character states in which N. maximoides is different from N. maxima (as mentioned in the third paragraph of the Introduction) more clearly in Figure 1: close-ups showing 1) the patent wings of the petioles, and 2) an axillary bud. Fig. 1K is not labelled as such (i.e. ‘K’ is missing in the figure). Scales for Fig. 1C and 1E appear to be missing. Fig. 1B is a bit too small to make out enough detail regarding the spur, such as its bifid apex.
•	Line 138: Can the authors make it clearer which part of the plant they are referring to when they write “the indumentum is glabrous [Should this be ‘absent’, btw?] or inconspicuous? Perhaps this can also be illustrated in Fig. 1.
•	Lines 142-148: “The shared pitcher…”. This might be better placed in the Discussion, where also the homology/homoplasy of other morphological characters is discussed.
•	Line 152: ‘We’ instead of ‘we’.
•	Line 156: “The methods used in this paper are as those documented in Cheek & Jebb (2013a-g).” Considering that a detailed methodology is provided in lines 176-181, I wonder if this sentence is necessary. Does it refer to methods not mentioned here? If so, could these be concisely presented?
•	Line 198: Replace “maximioides” with ‘maximoides’.
•	Couplet 4 in the identification key: Can the authors make it clearer that the text about the “outer surface” refers to the outer surface of the upper pitchers? Perhaps this can be done by replacing the second semi-colon in lines 207 and 210 with a comma?
•	Please check that the character states that are mentioned in the various parts of the manuscript are described in the same way. For example, the upper pitchers of N. maximoides are described as “infundibulate” in line 197, but “infundibulate-cylindrical” in line 222. I have not looked for other such inconsistencies.
•	In the diagnosis, the authors compare N. maximoides with N. graciliflora. Can they make it more explicit why they chose the latter species instead of another species in Sect. Alatae? Is it the one that is most similar to N. maximoides?
•	Line 225/226 “(not symmetrical)”? It is not clear to me how this contrasts with “the lid with a hooked basal appendage”.
•	Line 229: What does “st.” mean?
•	Line 234: Should “(probably)” be placed before instead of after the first comma in this line?
•	Line 338: Add space between “IPNI” and “(continuously updated)”.
•	Line 367: “where none are known to survive”. This contrasts with what is written in van Steenis-Kruseman, M.J, & van Steenis, C.G.G.J. (1950). Malaysian plant collectors and collections being a Cyclopaedia of botanical exploration in Malaysia and a guide to the concerned literature up to the year 1950. Flora Malesiana - Series 1, Spermatophyta, 1(1), 2–639, which mentions “Many plants in Herb. Manila, at least partially numbered in the F.B. series” (p. 123/124). I also recommend that the authors refer to this publication and, where desired, amend their section in the Discussion about H.M. Curran. Note, for instance that his middle name is spelled as McCullom in this publication.
•	Line 429-434: In addition to the names listed in this manuscript and in Barcelona et al. (2007), Van Steenis-Kruseman & Van Steenis (1950) also list: W. Kerr (1805), C. Wilkes (1842), N.J. Andersson (1853), A. Marche (1880) and E. Langlassé (1895) as having visited Mt. Banahaw. So, it might be that Kerr rather than Azaola might have been the first western botanist to collect on the mountain. I suggest to amend the text accordingly.
•	Line 443: Add period after “Druce”
•	Line 445: Replace “were” with “was”
•	Line 463: Replace “partial-peduncle” with ‘partial-peduncles’.
•	Please check that the full initials of the authors are included in your reference list. For example, "Barcelona J, Pelser P, Cajano M.” should be 'Barcelona JF, Pelser PB, Cajano MO.’
Experimental design: •	The authors present new and original scientific knowledge and used a suitable and well-established methodology to determine if the specimen collected by Curran represents a new species. This methodology is described in sufficient detail and the results are clearly presented.
Validity of the findings: •	This manuscript presents convincing evidence that N. maximoides is an undescribed species.
•	Line 142: “It seems clear that Curran s.n. is correctly labelled as a Philippine species, after all”. This cannot be concluded from the preceding, because this may still have been the case and this possibility cannot be excluded. Perhaps the authors could write “It seems clear that Curran s.n. might have been correctly labelled as a Philippine species, after all”.
Additional comments: •	"Before 2002 only two species of Rafflesia were known from the Philippines…” Although this was previously believed to be the case, we now know that in addition to R. manillana and R. schadenbergiana, also R. lagascae and R. philippensis were described before 2002. However, both were in 2000 considered to be synonyms of R. manillana. This should be made clear in the manuscript.
•	Perhaps the authors can mention if any other Nepenthes species have been collected from Mt. Banahaw? This might be relevant as context.


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: NEPENTHES MAXIMOIDES (NEPENTHACEAE) A NEW, CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (POSSIBLY EXTINCT) SPECIES IN SECT. ALATAE FROM LUZON, PHILIPPINES SHOWING STRIKING PITCHER CONVERGENCE WITH N. MAXIMA (SECT. REGIAE) OF INDONESIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. clear and exhaustive literature but with minor comments:
Line 152 2nd  word capitalize We
Experimental design: methods described with sufficient detail and information

L176 & L297- why not use most recent IUCN citation?
Validity of the findings: 1. all underlying data has been provided and robust

2. conclusions are scientifically stated

3. L198 - N. maximioides=N. maximoides

4. L304-306- Though the geographical origin of Luzon and Mindanao is different, it is possible that this  species is also found in Southern Philippines. I suggest that you compare this with N. copelandii which is found Southern Philippines. We have specimens of this species with upper and lower/intermediate pitchers.
5. L284 Luban=Lucban
6. L386- delete "as"
Additional comments: The following are my comments and suggestions:

1.) Add keywords

2.) Add table comparing N. maximoides with morphologically related species from section Alatae i.e. N. copelandii, the upper pitchers of this species looks similar with the upper pitchers of N. maximoides. Moreover, this species is also found at about 1,000 m asl in Mt. Apo.

3.) In the taxonomic key if possible add other Philippine Nepenthes species from section Alatae

4. Why is N. maximoides compared with N. graciliflora when it is not the closest (morphologically similar) species? I suggest that the new species, N. maximoides should be compared with the closest species belonging to Section Alatae by indicating its distinct characters


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: TWO NEW NEMATODE SPECIES (PLECTIDA: LEPTOLAIMIDAE, RHADINEMATIDAE) FROM CHATHAM RISE, NEW ZEALAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is devoted to the description of two new to science species of nematodes from order Plectida. The findings are very interesting because representatives of this order rarely found in marine waters.
Manuscript is written in professional English and provided with sufficient background and context. Very good descriptions. Figures are of a very good quality.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: But I still have some comments and reconsiderations.
Although line drawings are very good, there are not enough photographs. For Leptolaimus dififtinus please add photos of anterior end, .male tail, spicules and supplements at high magnifications.
For Lavareda iramscotti pleas add photos of anterior end with buccal cavity in focal plane, posterior end of male, copulative apparatus of male.

Line 113 Type locality
Can you also provide information on type of sediments, please?

Line 119 “body strongly curved ventrally”
Is it curved all the time or due to fixation with formalin?

Line 121 “alae ca 1.7 µm wide”
According to figure 1A the width of alae ca 2.5 µ, according to figure 3B the width of alae ca 3 µm. Please, clarify the width of alae.

Line 167 “can be differentiated from by the slightly shorter…”
Did you mean “can be differentiated from it by the slightly shorter…”?

Line 206 Type locality
Can you also provide information on type of sediments, please?

Line 217 “Inner and outer labial sensilla indistinct”
According to figure 4C and 4D outer labial sensilla papilliform.

Line 35 Allgen, 1932 absent in the references list.

Line 322 Allgen CA. 1930 Freilebende marine Nematoden…. Not cited in the text.

Line 882. Figure 1. There is no caption for figure 1B.

Line 390. Figure 4. There are no captions for figures 4E and 4G.


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: TWO NEW NEMATODE SPECIES (PLECTIDA: LEPTOLAIMIDAE, RHADINEMATIDAE) FROM CHATHAM RISE, NEW ZEALAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is very complete, well written, with correct and updated bibliography.
Very good drawings and photographs and very interesting.
Experimental design: The experimental design is used correctly for nematodes, so it is well used in the work
Validity of the findings: As I said before, it seems to me that the work is interesting and adds 2 new species to the studied area. It is very complete, well written and very well written.
Additional comments: No additional comments