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 OSTEOLOGY AND AFFINITIES OF EOTYRANNUS LENGI, A TYRANNOSAUROID THEROPOD FROM THE WEALDEN SUPERGROUP OF SOUTHERN ENGLAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This article gives a monographic description of the anatomy of an Early Cretaceous tyrannosauroid. It is an important contribution to science, and provides data useful for theropod systematists. The manuscript also presents the results of a large phylogenetic analysis and gives a testable hypothesis for the phylogenetic placement for Eotyrannus. The supplemental data are clear, unambiguous, and support the authors conclusions.

I read a previous version of the manuscript, and it has been greatly improved since that version. Some issues still remain, however, and I summarize these below.

Structurally, the authors should consider incorporating a phylogenetic methods section before the morphological description, and providing a separate phylogenetic results section after the description. These are currently conjoined in the discussion section. The authors should also consider moving the emended diagnosis to the section immediately after "systematic palaeontology" to conform to a more typical layout, however I don't think this is a mandatory change.

The figures remain an issue as many of the line drawings come through poorly in the digital medium. Given that this is a definitive monograph, the authors should strive to improve the figures wherever possible. This can particularly be done through the use of photographic images paired side-by-side with interpretive drawings. It can also be done by varying line weights on the illustrations to give more depth to the images. In some of the illustrations, the font sizes and the leader line weights are inconsistent, and I found this distracting. On the plate for the palatine, the figure caption did not jibe with the descriptive text. I find the authors' argument in their cover letter regarding the prohibitive cost of improving the images to be a poor one - travel to the Isle of Wight is reasonable for UK citizens and free programs like GIMP and Inkscape make image editing essentially free in the modern era. However, I also understand that the images were done as part of a degree before these options were available at low cost. I recommend that the authors include as many images as possible (even if just in the supplement) to back up their descriptions.

The phylogenetic results are surprising: support for a Tyrannosauroid relationship for Megaraptora is not particularly common, and the groupings at the base of Tyrannosauroidea are, to my knowledge, unique. The authors don't delve into the former at all, and spend essentially no time explaining the implications of the latter. They should dedicate a section of the discussion to explaining these relationships in greater detail, providing the supporting homology information. The methodology in the phylogenetic section is also insufficient to replicate their search parameters - however I was able to verify their results in TNT relatively easily thanks to the attached nexus file in the supplement.

The palatine description still has many issues, which I have flagged on the manuscript itself. It needs to be completely reworked.

It would be beneficial to present a table of measurements for appendicular bones, including the circumference of the stylopodial and zeugopodial elements. These are tremendously useful for reconstructing body mass and locomotor performance and would increase the citeability of the paper.

There are many minor grammatical errors in the document, some of which require clarification, some of which are matters of writer's preference, and some of which require simple typo correction. I have flagged these in the attached document and made comment where necessary to explain myself.

Referencing is thorough, and I have suggested one or two places to make additional citations in the document.
Experimental design: This constitutes original primary research, with a well-defined research question that fills a identified gap in our knowledge of tyrannosaur evolution.

The methods section needs to be presented before the results, and should include a more detailed description of the phylogenetic analysis (see above). Currently the information is insufficient to exactly replicate the authors' search parameters.
Validity of the findings: I have analysed the phylogenetic data myself, and I have spent time looking at this specimen and nearly all of the comparative material. The authors' phylogenetic result is replicable (given their dataset), and it is my opinion that their morphological observations are objective.
Additional comments: Thank you for your attention to the many comments I made on a previous version of the article. The research has improved greatly and I think this will make a valuable contribution. I urge you to go through each bone description paying great attention to wording and clarity - I think that many sections could be substantially reduced in length without reducing content by making sentence structure more efficient. Some descriptive sections suffer from poor organization - for example the humerus description contains general information about the deltopectoral crest buried after specific information. Efficiency and precision in language and a bit of reorganization will greatly improve the readability.

Your discussion is relatively brief, but I do understand that this is primarily a descriptive manuscript. Still, I would like to see an expansion on the phylogenetic relationships of early branching tyrannosauroids and perhaps a bit more morphological discussion e.g., on the hand and on the tyrannosauroid features of Eotyrannus.

Finally, I still urge you to do your best to improve the figures. As a fellow systematist, I can tell you that many times I either seen features not included in line drawings, or doubted my scoring when only a line drawing was available. If you can simply include some photographs of every element, that would be a significant improvement.


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 OSTEOLOGY AND AFFINITIES OF EOTYRANNUS LENGI, A TYRANNOSAUROID THEROPOD FROM THE WEALDEN SUPERGROUP OF SOUTHERN ENGLAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well-organised and well-written, and I've made only small editorial suggestions in my "general comments" below. The illustrations are generally clear and informative, but in my opinion would benefit in many cases from slightly more extensive labelling – this will save readers some time when they try to locate features described in the text on the figures. In my "general comments" I’ve pointed out some specific features that would be worth labelling, but I’d suggest that the authors make their own pass through the manuscript with this issue in mind and try to provide the reader with a bit more help in interpreting the figures correctly. The paper does a very good job of explaining how the current redescription of Eotyrannus fits into the context established by previous discoveries, and relevant literature is copiously and appropriately cited throughout.
Experimental design: The paper's objectives - to comprehensively describe the osteology of Eotyrannus, compare this taxon to other tyrannosauroids and to other theropod material from the Isle of Wight, and to use the new anatomical information brought to light in the paper as a basis for reassessing the phylogenetic position of Eotyrannus - should be obvious to anyone used to reading palaeontological papers but are never quite stated explicitly in the Introduction. I recommend adding such a statement. The methods of phylogenetic analysis used in the paper are adequately described, and pretty standard in any case.
Validity of the findings: The anatomical interpretations in the paper mostly seem quite sound to me, but the description of the incomplete (right?) palatine given on pp. 25-26 is difficult to follow and to reconcile with the illustration on Figure 7 (which is upside-down, with ventral towards the top of the page, if the labelling of the vomeropterygoid, maxillary and jugal processes is correct). The pterygoid process is described in the first paragraph of the section on the palatine as a “broken” structure that would originally have been “far longer”, but as a “fan-shaped process” that has sustained only limited damage (to its exposed surface and “dorsal” end)  in the last paragraph. The fan-shaped process must be the one that is labelled in Figure 7b as bearing the jugal articulation, and in my opinion is indeed more likely to represent the jugal process than the pterygoid (medial) process; the latter is probably buried within the block containing the incomplete palatine. In any case, the description of the palatine should be revised to be clearer about the identifications of the various processes and more consistent with Figure 7. More extensive labelling of the figure might also be helpful in this respect. I’d encourage the authors to reconsider the possibility of adding the palatine to the reconstruction in Figure 25, since I don’t see why the preserved portion of this bone couldn’t be included as has been done for the ilium and several other incomplete skeletal elements. Furthermore, the treatment of the palatine-based possible autapomorphies of E. lengi (p. 71, lines 2157-2166) may need to be altered after the description of the palatine has been revised as suggested above. I’m also a little suspicious of the identification of the putative distal portion of the left tibia, but I have no convincing alternative identification to offer.

The comparisons to other Isle of Wight theropods are clearly explained, and I agree with the authors' conclusion that no other fossils known from the Isle are at all likely to be referable to Eotyrannus. The phylogenetic analysis presented here will certainly not be the last word on tyrannosauroid relationships, but the results are for the most part unsurprising and highly plausible. The discussion of the analysis makes some good points about the implications of recovering megaraptorans within Tyrannosauroidea, but fails to touch on a couple of other unusual results that did crop up, particularly the recovery of Tugulusaurus as a coelurid tyrannosauroid and of Dilong as a proceratosaurid. Commenting on what may have caused these results, and how reliable they are likely to be, would be highly worthwhile.
Additional comments: I should note that I reviewed an earlier version of this manuscript several years ago, and that most of the suggestions I made at that time are reflected the current submission. I am happy to recommend publication of this paper in PeerJ, following minor revisions to correct the problems (almost all of which are quite small) pointed out in this review.

Apart from the (slightly) larger concerns mentioned above, I have a long list of minor comments regarding specific passages in the manuscript. All page numbers refer to the PDF copy that I received for review.

1.	(p. 5, line 12) Consider replacing the rather colloquial expression “as goes” with something like “with regard to”. This also applies to a couple of subsequent uses of “as goes” within the text. Delete “a” before “subadult”.
2.	(p. 7, line 51) Consider changing “additional specimens” to “newly discovered specimens”.
3.	(p. 8, line 84) I’d suggest replacing “Siberia in western Russia” with either “western Siberia, Russia” or just “western Russia” to avoid appearing to imply that all of Siberia is in western Russia.
4.	(p. 8, line 99) Delete “as” before “outside”.
5.	(p. 8, line 107) Consider changing “mostly been interpreted” to “most often been interpreted”.
6.	(p. 9, line 114) Change “renders” to “render”.
7.	(p. 9, line 122) Change “uncertainly” to “uncertainty”.
8.	(p. 9, line 128) “and to be closer to the latter than Proceratosaurus and Guanlong” could probably be deleted, since this goes without saying if E. lengi and Dilong form a polytomy with Xiongguanlong and Tyrannosauridae.
9.	(p. 9, line 137) Change “feature” to “features”.
10.	(p. 9, line 138) Change “though” to “though they”.
11.	(p. 11, lines 202-203) Consider changing “fragmentary and/or broken” to “broken or even fragmentary”, since a fragmentary bone is broken by definition. Also consider changing “suffers from being” to “is”, on the grounds that the fossil itself (unlike preparators and palaeontologists who might wish to extract more information from it) is probably not suffering very much from the hardness of the matrix.
12.	(p. 12, line 215) Change “question as to” to “question of”. More importantly, the case being made in this paragraph for regarding the holotype of E. lengi as a subadult seems a little weak. The only evidence adduced is the separation of the neural arches from the centra, and that would be compatible with a juvenile condition as well as a subadult one. Is there any compelling reason to infer that the specimen was a subadult rather than a juvenile at the time of death?
13.	(p. 12, line 220) Consider changing “distorted during diagenesis” to “diagenetically distorted”.
14.	(p. 13, line 244) Delete “this” before “resulting”.
15.	(p. 13, line 246) It would be worth giving a brief definition of the premaxillary angle.
16.	(p. 13, line 259) For clarity, it would be worth labelling the groove mentioned here on Figure 3.
17.	(p. 13, lines 271-275) Are the tooth “locations” mentioned here defined with reference to the mesial edges of the bases of the tooth crowns? This point seems worth addressing given the high level of precision with which the locations are being specified. Also, if the presence of interdental plates is uncertain it seems a bit misleading to label them (at least without a question mark) in Figure 3b.
18.	(p. 14, line 286) Probably only one of the words “tiny” and “fine” is necessary here.
19.	(p. 14, line 287) Consider replacing “lateral margin of the premaxillary body” with something like “ventral margin of the premaxillary body on the lateral side”.
20.	(p. 14, line 295) Delete the word “margins” after “anterodorsal”.
21.	(p. 14, line 299) Is the “dorsally convex” shape of the preserved part of the wall of the antorbital fossa natural, or a result of breakage? I assume the latter, but this should be made clear.
22.	(p. 15, lines 316-322) Consider labelling the probable contact area on the maxilla for the nasal, and/or the part of the margin of the maxilla that probably contributed to the external naris.
23.	(p. 16, line 346) Change “short medial extension” to something like “limited medial prominence”.
24.	(p. 16, line 365) Replace “are covered with” with “show”.
25.	(p. 17, line 392) If I’m understanding correctly, it might be better to replace “lateral surface of the maxilla” with something like “prominent rim of the antorbital fossa”.
26.	(p. 18, line 409) Change “nasal thought” to “naris though”, and “tip” to “tips”.
27.	(p. 18, lines 424-425) The “ventral premaxillary process” mentioned here (and indicated in Figure 5) must be the same structure as the “subnarial process” mentioned elsewhere, but one term should be used throughout the description of the nasal. Similarly, the other anterior process of the nasal is called the “medial premaxillary process” in Figure 5 and the “medial process” on p. 19, line 444, but the “premaxillary process” elsewhere.
28.	(p. 19, lines 461-462) Consider changing “the ventral side of the recess, however, bears” to “the ventral edge of the recess, however, is defined by”.
29.	(p. 19, lines 470-471) I’d suggest deleting the last sentence of this paragraph and changing “vertical lamina” to “subvertical, although posterodorsally inclined, lamina” in the preceding sentence.
30.	(p. 20, line 478) Looks like a period, or maybe “to them” followed by a period, is needed after “non-homologous”.
31.	(p. 20, line 481) Consider changing “it actually seems that they belong” to “they more likely belong”.
32.	(p. 20, line 496) Change “edges” to “edge”.
33.	(p. 21, line 505) The word “exact” is unnecessary here.
34.	(p. 21, lines 517-518) If in fact the posterolateral “prong-like structures” formed by the nasals had no “direct relationship” with the lacrimals, I assume they must have articulated instead with the frontals, but it would be worth making this clear.
35.	(p. 21, line 519) Consider changing “a concave area is present” to “lies a concave area”.
36.	(p. 22, line 545) Consider changing “more recalls” to “more closely recalls”.
37.	(p. 22, lines 549-550) I’d suggest changing the wording here to “…indicates that the descending process of the lacrimal was somewhat posterodorsally inclined in life”.
38.	(p. 22, line 556) The words “Viewed anteriorly” seem unnecessary here.
39.	(p. 23, line 571) I’d suggest changing “In anterior view, the descending ramus” to “The anterior face of the descending ramus”.
40.	(p. 23, lines 574-575) Is it possible to determine whether the “large, ovoid concavity” mentioned here is a relatively shallow blind recess or a foramen that penetrates deeply into the bone?
41.	(p. 23, line 594) It might be clearer to say that the medial ridges on the descending ramus of the lacrimal are “closer to”, rather than “more associated with”, the posterior edge of the descending ramus than the anterior edge. In the next sentence, the statement that the ridge is “a feature” of the anterior edge in Alioramus and Appalachiosaurus also seems needlessly vague. The wording of this paragraph also gives the impression that there are two ridges in Eotyrannus but only a single ridge in at least some other tyrannosauroids, and this point should be clarified.
42.	(p. 23, line 599) It might be worth labelling the two foramina mentioned here in Figure 6.
43.	(p. 24, lines 617-618) For clarity, I’d suggest changing “position for this” to “position to represent the prefrontal” and “facet” to “prefrontal facet”.
44.	(p. 25, lines 634-635) I’d suggest mentioning the articulation between the larger jugal fragment and the lacrimal sooner in the description of the jugal, before discussing the implications of this articulation for the orientation of the lacrimal (lines 631-632).
45.	(p. 25, line 641) Consider changing “posterior part of the element” to “posterior part of the same bone”, just to avoid repeating “element”.
46.	(p. 25, lines 649-650) Change “Little data… is available” to “Few data… are available”.
47.	(p. 25, line 672) It might be worth labelling the “sinuous ridge” mentioned here in Figure 7.
48.	(p. 26, lines 700-708) The text here repeatedly uses the term “quadrate fenestra”, but this feature is labelled in Figure 8 as a “quadrate foramen”, and a single term should be used consistently. I assume the “concavity” mentioned on line 700 is identical to the “quadrate fossa” labelled in Figure 8, but this should be made clear.
49.	(p. 26, line 719) The “medial fossa” labelled here is simply labelled “dep” in Figure 8, but perhaps something like “mfos” would be more appropriate. In any case, “dep” does not appear in the list of abbreviations in the caption.
50.	(p. 26, line 726) If possible, the large foramen mentioned here should be labelled in Figure 8. I would also recommend labelling the pterygoid process of the quadrate in Figure 8b, even if the process is not very apparent in the anterior view shown in that figure panel.
51.	(p. 26, lines 728-729) In Figure 8d the medial condyle appears much closer to being perpendicular to the mediolateral axis of the quadrate than is the lateral condyle. The long axes of the two condyles are certainly not parallel, so they should not be described as being oriented at similar angles.
52.	(p. 27, line 733) The words “it is” could be omitted here (and again on line 738).
53.	(p. 28, line 752) Change “color” to “colour”, for consistency with the British spelling conventions used elsewhere in the manuscript.
54.	(p. 29, line 791) Change “similar and better preserved than that on the left dentary” to “similar to that on the left dentary, but better preserved”.
55.	(p. 29, lines 796-797) Above (line 777) the text states that “at least four” furrows are present. Is one of the five furrows difficult to confirm as a genuine feature? If so, this should be briefly explained. Also, line 796 should probably refer to the left dentary, not simply the dentary.
56.	(p. 30, line 803) I’d suggest changing “flexion” to “flexure” or “bending”.
57.	(p. 30, lines 811-812) I assume the anteromedially located ridge and groove described here are in fact symphyseal features for articulation with the opposite dentary, but it would be worth making this clear.
58.	(p. 30, line 818) Assuming the “shallow medial groove” described here is distinct from the Meckelian groove, it should be labelled in Figure 9. If the “shallow medial groove” is in fact the Meckelian groove, this should be clearly indicated.
59.	(p. 30, line 828) Change “interdental plate” to “interdental plates”.
60.	(p. 30, line 830) Only three interdental plates are clearly visible in Figure 9b, and Figure 9f the number of plates is difficult to determine from the figure. Labelling the individual plates by number, or at least having a line extend from the “intpl” label to every plate, would clarify matters.
61.	(p. 31, line 846) Consider replacing “at its dorsal end” with “along its dorsal edge”.
62.	(p. 31, lines 847-848) I assume the text here should refer to a “retroarticular process”, singular.
63.	(p. 31, lines 856-857) In figure 10e the surangular shelf appears to trend anteroventrally, a point that would be worth mentioning.
64.	(p. 31, line 861) Change the colon on this line to a semicolon.
65.	(p. 31, line 863) Change “that is typical” to “than is typical”.
66.	(p. 32, last paragraph) The “unidentified” bone described here as a possible articular is identified as the anterior section of the left surangular in the caption to Figure 10a-c. I have my doubts about both identifications, but I have no convincing alternative to propose. In any case, the figure caption and text should be consistent with regard to the identification of this element.
67.	(p. 33, line 909) I assume the “length” mentioned here was measured anteroposteriorly, but it would be worth making this clear.
68.	(p. 33, lines 919-920) I’d suggest giving here the explanation provided below (p. 69, lines 2090-2093) for why the teeth are being described as U-shaped rather than D-shaped in cross-section.
69.	(p. 33, line 924) Change “color” to “colour”.
70.	(p. 33, line 928) Change “texture looks appears to represent” to “texture that appears to have resulted from”.
71.	(p. 34, line 942) Delete the words “the base of” before “c. 2 mm”.
72.	(p. 34, last paragraph) It seems odd to use the phrase “lateral teeth” to refer to maxillary and/or dentary teeth, and I’d suggest that this bit of terminology (which is non-standard, as far as I know) be reconsidered. Also, I don’t see why “teeth still embedded in the left… dentary” (line 953) are being included in the category of “remaining lateral teeth”, given that the left dentary teeth were described just above.
73.	(p. 34, line 960) Delete the phrase “and without apical hooking”, as this point was made previously in the sentence.
74.	(p. 35, line 963) Consider replacing “unworn denticles” with “unworn distal denticles”, just for clarity.
75.	(p. 36, lines 996-998) The anteroposteriorly broad morphology of the neural spine, evident in Figure 12, may be another indication that the vertebra being considered here is the axis.
76.	(p. 36, line 1000) Delete the word “preserved” after “facet”. Also, the space between the prezygapophyses appears more subtriangular than subcircular in Figure 12b.
77.	(p. 36, line 1006) If the spine is indeed “complete apically excepting its posterodorsal portion” (line 1002), then the neural spine apex can be “missing” only posterodorsally and the transverse flaring, if originally present, must have been limited to the posterodorsal part of the spine. This point would probably be worth briefly explaining. Also, the word “in” on this line should be written in lower case letters.
78.	(p. 36, line 1013) “postzygapophyseal” is misspelled here.
79.	(p. 36, line 1015) Delete the words “is preserved” at the end of this line.
80.	(p. 37, line 1031) Change “their precise” to “the precise”.
81.	(p. 37, line 1041) Consider replacing “lateral concavity” with “concave articular surface”, assuming it is indeed the articular surface of the parapophysis that is concave.
82.	(p. 37, line 1045) Consider changing “axial foramen on each side” to “foramen on each side of the axis”.
83.	(p. 37, line 1050) Change “surface” to “surfaces”.
84.	(p. 38, line 1062) I assume the “centrum” referred to here is the second, shorter cervical centrum rather than the potential axial centrum, but this should be clarified.
85.	(p. 38, line 1063) Does the reference here to the “broken end” of the rib fragment imply that the other end is not broken? Or is it just that only one end is exposed?
86.	(p. 38, lines 1073-1074) Despite the statement here that five centra “seem to” belong to dorsal vertebrae of E. lengi, only four dorsal centra are unambiguously attributed to E. lengi in the description on this page and the following one. This apparent contradiction should be resolved. If the “highly pyritised” fragment mentioned on p. 40 is considered to represent the fifth dorsal centrum attributable to E. lengi, as is perhaps implied but not stated explicitly, this should be made clear.
87.	(p. 38, line 1076) The word “Table” is misspelled here.
88.	(p. 38, line 1079) Consider changing “vertebrae of these positions” to “these vertebrae”.
89.	(p. 38, lines 1087-1088) Consider changing “the bony rim that surrounds it is more prominent ventrally, laterally and dorsally than that” to “the ventral, lateral and dorsal portions of the bony rim that surrounds it are more prominent posteriorly than the corresponding parts of the rim”, if that is indeed the intended meaning.
90.	(p. 39, line 1127) Consider changing “The most likely identification is that it is from” to “It is likely from”.
91.	(p. 41, line 1162) It might be worth explaining the reason for the “reinterpretation” mentioned here. What is the evidence that the “heavily scarred” articular surface of the centrum is actually the posterior one?
92.	(p. 42, line 1212) It would be worth indicating the orientation of the concavity that separates the postzygapophysis from the centrum, by using a descriptor such as “distally facing”.
93.	(p. 42, line 1214) Change “chevrons facets” to “chevron facets”.
94.	(p. 43, lines 1239-1240) Consider changing “the rib’s identity as that of E. lengi” to “that the rib belongs to E. lengi”.
95.	(p. 43, line 1246) If the rib shown in Figure 14a can indeed be confidently assessed as being exposed in anterior view (which I believe is the case), then it must be from the left side of the body given the orientations of the capitulum and tuberculum, contradicting the earlier statement (lines 1229-1230) that the ribs cannot be assigned to one side or the other.
96.	(p. 44, line 1282) The word “made” seems unnecessary here.
97.	(p. 44, lines 1284-1285) I’d suggest clarifying that the scapula is attached to only a small piece of the coracoid, since “partial articulation” could mean that the scapula retains a partial attachment to the complete coracoid.
98.	(p. 44, line 1288) It would be worth clarifying whether the “small, anterodorsally projecting bump” mentioned here is the same as the “acromion process” labelled in Figure 15e. In any case, the final two sentences of this paragraph should be moved to an earlier position and integrated into the rest of the description of the flared ventral end of the scapula.
99.	(p. 45, line 1290) Insert “the” before “acromion region”.
100.	(p. 45, line 1309) Should the word “longer” at the end of this line be replaced by “wider”? The previous sentence describes a difference in width between the two ends, not a difference in length.
101.	(p. 45, lines 1317-1318) Consider changing “scapula that is narrow ventrally and wider in its dorsal part” to “scapular blade that is narrow ventrally and gradually widens dorsally”, in order to clarify that the ventrally “narrow” condition seen in tyrannosaurids does not imply a reduced acromion and that the dorsal widening involves much of the blade rather than just the dorsal end (as in E. lengi). I’d also recommend changing “lacks subparallel edges” to “widens gradually in the dorsal direction” in the brief comparison with the scapula of Dilong.
102.	(p. 46, line 1327) Change the colon on this line to a semicolon; also delete “of the rest”.
103.	(p. 46, line 1331) The words “strongly convex ventrolaterally” seem like an exaggeration, given that the ventrolaterally-facing edge of the coracoid in Figure 15a,c appears only slightly convex.
104.	(p. 46, lines 1332-1333) Insert “and” before “subtriangular”, and a comma after “view”.
105.	(p. 47, line 1361) Change “more” to “more closely”.
106.	(p. 47, lines 1363-1364) I’d suggest changing “it is angled medially relative to the humeral long axis” to “its flexor surface is angled somewhat medially”.
107.	(p. 47, lines 1374-1375) I’d suggest labelling the internal tuberosity in Figure 16.
108.	(p. 47, line 1387) For clarity, consider changing “overhangs the shaft” to something like “overhangs the adjacent part of the anterior face of the humerus”.
109.	(p. 48, line 1397) Delete the word “broken”.
110.	(p. 48, lines 1399-1405) Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but I still (to revisit an issue that came up in my review of the original version of this paper) don’t see how “greater bone thickness in the anterior part of the shaft associated with the presence of the deltopectoral crest” could be a sufficient explanation for an “apparent internal demarcation” between the main cavity within the shaft and smaller cavities within the area of thickened bone just distal to the crest. In principle, why couldn’t such an area of thickened bone contain either (1) no internal cavities at all or (2) a narrow anterior extension of the main cavity within the shaft? If the small internal cavities happen to be within a thickening of the humeral shaft associated with the deltopectoral crest, that’s certainly worth mentioning, but in my opinion the presence of the thickened area shouldn’t be offered an as explanation for the fact that the small cavities exist and are separated from the main cavity within the shaft. If this part of the text is retained, however, change “between then” to “between them” on line 1404.
111.	 (p. 48, line 1415) I’d suggest citing Figures 16a and 16f here, as well as 16b, since all three show the entepicondyle.
112.	(p. 49, line 1427) Change “form” to “forms”.
113.	(p. 49, line 1436) Delete the word “long”.
114.	(p. 49, line 1439) Change “is is” to “it is”.
115.	(p. 49, line 1441) Change the colon on this line to a semicolon.
116.	(p. 50, lines 1479-1480) I don’t think I’d describe any of the views shown in Figure18c-f as “subrectangular”, given that d and f show a good deal of constriction whereas c and e are much broader and more bulbous at one end than the other.
117.	(p. 51, line 1489) Change “this concave region” to “and this concave region is”.
118.	(p. 51, lines 1490-1491) In Figure 18e, which I tentatively interpret as a ventral (flexor) view, it looks as though the distal rim of the ventral surface of the carpal is actually concave (not merely less convex than the proximal rim, as the wording here sort of implies).
119.	(p. 51, lines 1499-1500) If the “base” of a metacarpal is meant to be the same thing as the “proximal surface”, I’d suggest using one term consistently in this sentence to avoid implying a distinction. If there is a meaningful distinction between the two terms, a brief explanation should be provided.
120.	(p. 51, line 1504) Change “carpal I” to “distal carpal I”.
121.	(p. 51, lines 1507-1508) It would be worth noting that the distal carpal I of E. lengi, being complex and trochleated in form, is compatible with the suggestion of Holtz referred to here.
122.	(p. 51, line 1513) For clarity, change “Both are preserved” to “Both proximal ends are preserved”.
123.	(p. 51, line 1518 to p. 52, line 1519) In figure 18j the longest axis of the proximal end of MC I appears to be oblique rather than strictly mediolateral. In any case I don’t see how the mediolateral axis can be considered the longest if its also “shorter than the dorsoventral height”.
124.	(p. 52, line 1521) Insert “the” before “cross-sectional”.
125.	(p. 52, line 1541) Insert “of” before “the compsognathid”.
126.	(p. 52, lines 1542-1543) Does the statement about early tyrannosauroids having an especially gracile MC I shaft hold even in the light of the observation mentioned above (line 1536) that Guanlong has a more robust MC I shaft than E. lengi? It would be worth commenting on this point specifically.
127.	(p. 52, line 1544) Insert “the” before “left mc II”.
128.	(p. 53, line 1564) Consider replacing “arranged” with “aligned”.
129.	(p. 54, line 1588) Change “its good level of articulation” to something like “the relatively precise articulation”.
130.	(p. 54, line 1593) Replace “mc 1” with “mc I”.
131.	(p. 54, line 1599) In Figure 19e (evidently a ventral view mislabelled as dorsal) the putative flexor processes appear to lie medial and lateral, rather than proximomedial and proximolateral, to the proximal concavity on the ventral surface.
132.	(p. 54, lines 1606-1607) In Figure 19l the proximal articular surface appears considerably higher than wide.
133.	(p. 55, lines 1617-1618) I’d suggest noting which scapula the phalanx is attached to, and also mentioning the phalanx in the description of the scapula given above.
134.	(p. 55, line 1623) In Figure 19n the ventral convexity appears to be the more prominent of the two on the left side of the proximal surface, contrary to what is stated here.
135.	(p. 55, line 1638) For clarity, I’d suggest replacing “ventral convexity” with something like “ventrally situated convexity”.
136.	(p. 55, lines 1640-1641) Figures 19u,x indicate that the right collateral ligament fossa is larger than the left, contrary to what is stated here.
137.	(p. 55, line 1647) Replace “trochlea” with something like “distal convexity”, since the trochlea is formed by both condyles together. It’s incorrect to speak of each condyle as having its own trochlea.
138.	(p. 56, line 1653) Change “this is unlikely but not impossible” to “it is unlikely but not impossible that the present phalanx represents III-1”.
139.	(p. 56, line 1672) Consider changing “convex” to “transversely convex”.
140.	(p. 56, line 1674) Change “continuous” to “continuously”.
141.	(p. 56, line 1676) I’m not sure how a groove can be “prominent”, which to me implies “protruding”. Would something like “sharply defined” be preferable here? This issue comes up again on the next page, in line 1699.
142.	(p. 57, line 1688) The steeply angled slope distal to the flexor tubercle wasn’t noted in the description of the putative pollical ungual given above, and it might be worth inserting a brief mention.
143.	(p. 57, line 1689) Change “variation is” to “variation in”.
144.	(p. 57, line 1693) Consider replacing “surrounds” with “overhangs”.
145.	(p. 57, lines 1701-1702) The description of the putative pollical ungual implied that an overlapping dorsal lamina was present only in the case of the left groove, rather than on both sides. Is this a difference between the two unguals?
146.	(p. 57, line 1709) Is phalanx I-1 of Eotyrannus “shorter” than those of Allosaurus and tyrannosaurids in proportion to its own diameter, or in proportion to some other measurement? If the shortness is in proportion to diameter or circumference, then this phalanx at least is presumably more robust than in tyrannosaurids, rather than intermediate between tyrannosaurid-like and Dilong-like (or maniraptoran-like) conditions as stated above.
147.	(p. 57, lines 1714-1715) It would be worth indicating whether there is no proximoventral projection at all on phalanx II-2 in Deinonychus, or whether a projection is present but simply differs in shape from the one seen in Eotyrannus.
148.	(p. 58, lines 1716-1718) The widening of the ventral part of the proximal articular surface of phalanx II-2 in Guanlong isn’t simply a “result” of the surface being concave both laterally and medially, but rather reflects the specific shapes of the two concavities. It might be better to just say here that the phalanx II-2 of Guanlong differs from that of Eotyrannus in having a proximal surface that has concave lateral and medial sides and is almost twice as wide ventrally as dorsally.
149.	(p. 58, lines 1730-1731) I’d suggest replacing “undergoing reduction” with “partially reduced” or “incipiently reduced”, since these alternatives sound less teleological.
150.	(p. 58, line 1740) Is the “concavity” mentioned on this line identical to the “demarcation between the convex dorsal surface of the ungual and the rim” referred to on p. 57, lines 1693-1694?
151.	(p. 58, line 1748) I’d suggest writing “ridge in the middle of the sheet” rather than “median ridge”, since the ridge isn’t “median” in an anatomical sense (i.e. it isn’t on the mediolateral midline of the body, or that of an individual bone). On lines 1749, 1765 and 1780, the word “median” could simply be deleted.
152.	(p. 59, line 1751) Change “confirmation the the” to “confirmation that the”.
153.	(p. 59, line 1755) Change “in entirety” to “in its entirety”.
154.	(p. 59, line 1770) Consider changing “the ridge is also posterodorsally inclined” to “a posterodorsally inclined ridge above the acetabulum is present”, since not all theropods have a ridge in this position.
155.	(p. 59, line 1773) Delete the words “is present”.
156.	(p. 61, line 1815) Change “simpler that” to “simpler than”.
157.	(p. 61, line 1817) Change “condylars” to “condyles”.
158.	(p. 61, lines 1823-1824) The wording here seems to imply that the fibular crest of Eotyrannus is more similar in some way to that of Juratyrant than to those of other coleurosaurs, but this point should be clarified.
159.	(p. 61, line 1826) Consider replacing “adjacent and posterior” with “posteromedial”.
160.	(p. 61, line 1830-1834) Given that it is indeed fairly “typical for theropod long bones” for the cortical bone to be composed of concentric layers, at least in my experience, I’d suggest deleting the description of this condition in Eotyrannus. If these sentences are retained, I’d suggest cleaning them up to get rid of the parentheses, which awkwardly contain about a sentence and a half.
161.	(p. 61, lines 1844-1846) The wording here could be changed to “…described here in order of position from medial to lateral.”
162.	(p. 62, line 1849) Should “distal surface” be changed to “anterior surface”?
163.	(p. 62, line 1853) Change “appear” to “appears”, and delete the word “present”.
164.	(p. 62, lines 1860-1862) In my opinion it’s an exaggeration to say that the “only obvious difference” between the distal part of the tibia in the only known specimens of Eotyrannus and Tugulusaurus is the damage to the distolateral corner of the bone in the former. Based on illustrations in Rauhut and Xu (2005), Tugulusaurus has a more proximally extensive fossa (the astragalar facet) on the anterior surface of the tibia than does Eotyrannus, as well as a medial expansion of the distal end of the tibia that is at best poorly developed in Eotyrannus. Tugulusaurus also appears to lack the groove proximal to the lateral “shoulder” of the distal end of the tibia mentioned in the text.
165.	(p. 62, lines 1863-1864) Figure 22b also seems to show a ridge medial to the groove on the posterior surface of the distal end of the tibia, unless I’m misinterpreting the photo.
166.	(p. 63, line 1880) Is the “fragment” mentioned here the one illustrated in Figure 21b? If so, this should probably be pointed out. Also, I don’t see how this fragment can be both “separate from the block” and “preserved adjacent to the shaft of the tibia”, assuming the “block” mentioned here is the one in which the proximal part of the tibia is preserved.
167.	(p. 63, line 1899) Insert a comma before “and the deep”.
168.	(p. 64, line 1921) Delete the words “the presence of”.
169.	(p. 64, line 1922) I’m not sure what is meant by “distal continuation” of the anterolateral surface. If the ridge is on this surface, how could the ridge be responsible for its “continuation”?
170.	(p. 65, line 1955) The distal end of the left MT III certainly does not appear to be “convex on all sides” in Figure 23k.
171.	(p. 65, line 1959) Insert “and” between the dimensions of the right and left collateral ligament fossae.
172.	(p. 65, line 1961) I’d suggest specifying which side of the putative right MT III is exposed. If there are multiple possibilities, they can be briefly enumerated.
173.	(p. 65, line 1962) Delete the word “wide”.
174.	(p. 65, line 1972) Fix the spelling of “Although”.
175.	(p. 65, lines 1977-1978) Consider replacing “the proximal end of the bone is convex, passing into” with something like “the proximal end of the medial surface is convex, but passes distally into”.
176.	(p. 66, line 1996) Replace “pedal unguals” with “pedal phalanges”.
177.	(p. 66, line 2000) Delete the word “it’s”.
178.	(p. 66, line 2004) I assume the “deep concavity” mentioned here is on the ventral side of the phalanx, but it might be worth making this clear.
179.	(p. 66, line 2005) The words “deeper and” seem redundant here.
180.	(p. 66, line 2009) Consider changing “dorsoproximally” to “proximally on the dorsal surface”.
181.	(p. 66, line 2010) Would “is deflected” or “is angled” be better than “extends”?
182.	(p. 67, line 2021) For better fit with the rest of the sentence, change “concave, subcircular” to “concave and subcircular”.
183.	(p. 67, line 2022) Change “It is not biconcave” to “Its proximal surface is not biconcave”.
184.	(p. 67, line 2024) Change “ventral part” to “ventral surface”.
185.	(p. 67, line 2026) Change “others” to “other”.
186.	(p. 67, lines 2027-2028) Consider changing “Ventrally, the part of the shaft” to “The part of the ventral surface of the shaft”.
187.	(p. 67, lines 2034-2036) It would be worth commenting explicitly here on whether there is any good reason to assign the small phalanx to the pes of Eotyrannus, rather than to the dryosaurid.
188.	(p. 68, line 2058) Consider moving the words “is present” to just after “concavity”.
189.	(p. 68, lines 2061-2062) Can the lateral surface really be distinguished from the medial surface? If not, it might be better to say “lateral or medial groove” on line 2061 and “right surface” on line 2062. Similarly, “right side view” might be more appropriate than “right lateral view” on line 2054. If the right side is definitely the lateral one, this should be changed to simply “lateral view” and it should be noted that the ungual belongs to the right pes.
190.	(p. 69, lines 2094-2096) I’m sceptical of the claim that apically complete denticulation “should probably be considered typical within coelurosaurs”. In my experience, there are many coelurosaur teeth that show well-developed denticulation on the distal carina but few if any denticles on the mesial carina, and none around the apex. While I can’t swear that apically incomplete denticulation is the more common condition in Coelurosauria, I don’t think the opposite should be asserted without a citation or some kind of more detailed explanation. In any case it would be sufficient here to point out that apically complete denticulation is widespread in tyrannosauroids, which is certainly the case.
191.	(p. 70, line 2127) Change “possesses” to “possess”.
192.	(p. 70, line 2133) Change “articulate” to “articular”.
193.	(p. 70, line 2139) Delete “unusual”, which is redundant with “unique”.
194.	(p. 71, line 2147) Delete the words “member of those”.
195.	(p. 71, line 2152) The word “represent” is misspelled here.
196.	(p. 71, lines 2154-2155) Delete the words “is an additional possible autapomorphy”.
197.	(p. 71, line 2160) Change “tyrannosauroid” to “tyrannosauroids” and “data is” to “data are”.
198.	(p. 71, lines 2167-2168) Delete “presence of” and change “to the shafts” to “of the shafts”.
199.	(p. 72, lines 2177-2178) I’d suggest indicating explicitly here whether the morphology of the proximodorsal lip in Tanycolagreus is comparable to that seen in E. lengi, or whether this structure is more “subtly developed” in Tanycolagreus than in E. lengi.
200.	(p. 72, line 2207) Change “both of” to “of both”, and delete the word “of” before “any reported”.
201.	(p. 73, lines 2237-2238) The parenthetical comment “no such structure is present in E. lengi” should be deleted, since this point is made in the following sentence.
202.	(p. 73, line 2240) Delete the word “ventrally”, which is unnecessary given that it has already been established that the ventral surface is the one being referred to.
203.	(p. 74, line 2251) Delete the words “mean that”.
204.	(p. 74, line 2267) The word “separated” is misspelled here.
205.	(p. 74, line 2268) The specimen number for one of the femora mentioned on this line is given as MIWG 6214 here, but MIWG 6124 in the caption to figure 26. Also, the text is incorrect in citing panels w-z of this figure; panels v-x actually depict MIWG 6214, whereas y and z are the first two views of the tibia MIWG 5137.
206.	(p. 75, line 2292) Consider changing “outgroups” to “outgroup taxa”.
207.	(p. 75, line 2296) Change “calculated” to “calculated by”.
208.	(p. 76, line 2331) Delete the word “as” before “outside”.
209.	(p. 76, line 2335) Change “biased by” to “a result of” or perhaps “an artefact of”.
210.	(p. 76, line 2337-2338) It might be worth pointing out explicitly that the results of the phylogenetic analysis imply that the distinctive supracetabular ridge morphology seen in Eotyrannus and Juratyrant probably evolved independently in the two taxa.
211.	(p. 77, line 2345) Change “ita” to “its” or preferably “the”.
212.	(p. 77, line 2346) Insert “the” before “medially fused nasals”.
213.	(p. 77, line 2353) Change “where the longest axis” to “whose longest axis”.
214.	(p. 77, line 2354) Consider changing “arranged” to “aligned”.
215.	(p. 77, line 2357) Change “participation to” to “participation in”.
216.	(p. 78, line 2380) Consider changing “both stratigraphically and morphologically significant gaps” to “a stratigraphically and morphologically significant gap”, since I assume there is really just one gap between the Jurassic to Early Cretaceous tyrannosauroids and the Late Cretaceous ones.
217.	(p. 78, line 2383) Change “the conclusion of Brusatte et al. (2016), who suggested” to “the suggestion of Brusatte et al. (2016)”.
218.	(p. 78, line 2400) Change “hypothesis” to “issue” or “question”.
219.	(p. 79, lines 2417-2419) I’d suggest deleting this sentence about the locomotion and predatory abilities of Eotyrannus. No functional analysis was included in the main part of the manuscript, so introducing such interpretations into the conclusions seems inappropriate. This also applies to the comment in the following sentence about powerful biting.
220.	(p. 79, line 2425) Insert a period after “skeleton”.
221.	(p. 80, line 2449) Delete the word “consistent”, and change “strong” to “close”.
222.	(Figure 11) The photos in panels A and B of this figure appear slightly out of focus, and should be replaced with sharper images if possible.
223.	(Figure 18) some of the views of distal carpal I are mislabelled and/or in orientations that seem likely to prove confusing. I would suggest rotating panels A, B, D and F so that the dorsal direction is towards the top of the page in each case, and rotating C and E so that the distal surface is towards the top (though I suppose this is a matter of taste). As far as I can see, the views in C-F are all misidentified (they should be, in order, dorsal, lateral, ventral and medial), and some of the abbreviations listed in the caption do not match the ones used in the actual figure. In panels J-L of the same figure, the lateral and medial condyles of MC I are consistently labelled backwards.
224.	(Figure 22) In Panel D, the distalmost part of the tibia appears to be flipped over relative to the rest of the bone (at least judging by panel A, in which the fit between the distalmost part and the adjacent part is much better), and the proximalmost part appears misoriented and/or enlarged relative to the bone shaft.
225.	(Figure 26) Is the structure labelled in panel C as a “ventrolateral groove” actually one of the “ventrolateral ridges” mentioned on p. 74, line 2247?
226.	(Figure 28) The abbreviations listed in the caption do not match the ones used in the figure.


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: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER REQUIREMENT OF SOME MAJOR CROPS UNDER SEMI-ARID CLIMATE IN TURKEY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There is still huge scope to improve the article structure, figures, tables, conclusions and discussion. Please see "4. Additional comments".
Experimental design: All the materials and methods used in the study have not been described sufficiently in the M&M section. The uncertainties in the data and procedure should be assessed and discussed. Please see "4. Additional comments".
Validity of the findings: The final output of the study "number of irrigation and total depth of irrigation" was qualitatively compared with some reported values. More quantitative comparison is needed to validate the findings. Please see "4. Additional comments".
Additional comments: General comments
The paper entitled ‘‘Comparison of reference evapotranspiration and crop water requirement of some major crops under semi-arid conditions in Turkey’’ describes the quantification and assessment of water requirement and irrigation scheduling for some major crops grown in Turkey. The topic is of interest to the readers of the journal. However, a thorough revision is needed from the Title to Conclusions section. The authors have used many Tables and Figures, but I think they can present their results more precisely. What I am missing is the quantitative corroboration of their findings against some observations. The authors can consider the following specific comments for revising the manuscript.

Specific comments
Title
“Comparison of Reference Evapotranspiration and Crop Water Requirement of Some Major Crops under Semi-Arid Conditions in Türkiye” can be shortened like: “Quantification of Water Requirement of Some Major Crops under Semi-Arid Climate in Turkey”.

Abstract
Line16-17: “--excessive use of water—“ is not the only problem. Please rewrite the sentence.
Line-18: Write “can be” instead of “will be”.
Line 20-22: Rewrite the sentence. It does not make sense.
Line 26-33: The results of rainfall, crop water requirement and irrigation are not meaningful. Where does the CWR of pistachio (1294 mm) come from?  You have only 484.7 mm rainfall and 176.3 mm irrigation, so these are not enough to meet the CWR. Check your values.

Keyword
Do not repeat words in Keyword and Title.

Introduction
The arguments in the Introduction has not been well developed. The importance of the work should be elaborated based on recent literature so that readers can understand the novelty of this research. The limitations and scope of this methods should be discussed.

Materials and Methods
Line 83: Use a small but clear map. The text on the map is not legible.
Line 100: What do you mean by “crops breading” in Table 1. Please use only SI unit.
Line 103-115: Please use the appropriate terminologies throughout the manuscript.
Line 118-131: Very clearly mention the data type and source of each data. Also describe how you processed all the data before the model-incorporation.
Line 124: All the values mentioned here are not given in Table 2.
Line 133: Define a term at it first appearance, such as Critical Depletion Fraction. Is it soil moisture depletion factor?
Line 161: “plant water consumption (ETc)” ETc is actual evapotranspiration, which is equal to the net crop water requirement. Plant water consumption can be less than the “theoretical ETc (I mean, if you calculate ETc = ET0 *Kc)” in any stress condition. Please use the terminologies recommended in agricultural water management discipline.
Line 161-174: Justify that you have used the right Kc values. It can vary geographically. You have discussed 4 growth stages, but you have three values in Table 3. You have not referred Table 3 in the text.
Line 179-186: Rainfall during the non-crop period may not be considered effective (You did it correctly). Please mention the procedure in M&M section. Describe all your methods in M&M section but NOT in Results section.

Results
Line 190-192: These are not results. These are Materials and Methods, so place them accordingly.
Line 199: “---model are given in the following tables and figures” Please write specifically with the Table numbers.
Line 201: Write “Estimated” instead of “Estimation”.
Line 202-206: These are not results. These are Materials and Methods, so place them accordingly.
Line 255-256: The extra effective rainfall in one decade will be stored in the root zone soil and will be available for the plants in the subsequent decades. Why did not you consider this in calculating irrigation requirement (Table 5-8)?
Line 291-296: These are not results. These are Materials and Methods, so place them accordingly.
You have used many Tables and Figures, and I think some of the information have been repeated. Try to reduce the number of Figure or Table.

Discussion
Line 300-320: Try to improve the discussion part with the underlying science of your results and recent literature. The final output of the study "number of irrigation and total depth of irrigation" was qualitatively compared with some reported values, but more quantitative comparison is needed to validate the findings.

Conclusions
Line 323-337: Rewrite your conclusions including only your main findings, final conclusions and/or recommendations
Line 323-329: These are Materials and Methods, so remove them.

Figures and Tables
Figure 2-5: Use smaller Figures but large and clear legends. Please add the irrigation dates on the Figures. Write in full form-----, such as “Readily available moisture”----------------etc.
Table 2: Write the date appropriately.


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

Input:
Title: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER REQUIREMENT OF SOME MAJOR CROPS UNDER SEMI-ARID CLIMATE IN TURKEY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The essence needs improvement. I suggest that you remove the repeating sentences between lines 20 - 26. The authors should refer to the following research paper
1)Managing irrigation needs using the FAO-CROPWAT 8.0 model: a case study from Egypt
2) Modeling of pure irrigation water requirements using FAO-CROPWAT 8.0 and CLIMEWAT 2.0: the Tina Plain and East South Alcantara regions, North Sinai , A Case Study of Egypt

The literature review and introduction need more detail with the latest research paper. I suggest  author to improve the description from lines 64 - 68. For the introduction, you should refer to and quote "Assessment of Irrigation Requirement and Scheduling under Canal Command Area of Upper Ganga Canal using Cropwater Model".

The author needs to define the research gap.
Experimental design: The author needs to include CWR and irrigation scheduling in the methodology section instead of the results section.
Validity of the findings: (Lines 71-74): The research objective is to estimate the CWR but in the results section, only the NIR calculation is shown. The author needs to include field application losses to calculate CWR. It would be more informative if the author provided the results of monthly water requirements for all crops. It would also be helpful to estimate the canal capacity (as shown in the conclusion)
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: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER REQUIREMENT OF SOME MAJOR CROPS UNDER SEMI-ARID CLIMATE IN TURKEY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please follow the academic writing convention/style of the journal. You can abbreviate a term (such as crop evapotranspiration) in the first appearance and then use only the abbreviated form (such as ETc) throughout.

Line 280: “cropss”??? “Kc coefficients” Is there more than one Kc coefficient? Maybe--- many values of this coefficient. Please edit very carefully the whole manuscript to remove all such typos and language errors.
Experimental design: The author has tried to improve the manuscript, but another round of thorough revision is needed.
Validity of the findings: The validation of your modeling results is still poor. Since you do not have any measured values, please try to compare all your main results with the findings of previous studies.
Additional comments: Abstract
Rewrite the abstract. Write about the importance and objectives first and then the materials and methods and finally your main findings. Your study is not about water quality, right? Do not stress on irrelevant issues.
Introduction
Please follow the academic writing convention/style of the journal. You can abbreviate a term (such as crop evapotranspiration) in the first appearance and then use only the abbreviated form (such as ETc) throughout.
Results and discussion
Line262-263: This is not a nice way of referring all the tables/Figures in one place. Refer them in specific places when needed.
Line 280: “cropss”??? “Kc coefficients” Is there more than one Kc coefficient? Maybe--- many values of this coefficient. Please edit very carefully the whole manuscript to remove all such typos and language errors.
Line 283-284: “Effective rainfall is the amount of rainfall used to determine the CWR and is the remain of water from deep percolation and surface runoff.” Such very basic definition-type statements should be in the Materials and Methods section.

Validation of your modeling results is still poor. Since you do not have any measured values, please try to compare all your main results with the findings of previous studies.

Conclusions
The aim of this study was to determine the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and crop water requirements (CWR) for pistachio, olive, grape, and almond to determine the appropriate irrigation programs and to determine the priority order in irrigation planning. Therefore, in your conclusions section, try to answer all these issues very clearly with numerical values. Do not refer to any Table or Figure in this section.


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

Input:
Title: QUANTIFICATION OF WATER REQUIREMENT OF SOME MAJOR CROPS UNDER SEMI-ARID CLIMATE IN TURKEY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: All issues are addressed. Manuscript is quite good now and can be accepted for publication after the small modification
(1)	Remove “Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) in estimating”(Line 163)
(2)	Line (167-69) remove.  These are repeating sentences.
(3)	Equation of Irrigation scheduling is missing (methodology section)


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

Input:
Title: WIKIDATA AND THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LIFE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This short article presents a detailed examination of whether Wikidata is a suitable repository for bibliographic information relating to scholarly papers describing the taxonomy of biological species. The “life” of the article's title thus has a very precise and restricted meaning of biological species and their taxonomic organization, and totally excludes other areas of biology such as animal behaviour, gene function or cellular ultrastructure.  The shorthand phrase “the bibliography of life” is clearly defined to have this restricted meaning by the author, and is permissible as being memorable.

The article is clear, well-written, properly referenced and well supported by tables, figure and raw data files, and thus meets all the criteria required by PeerJ in terms of basic reporting.  There are a number of minor typographical corrections and suggestions for changes of wording or emphasis that I have noted as Comments within the PDF of the article itself (attached). These, together with more serious points noted below concerning the sample of 1000 bibliographic entities and the representation of the edit data on these entities presented in Fig. 7, and my suggestion for two concluding tables, must be addressed by the author before the revised article is resubmitted.
Experimental design: Unlike most PeerJ papers that report experimental research directly into biological phenomena, the research reported in this article is into the availability of bibliographic information contained (or potentially contained) within Wikidata relating to papers describing biological species.  It thus falls somewhere between a Research Article and a Literature Review Article, the two types of report permitted to appear within PeerJ.  The conclusions of the paper are highly relevant to biology and 'open science' as a whole, and to modern on-line methods of discovering information about individual species, which makes PeerJ a very suitable journal for its publication.  Lest there be any hesitation on the part of PeerJ editors about its suitability for PeerJ, it should be noted that the taxonomic publications that are the subjects of the investigation reported in this article are themselves not “research” in the sense of experimental investigations, but rather are descriptive observational reports about the existence of species.  Thus these publications too, which lie at the very heart of biology, lie outside our conventional understanding of “experimental biology”.

Because the article is not a typical experimental research report, this review is also atypical, particularly in this Experimental Design section.

In evaluating this article, it is important to realize that the author is both a specialist in biological taxonomy and an expert user of Wikidata. He is thus ideally placed to write on the subject of the article.

The body of the article falls into two main parts.

The first part, “Wikidata”, is a clear and helpful description of Wikidata, explaining how information is recorded within it and made freely available to scholars and the general public, the original sources of such information (particularly of taxonomic and bibliographic information), how items of such information are entered and may subsequently be edited either by people or 'bots', and the special factors that make this information repository suitable for bibliographic information relating to scholarly papers describing the taxonomy of biological species.

The second part, “Exploring Bibliographic Data in Wikidata”, is an investigation of the extent to which Wikidata lives up to its potential in providing a comprehensive repository for the bibliographic information under review, and includes an honest evaluation of the shortcomings and problems inherent in the Wikidata method of information provision and editing by an unpaid community of experts volunteering their time and expertise.

In this second section, the author first describes open software he himself has developed that provides the functionality within a simple website called ALEC (All Literature Electronically Catalogued), giving the user convenient access to the bibliographic information recorded within Wikidata, and illustrates how ALEC returns different types of data.

He then evaluates the Wikidata information for a sample of 1000 bibliographic entities recorded in Wikidata, in terms of the frequency of edits of these records, their citation links to other publications, etc., before going on to look at the taxonomic and author coverage for Wikidata as a whole.  To the extent that this article involves experimental investigation, it is here in this section, and it is here that my main criticisms of the article rest.

First, the author announces his analysis of the sample of 1000 publications without describing how this sample of 1000 was selected from all the relevant publications within Wikidata, and whether the method of selection might influence the results obtained.  This is a very serious omission that must be rectified.  Ideally, one would like to see the same analyses run on multiple samples of 1000 publications, but in reality I don't think this would add anything significant to the paper, since it is the general trends revealed by the analyses that are important, rather than particular numerical values.

Second, in Figure 7, the figure that shows the number of edits each of this 1000 publication entries in Wikidata has received, the initial entry date for the information about each publication is indicated on the figure diagonal by a dot.  Unfortunately, the size of the dot used is so great that the figure appears to show only about 100 publications, not the full 1000, since individual dots overlap.  At least, I assume that to be the explanation for the small number of apparent dots.  The author should discuss this overlap problem, and should fix it by revising the figure.  Either smaller dots with different colours should be used, or an electronically zoomable figure should be provided, to enable the results for different publications to be individually visible.

Third, in the discussion of the data in Fig. 7, there appears to be an implicit assumption that, following initial data entry, a large number of edits on the information relating to each publication is a 'good thing'.  However, if the information was fully and correctly entered initially, no subsequent editing of the entry would be required.  The author should explicitly address this point.
Validity of the findings: With the exceptions of the problems relating to the sample of 1000 publications and to Figure 7, discussed above, the conclusions drawn from this investigation of Wikidata are clearly presented and straightforwardly discussed.
Additional comments: Within the presentation of the results of his investigation, and in the concluding Discussion, the author has clearly and honestly set out both the advantages and also the present limitations and quirks of Wikidata as a potential repository for the Bibliography of Life.  Of these, the most important limitations are the lack of an adequate data model that separates taxa and their names, the possibility for different editors to create duplicate entries for the same publication, the recording of many authors as name strings rather than as entities with names, the current lack of comprehensive coverage of the field, the lack of persistent identifiers (e.g. DOIs, Digital Object Identifiers) for much of the taxonomic literature, and the limited size of the community of taxonomists currently working with data in Wikidata, which limits the rate of progress.

The potential for Wikidata to become in reality the repository to document the Bibliography of Life is very exciting, and the author is to be highly commended both for clearly explaining that vision in this article, and also for his excellent work to make it a reality.  This article itself is sure to encourage additional work in this area.

However, it would be most helpful for the general reader if the author could provide two additional summary tables of the information and conclusions presented in this article, to be included in the Discussion section, the first listing the advantages of Wikidata as a repository for the Bibliography of Life, and the second listing the present limitations and quirks of Wikidata as a repository for the Bibliography of Life, and the steps that would be required to remedy these drawbacks.


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: WIKIDATA AND THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LIFE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article uses clear and professional English
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: Major comments
This manuscript provides an interesting idea regarding the usage of Wikidata as a global repository and structured database for taxonomic publications. Moreover, it provides a lot of information on the structure of the Wikidata entities, and their potential for this task.

However, I was a bit baffled by the overall goal, structure, and narrative of this contribution. While the author argues that Wikidata can be such a curated taxonomic database (e.g. in the abstract). It ends the MS by claiming that “Consequently a large number of taxonomic works and their authors already exist in Wikidata. As more and more taxonomic publications acquire DOIs, and as more working taxonomists acquire ORCID ids, the taxonomic literature component of Wikidata will automatically grow as content linked to these identifiers is routinely harvested by Wikidata bots. This leaves a large fraction of the taxonomic literature to be added by other means, but as discussed here there are numerous ways to do that. It is not unreasonable to expect that the bulk of the taxonomic literature will find its way into Wikidata in the next few years.”. So what are we to gain from this contribution? An acknowledgment of this fact? More understanding of the inner working of Wikidata? A call to use this source for this purpose? I think that I eventually got lost in this forest. Currently I finished reading this piece and had a hard time thinking what I have actually gained from it beyond the fact that Wikidata can be used as a taxonomic bibliography source – which you could probably state in much fewer words.

Linked to this critique I found your very limited discussion of the (many potential) drawbacks of Wikidata use for this purpose particularly lacking. I would greatly limit and reduce the current narrative of the MS, remove repetition in it and have a comprehensive section on drawbacks and limitations of Wikidata as a curated taxonomic bibliography source (and how these could potentially be addressed).

Perhaps you can structure both your main ideas, gaps to be filled, and potential limitations as a conceptual figure, that would help illuminate your statement(s). This together with much refocusing of the MS towards a specific agenda/target could greatly improve it.

Moreover, I think that claiming that your concept of Wikidata usage for this purpose is the “bibliography of life” a bit grandiose and I’d remove it from the title onwards. Having a central curated, structured, and interlinked, repository of taxonomic publications is a very important and impressive task, but hardly the “bibliography of life” this will be a bibliography of taxonomic works.

Lastly, the presentation of the author’s online tool in the MS does not seem to contribute to other potential messages found in it.

Minor comments
Line 65: Space missing after parenthesis

Figure 10 – I think there is a mistake in the node linking Wikispecies and zoobank, as the node between them contains many more shared authors than those listed in zoobank itself


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: WIKIDATA AND THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LIFE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear, well-written and interesting. This paper meets all requirements in terms of basic reporting.
Experimental design: This paper does not involve traditional hypothesis testing approach but instead is reads more like an opinion piece highlighting and advocating the use of Wikidata in this context. Thus it does not have the usual Methods section. I think that's fine. The structure and design of the paper is appropriate for its context and thesis.
Validity of the findings: Findings and conclusions are relevant, interesting and well-supported.
Additional comments: Great work on this paper overall. I enjoyed reading it and found it interesting and important. I have three comments on places where I think it could be improved:

1. Inclusion of the ALEC website. This website is interesting and clearly related to the topic. However, its introduction felt out of place within the context of the paper. The thesis of the paper is that Wikidata can be used as a “centralized, curated literature database [for biological taxonomy].” While the ALEC site is a tool for exploring this, it is not critical supporting this thesis. Furthermore, as a user seeking to understand the ALEC tool I probably would not think to look to this paper for site documentation (though referenced, the site is not directly named in the abstract).

I think it would make more sense to move the ALEC description and documentation out of the paper and put it elsewhere. A supplement or something similar to the online documentation for R packages could be an example for this. The paragraphs beginning with lines 323 and 331 and Figs 3-6 could all be moved to ALEC site documentation rather than being part of this paper.

2. The community of Wikidata editors and contributors.  As the author points out the Wikidata community of editors is a benefit (line 455) and also in some ways a challenge (line 469). It is important to include some additional discussion of who constitutes this community. From Fig 9 its obvious that relatively few contributors may contribute disproportionately to the content. What biases might emerge from this? Wikipedia editors have significant geographic and demographic skews and some of the literature on this could be referenced as an example. A few sentences on this topic should be added to the section on "A community of editors".

3. Lines 476-481. The point about taxa vs. names is an important one but here feels thrown in at the last moment and not fully explained. It would be useful to add of couple of sentences earlier on in the paper clarifying what this is and explaining its potential impact.

Other smaller comments:

1. Fig 10. I found this figure useful, but I think the information could be displayed in a cleaner and more easily interpretable way. A matrix similar to a correlation plot could be one approach:  https://www.displayr.com/how-to-create-a-correlation-matrix-in-r/

2. Acronyms and technical terms. There are many mentioned in the paper. Are all of them necessary? It would be helpful to remove any acronyms that are not totally necessary to avoid confusion and help the reader. Of those that are included several need additional introduction beyond what is currently provided. For example: what are "quickstatements" (line 377), CONSTRUCT queries (line 332), what does ZOBODAT (line 31) stand for, etc.? Even SPARQL may not be known to all readers and should probably be briefly defined.


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: WIKIDATA AND THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LIFE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised paper is now suitable for publication.  I have a very few minor suggestions for improvement noted below in 4. Additional comments.
Experimental design: The increase in scope from 1000 to 10,000 WikiData bibliographic entities satisfies my previous reservations.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: While the paper is now publishable, the following minor improvements would improve accuracy and help readability:
1  (PDF Line 23): "Much of the primary data about the planet’s biodiversity is contained in the taxonomic literature, a corpus that dates to the eighteenth century."   Change "dates to" to "dates from".
2  (PDF Line 237): "If both the citing article and the cited article have Crossref DOIs, then this citation link may ultimately find its way into COCI, the OpenCitations index of open Crossref DOI-to-DOI citations (Heibi, Peroni & Shotton, 2019)."  Now that COCI is being regularly updated at bi-monthly intervals, please for accuracy change the text to read "If both the citing article and the cited article have Crossref DOIs and the citing article references are submitted to Crossref, then this citation link will appear in the next update of COCI, the OpenCitations index of open Crossref DOI-to-DOI citations (Heibi, Peroni & Shotton, 2019)."
3  (Legend for Table 1):  "Table 1. Current progress towards mapping taxonomic names to the source literature. For each database the table gives the number of names in each taxonomic database that have an associated bibliographic reference, the number of those references that have at least one external identifier, and the number references with external identifiers that are in Wikidata."  Change to read: ". . . the number AND PERCENTAGE of those references that have at least one external identifier, and the number AND PERCENTAGE **OF** references with external identifiers that are in Wikidata. [IPNI: International Plant Name Index]."  (The acronym needs defining in the Table Legend as well as in the text.)
4  (Table 1 content):  "ION" in Table 1 is not defined and does not appear in the body text.  It should be removed from Table 1.
5  (Table 1 content):  For consistency of presentation, "30" should be changed to "30.0".


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: WIKIDATA AND THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LIFE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: -
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: The revised version of this manuscript is improved. It has more structure, and I can actually follow its narrative. I feel it is still on the long side – but this is for the editor to decide.

I think that this contribution could benefit from some forward thinking regarding its topic – where the author thinks greater effort in the future should be placed to produce the best outcomes, and how these should be brought about.

Another comment – carried on from my previous review has to do with drawbacks / downsides of Wikidata as a repository of taxonomic publications? Unfortunately, not referring to my initial comment on this issue does not fill me with confidence about your expertise on this topic. Without thinking about this for more than a few seconds I can think of: ease of access, user interface, reputation, various biases (geographic, taxonomic, cultural, journal based, publication type), as well as expanding on some of the issues currently addressed in penultimate paragraph regarding the community nature of Wiki and its lack of centralized curation. Highlighting such issues and others (potentially with data to support them) will only serve to make this contribution more comprehensive and useful. Wikidata is not a panacea, it would be unwise to treat it as such.

Regarding the title and stressing throughout the term “bibliography of life” – I still maintain that this is a poor choice. I understand the desire to keep it – but this manuscript deals with a centralized repository of taxonomic papers. I think it would make much more sense to treat it as such, and this would not take anything away from this contribution. As a testament to this you now add a paragraph in the intro to explain why this particular title was chosen. This is not a good sign that the title should have been chosen to begin with.

Line 273 - so is Wikispecies the bibliography of life or Wikidata?


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: CHARACTERIZATION OF PHENYLALANINE AMMONIA-LYASE GENES FACILITATING FLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS FROM TWO SPECIES OF MEDICINAL PLANT ANOECTOCHILUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment.
Experimental design: Materials and methods need to be improved.
1. The treatment of (L-Phe), NaCl, UV and red-light is not specified in the method.
2. Is the determination of flavonoids supported by references?
Validity of the findings: 1. Why is there no amino acid sequence of Dendrobium huoshanense in the sequence alignment of Figure 3?
2.In the overexpression experiment, the total flavonoid content of F-1, F-3 and R-2 did not reach a significant level. Is this result reliable? In Figure 8, the effect of PAL on the synthesis of anthocyanin is more significant, and the expression of anthocyanin biosynthesis genes needs to be determined.
Additional comments: 1. The first letter of the on line 150 should be capitalized.
2. Punctuation after line 152 (1997).
3. The length of the PAL fragment in Figure 2 is 2148bp, and the marker is preferably 5000.
4. In Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 8, it is best to directly mark what the columns of different colors represent in the pictures, and please pay attention to the position of the '*' representing significance in Figure 6.
5.The discussion needs to be further improved. There should be a space between the and differentail on line 237.


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: CHARACTERIZATION OF PHENYLALANINE AMMONIA-LYASE GENES FACILITATING FLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS FROM TWO SPECIES OF MEDICINAL PLANT ANOECTOCHILUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: 1) The level of English throughout your manuscript does not meet the journal’s required standard. There are many sentence errors in the paper, which makes the reader unable to read smoothly.
2) The function of PAL in Anoectochilus has not been deeply studied, and the paper lacks depth and innovation.
3) The ruler is missing in the Figure 1,7.
4) Clear legends are missing in figures 6 and 8.
5) Figure 7 -C the image is not clear and the image is deformed.


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: CHARACTERIZATION OF PHENYLALANINE AMMONIA-LYASE GENES FACILITATING FLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS FROM TWO SPECIES OF MEDICINAL PLANT ANOECTOCHILUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper Characterization of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase genes facilitating flavonoid biosynthesis from two species of medicinal plant Anoectochilus presents the cloning and expression of PAL genes from two related species used in traditional medicine. Although the paper is very descriptive some relevant results are presented. Authors do present assays about localization of gene products presented in this manuscript, therefore with major changes the paper can be more engaging The readability of the discussion could be improved.
The English needs to be improved through the manuscript.
Figure legends can be improved too, some suggestions are given at the manuscript for example figure 2 can be moved to supplementary figures.
Some suggested changes are the following:
Line 18, and have been used
Line 22, PAL genes were cloned
Line 24, used for subcellular
Line 26, stresses and were analyzed
Line 28, base pairs and were
Line 29, that both
Lines 32-33, could you please make this sentence more clear?
Line 43, obviously different
Line 48, is it imperative to promote accumulation?
Line 50, primary and the
Line 68, stresses
Line 76, surface
Line 128, separate microscope model from references
Line 133, were identified
Line 137, to be extracted
Line 138, extracts were filtered and the residues were dissolved
Lines 141-142, sentence is not clear
Line 168, theoretical secondary structure?
Line 187, about twice it is two times, however it says 20 times, could you please explain
Others suggestions are given at the pdf file of the reviewed manuscript.
Experimental design: Although the research is within the journal scope, the materials and methods section could be improved, by adding information missing (stated at the reviewed version in comments).  Statistical analysis is not presented at this section. It is important to describe the analysis that were used in the expression analysis, comparisons among samples.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript is not engaging in the way that is described, since at introduction, materials and methods some sentences are not presented in a clear way. At the discussion section the contribution of knowledge should be stated. Conclusions need to be more clear.
Additional comments: The manuscript can be improved making sentences more clear and complete. The alignment figure is not of good quality.


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: CHARACTERIZATION OF PHENYLALANINE AMMONIA-LYASE GENES FACILITATING FLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS FROM TWO SPECIES OF MEDICINAL PLANT ANOECTOCHILUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: There are many formats that need to be modified in the manuscript.
1. 93 lines of punctuation.
2. Up-regulated in line 257 should be changed to upregulated.
3. The gene in line 284 should be italicized.
4. The gene in line 290 should be oblique. apostrophe?
5. References in lines 300-301, 317-318, 338-339, 348-349, 356-357, and 377-378 should be lowercase except for the first letter of the first word.
6. Nicotiana on line 327 should be italicized.
7. Protoplasma on line 337 should be italicized.
8. Plant Physiology on line 342 should be italicized.
9. The EMBO Journal on line 355 should be italicized.
10. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry in line 361 should be italicized.
11. The Journal of Biomedical Science on line 372 should be italicized.
12. Genes & Genetic Systems on line 384 should be italicized.
13. Plant Growth Regulation on line 395 should be italicized.
14. The Journal of Separation Science on line 399 should be italicized.
15. PAL on line 407 should be italicized.


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: CHARACTERIZATION OF PHENYLALANINE AMMONIA-LYASE GENES FACILITATING FLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS FROM TWO SPECIES OF MEDICINAL PLANT ANOECTOCHILUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is now clear and language professional. The authors made the suggested corrections at the different parts like introduction, results and discussion.
Experimental design: The authors improved this part and added statistical analysis. The description of materials and methods is much better and information is enough to replicate.
Validity of the findings: The findings presented in a clearer way are robust. Changes were made and figures look much better. Novel work is presented in the two species of traditional medicine. The importance of PAL genes in flavonoid biosynthesis is strengthened.
Additional comments: The manuscript is now more engaging and readable.


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: MARKER-ASSISTED PYRAMIDING OF Γ-TOCOPHEROL METHYLTRANSFERASE AND GLUTAMATE FORMIMINOTRANSFERASE GENES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BIOFORTIFIED SWEET CORN HYBRIDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Abstract written is very poor. It should highlight the objectives and findings of your work, rather providing the background of your work.
Introduction part is well written and in line with your manuscript.
Materials and methods part is very poor. Provide the list of plant material used, parents used should be highlighted separately. Also give detailed information regarding PCR amplification like annealing temperature, duration of PCR cycles.
Experimental design: Results and discussion part is well elaborated, however, the references used are very old, provide some latest references. Lot of work has been done in the field of bio-fortification in recent years. It will be better to cite some latest references.
Provide the list of primers used in separate table and some Gel pictures to make your manuscript look more attractive.
Overall literature cited is very much old, add some recent references.
Validity of the findings: The language of the manuscript is good, however some grammatical mistakes have been highlighted. Little revision is needed to avoid the meaningless sentences.
The conclusion part is missing.
The manuscript written is very much informative and a good effort has been done by the authors to provide a way forward for enhancement of nutritional security through recent breeding procedures.
Additional comments: Line-28	Crops inbred lines (Correct the sentence like inbred lines in various crops)
Line-29	High-yield hybrid (Write high-yielding hybrids)
Line-30	sweet corn hybrid (Replace hybrid by hybrids)
Line-36	Keywords should be in alphabetical order
Line-44	a variety of maize (Write as a type of maize rather than a variety)
Line-74	Hybrids lines (Write as hybrids only or hybrid lines)
Line-77	Replace will by shall to a meaningful sentence
Use sweet corn hybrids everywhere instead of sweet corn varieties as your main focus is on hybrid development.
Scientific name of sweet corn is not correct, after L. write var.


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: MARKER-ASSISTED PYRAMIDING OF Γ-TOCOPHEROL METHYLTRANSFERASE AND GLUTAMATE FORMIMINOTRANSFERASE GENES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BIOFORTIFIED SWEET CORN HYBRIDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The research has technical significance starting from diversity screening, selection, crossing and biochemical and agronomic characterization.

The main paragraph from 159 to 173 requires a careful relook.
While it has been mentioned that 140/225 vs. 140/15 had single vs. Two alleles for two traits and accordingly the micronutrient.
1.	What is the micronutrient concentration and allelic status of parents?
That should be mentioned and followed for each cross accomplished.

Several sentences need relook in terms of grammar and technicality

line-26, 46, 78-81, 135-136, 169-170.
Experimental design: Ok
Validity of the findings: Ok
Additional comments: NIl


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: MARKER-ASSISTED PYRAMIDING OF Γ-TOCOPHEROL METHYLTRANSFERASE AND GLUTAMATE FORMIMINOTRANSFERASE GENES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BIOFORTIFIED SWEET CORN HYBRIDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors describe an experiment to introgress known genes to sweet corn via marker assisted selection. The title is misleading since this is not a new method. I would suggest reporting the title based on what the work consisted of. It looks to me like this was an assessment of genetic variability for the two traits, as well as an evaluation of the contribution of the two reported genes affecting vitamin E and folic acid.

The authors miss important references such as all the work previously done in sweet corn related to biofortification (vitamin A and E) (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.01.486706v1.abstract ; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.24.461734v1.abstract; https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3835/plantgenome2018.06.0038 ; https://academic.oup.com/plcell/article/29/10/2374/6100443?login=true ; https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tpg2.20008).
Experimental design: The authors are not reporting a new method, but rather a single crossing cycle of lines selected based on marker-assisted selection. There is a brief discussion about heterosis, even though previous literature suggest the absence of heterotic groups in sweet corn. I would suggest the estimation of genetic parameters for the quantified traits, such as narrow sense and broad sense heritability.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript lacks quantitative genetics analysis to properly allow the discussion of heterosis. The work also lacks a proper description of the parental lines for other traits that are important for sweet corn. The two genes used for MAS had already been previously reported, so I am not sure what are the finding reported here.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: FERROPTOTIC CARDIOMYOCYTE-DERIVED EXOSOMES PROMOTE CARDIAC MACROPHAGE M1 POLARIZATION DURING MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In the manuscript titled ‘Ferroptotic cardiomyocyte-derived exosomes promote cardiac macrophage M1 polarization during myocardial infarction’, the authors investigate the possible role of ferroptotic cardiomyocytes derived exosome on macrophage polarization in myocardial infarction (MI). Overall, the experiments are well controlled and well-reported, results are clearly presented, and the manuscript is well written. Although the authors imply that they investigate the role and mechanism through which exosomes may induce macrophage polarization (abstract lines 18-19), more experiments are needed to fully delineate this scientific phenomenon.

-	One of the hallmarks of ferroptosis is lipid peroxidation. Although authors measure malondialdehyde content and total cellular iron concentration, from a mechanistic perspective, these analyses are insufficient. It is recommended that authors look at additional molecular markers/readouts (I do not expect authors to perform all of the following, but a couple of these analyses are highly recommended)
-	1. LC-MS/MS  analysis to analyze changes in lipid profile
-	2. Using lipid-soluble fluorescent probes
-	3. Looking at the molecular markers of ferroptosis (ACSL4 for instance)

One of the major drawbacks of this study is the lack of characterizing exosomes. Without identifying the key ‘signal’, the claim of exosome-mediated regulation of macrophage polarization is weak. Although it might be challenging to conclusively determine and prove the signaling molecule, getting pretty close to a few candidates by determining exosome content and defining changing exosome composition following ferroptosis is possible (and needed).
Experimental design: Generally, the experiments are well controlled, well-reported and the methodologies are described with appropriate details.

However, as suggested above, the determination of additional ferroptosis markers is needed and importantly, experiments directed at determining the key signaling molecules in exosomes are needed. At the very least, determining exosome contents and analyzing changes in exosome contest following ferroptosis is necessary.
Validity of the findings: Authors probe an important scientific idea that has a huge potential in the development of novel diagnostic and/or therapeutic targets for myocardial infarction. However, as a step closer to that goal and to complete the scientific analyses, further work is needed.
Additional comments: Overall, nicely written manuscript and an interesting scientific study.