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: LUNG–BRAIN ‘CROSS-TALK’: SYSTEMIC PROPAGATION OF CYTOKINES IN THE ARDS VIA THE BLOODSTREAM USING A BLOOD TRANSFUSION MODEL DOES NOT INFLUENCE CEREBRAL INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE IN PIGS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript the authors study inter-organ cross talk between the lung and brain upon blood transfusion from pigs that suffered from acute respiratory distress syndrome. The authors are doing a great job addressing the limitations of the study and provide good future directions for this interesting research topic.
The manuscript would benefit from shorter sentences and more precise language for example the sentence line 58-60:
“What is an initial commonly induced inflammatory response because of brain or lung injury in one of these organs will frequently lead to secondary injuries in remote organs.”
Could easily been shortened and easier to read like this:
“Injuries to the brain or lung result in inflammatory responses, which frequently leads to secondary injuries in remote organs.”
The result section should be improved by putting the results from each figure into better context. In contrast the discussion section reads disjointed and would benefit from shortening and focusing on the immediate relevant aspects of the study. The authors should attach the raw data in a spreadsheet format so it is easily machine readable, in case other groups want to analyze data.
The data presented in figure 3 is hard to evaluate with the large overlapping error bars and points.  A grouped bar graph or swarm plot would be more informative. To better evaluate the data in figure 4 and 5 each data point should be visible. Therefore swarm or violin plot is the appropriate way to present the data.
Minor comments:

On line 36 the authors use the acronym ARDS without once spelling out Acute respiratory distress syndrome. This can make it harder for the reader to quickly grasp the abstract.

Line 67, 69 the observations of “double-hit” and long-term effects described in the previous sentence need a reference

Line 157 what were the studies the group size was compared to a reference is missing

Line 201 - reference for the presumed inter-organ cross-talk is missing

Line 215 and 220 full stop punctuation is missing

Line 221 the abbreviations are not written out: Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI)
Transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO)
Experimental design: The experimental design includes all necessary controls and the sample size appears reasonable. The experimental process is well described and references to the originally established protocol for inducing ARDS are given. The authors should better explain what motivated the storage of donor blood for 12 h, when it is unclear how it affects the cytokine activity (line 300). The statistical analysis is performed well, the data presentation could be improved (see basic reporting section).
Validity of the findings: The findings are robust and show that in the chosen experimental condition no ARDS alteration or CNS inflammation were detected in the recipient population. The conclusions are supported by the experimental findings. Furthermore the ARDS induction by oleic acid injection as well as the blood transfusion protocol was successfully reproduced in this study.
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: LUNG–BRAIN ‘CROSS-TALK’: SYSTEMIC PROPAGATION OF CYTOKINES IN THE ARDS VIA THE BLOODSTREAM USING A BLOOD TRANSFUSION MODEL DOES NOT INFLUENCE CEREBRAL INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE IN PIGS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Major comment:
1. The author shows the result in a relatively pithy manner while discussing a lot in the discussion part. I prefer the author reorganize the results and discussion sections. As to each result, the author may describe in separate paragraph and make some comment and explanation at the same time. This will benefit the author a lot for understanding the whole manuscript.

Minor comment:
1)	The resolution of the figure 1 is limited, please provide a clear one;
2)	There is no figure legend for each figure and each table, please make a clear notification for each one;
3)	The Donor (S) / Receiver (S) means Donor-sham/ Receiver-sham in this paper, but there is not any notification when is first time appeared;
4)	The plot lines are all black in figure 2 figure 3, the error bars are superimposed.  It is confusing for the readers to distinguish each other, please color them corresponding to different ones;
5)	It’s better to make a full-name notification for those abbreviation, such as ARDS, PaO2, FiO2 et.al when they are mentioned at the first time, please check the whole manuscripts to figure it out.
Experimental design: The major concerns are:
1.	In the result section, the author evaluates the expression mRNA level of all the inflammatory response markers in hippocampal and cortex, they are minimal difference between groups without being significant. The conclusion of this paper “No ARDS-like alterations were seen in the recipient group, and CNS inflammation could not be detected. The role of the systemic distribution of inflammatory cytokines from one affected organ to another could not be confirmed beyond a doubt in the current study.” is mainly based on these results.  The mRNA is an indirect way for the expression level of those markers. The author should provide this value at a protein level, so ELISA assay is a direct and easy way to indicate this instead of mRNA level. At the same time, these cytokines at protein level of the lung may also be included as an internal control.
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: The manuscript by Rene et.al investigates the role of the systemic distribution of cytokines via the bloodstream in a porcine ARDS model for organ cross-talk and possible inflammatory changes in the brain. It was concluded that blood sampling from ARDS donors in healthy pigs did not affect lung function or induce an inflammatory response in the brain or systemic circulation.
ARDS is a life-threatening lung injury that allows fluid to leak into the lungs. The study of the cross-talk between lung and remote organs has profound significance. For example, the COVID-19 shares some characteristic with ARDS and study of brain-lung crosstalk in COVID-19 can provide experimental and clinical evidence and strategy for the treatment of infected patients.
I support the publication of this manuscript after the few major and minor comments mentioned above are revised.


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: LUNG–BRAIN ‘CROSS-TALK’: SYSTEMIC PROPAGATION OF CYTOKINES IN THE ARDS VIA THE BLOODSTREAM USING A BLOOD TRANSFUSION MODEL DOES NOT INFLUENCE CEREBRAL INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE IN PIGS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No problem
Experimental design: No problem
Validity of the findings: No problem
Additional comments: In the response of the authors: "In our study, we used the mRNA level in accordance to pre-studies with blood transfusion in pigs. But this is historical: actually we also use ELISA kits for detecting cytokines at the protein level in our running studies. "
So if the author have such data. Please indicate it in the results. if this is not in accordance to the mRNA. it's also okay to just make some explanation.


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

Input:
Title: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LIFE SKILLS, LIFESTYLE HABITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN HEALTH PROMOTING AND NON-HEALTH PROMOTING SCHOOLS IN THE AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF ARAGON, SPAIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for this interesting study examining how the life skills, lifestyle habits, and academic performance of 7th and 8th grade students in health promoting schools and non-health promoting schools compare.

The manuscript provides good background for the present study in the introduction. However, the section outlining the definition of a HPS (lines 60-69) should be made clearer. I recommend reworking this section and including the six features identified by the WHO as key to HPS (World Health Organization, & UNESCO, 2018, Global Standards for Health Promoting Schools).

I recommend the authors rephrase their summary of the Cochrane review of HPS to avoid potential misinterpretation (lines 93-97). The Cochrane review did find some evidence that the HPS framework can improve certain outcomes, namely physical activity, fitness levels, fruit and vegetable consumption, cigarette use, and being bullied. In other areas, the review found no evidence of effectiveness (fat intake, alcohol and drug use, mental health, violence, and bullying others), or not enough data to draw conclusions. Thus in some specific areas, there was evidence to suggest HPS can make improvements. Overall, the Cochrane review could be given more prominence in the literature review in comparison to the other studies cited, considering its rigour.

The authors should review the formatting standards for PeerJ publications and ensure the manuscript meets these (e.g. font, left-justified text). The test statistics, degrees of freedom, confidence intervals and effect sizes should be included in the manuscript, as per the reporting guidelines.

The report is clear and well-written. There is a spelling error in line 268 and in the descriptor for Table 3. The grammar and capitalization of the table descriptors in general should be reviewed.
Experimental design: The research question is well-defined. However, the observational nature of the study limits how much it can add to the existing research into HPS. As the authors conclude at the end of the manuscript, the field requires longitudinal and intervention research designs in order to further our understanding of the potential of HPS to improve children's outcomes. If the study aims to replicate previous results, this should be stated clearly.

In the methods section, there appears to be an error in the description of the study population (lines 123-124) which states all the students came from a single school. The manuscript later says students from 43 schools participated in the study (line 134).

I commend the detail that has been given in the description of the instruments used in data collection and the rationale behind these choices.

The data analysis section (lines 215-221) needs to be expanded upon further in order for the analysis to be reproducible. The description indicates that the only analysis performed was a chi-square test of association between categorical variables and academic performance (lines 218-220). This does not align with the main research question outlined in the introduction.

Furthermore, considering the ordinal nature of much of the data collected, the use of the Mann-Whitney U test would be more appropriate than chi-square, which is well-suited to categorical variables (McCrum-Gardner, 2008, Which is the correct statistical test to use? British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 46(1), 38-41). The rationale behind the authors' data analysis choices should be made clear.
Validity of the findings: The discussion (lines 281-292) of the potential impact of the differing socioeconomic status (SES) of the students at different schools is valuable for the interpretation of the results. This awareness should also inform the discussion of the potential reasons that no significant association between HPS and the study variables was found. Specifically, it is possible that the students at HPS schools had better health than would be expected considering their SES. That no difference in self-rated health was found between the two groups of students from differing SES is worthy of note. Likewise, although non-HPS students with higher SES scored significantly higher on self-efficacy, there was no difference on the social skills or affect balance subscales.

There is an extended discussion of implementation and the challenges associated with this (lines 343-384). Given the authors' conclusions regarding the importance of implementation and the specific accreditation requirements, they should include discussion of the ANHPS' accreditation requirements and process and how these compare to best practice, such as the WHO's global standards and indicators (World Health Organization, 2021, Making every school a health-promoting school: global standards and indicators for health-promoting schools and systems).

Furthermore, since this study did not examine implementation, I recommend cutting down this section and focusing instead on the potential impact of SES. The authors should consider the literature on whether a difference in outcomes such as social skills and affect balance would be expected between students whose SES differed to the degree found in the study. Including effect sizes in the results would also enhance the interpretation of the differences that were/weren't found. Further discussion could consider the findings of past HPS studies that did and did not control for SES.

I suggest the recommendations for future research in lines 390-391 should include research that controls for differences in SES.
Additional comments: The aforementioned comments should also be considered in relation to the abstract. In addition, the abstract should be clear that students from non-HPS schools only had better life skills when considering the area of self-efficacy; the other two sub-scales were not significant.

Overall, this is a detailed, well-written study that has the potential to add to the literature on HPS. The unexpected findings are an important contribution to the field. Careful consideration of the methods chosen for data analysis and further scrutiny of the potential reasons for these findings should be undertaken before acceptance.


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

Input:
Title: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LIFE SKILLS, LIFESTYLE HABITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN HEALTH PROMOTING AND NON-HEALTH PROMOTING SCHOOLS IN THE AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF ARAGON, SPAIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is clearly written in professional English. The objective of the paper is relevant in the international context, looking both at health and educational outcomes concerning the impact of the HPS approach on students. One of the key findings in the study is that non-HPS schools perform better than HPS schools. Although the paper is well referenced throughout, I recommend the authors to include the recent viewpoint paper in the Lancet CAH, January 2021 by Jourdan et al: Supporting every school to become a foundation for healthy lives. A keypoint is that the study does not look into the level of implementation of the HPS approach in the participating schools. The paper would benefit with a more specific description , specifically concerning line 98-109 how health promotion strategies are implemented in the schools that take part in the investigation. Some more specification of the requirements of the Aragon accrediation system would also be useful for the reader. The main issue is that a school that is not part of the Aragon HPS network can still implement HPS related activities. This will give a stronger argument to one of the conclusions which is that the process of implementation is crucial, from line 341.
Experimental design: The design of the study is well developed. The research question is well developed and relevant. If clearly fills a research gap on the system of accreditation of HPS. Concerning data collection the authors mention in line 142 that  it is part of a larger project. This could be more explained.
Validity of the findings: Concerning the response rates ( line 235) 34% seems rather low. Maybe the authors could make a comment on this in the discussion.
Findings are solid and robust and clearly formulated.

Conclusions are clear and give an answer to the research question.

I recommend that the authors include the new WHO global standards and indicators for HPS (2021) and/or the European standards and indicators in their discussion of the results (line 379)
Additional comments: In line 289 a word seems missing, please check.


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

Input:
Title: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LIFE SKILLS, LIFESTYLE HABITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE IN HEALTH PROMOTING AND NON-HEALTH PROMOTING SCHOOLS IN THE AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY OF ARAGON, SPAIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The 2nd version has improved, and my comments are all included.
My main comment is that there seems to be no chapter on Conclusions. What is written under Conclusions are Recommendations in my opinion
The discussion chapter is now rather long. It may be useful to group the different issues and arguments better. The main argument is that being an HPS is not a predictor for positive health and learning outcomes. It is the level of implementation that matters.
The authors could be more consistent in the use of the term school, sometimes center, sometimes institutions is being used. This is a bit confusing.

line 43: In the abstract it says in Conclusions: As opposed to previous studies, etc. I recommend to write: ‘As opposed to some previous studies, …
Line 67: this reference 6 should be replaced based  by the report on the HPS global standards 2021 (WHO & UNESCO (2021). Making every school a health-promoting school: global standards and indicators for health-promoting schools and systems. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 2021).
Line 76:  Previous studies..: add: Some previous studies..
Experimental design: no new comments
Validity of the findings: no new comments
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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article called "Analyzing the relationship between self-efficacy and impulsivity in soccer referees" studies psychological aspects developed in soccer referees in competitive period. It is about a theme that fits well with PeerJ journal.

The article is clear, has novel and English-language references and has relevant results for the fulfillment of the hypotheses.

However, with regard to tables and figures, I would like to indicate (not sure this is an internal PeerJ Journal standard), that "0" should be inserted. instead of ".".
Experimental design: Further explanation is required in the section on statistical analysis of effect size (partial eta square). I recommend that the authors indicate the level of significance at the end of the section. Please add the statistical methods used with your reference.

Finally, I request an increase in the discussion, where the results obtained are explained in more detail (compared to other referees from other sports for example).
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is an unpublished original study because impulsivity in soccer referees has never been studied before. It offers important results in order to increase efficiency and performance in a competitive period. Congratulations.


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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Title & Abstract
1.	In title the researcher needed to mention participants so that the reader could have a better idea subjects from which part of the world they reading about. The abstract needs improvement, and it does not meet the requirements for publication in its original form. The results of the abstract need to present some supporting statistics, such as soccer referees level. Regarding the inappropriate presentation of p-values, it is recommended to change to P <0.05, P <0.01, P <0.001. The conclusions in the abstract do not present the conclusions that can be drawn from this work. It merely summarizes what was done. In addition, it is necessary to add the significance of this research and its contribution to this field.

Introduction
2.	In my opinion, the introduction is far too long. Make it more concise, and much shorter. This is not a complicated study, and the introduction should reflect that. Why did you choose to study the associations between self-efficacy and impulsivity in soccer referees? How does self-efficacy affect impulsivity? Do you want to consider the moderating effects of gender and age? Is there a difference between ordinary people and soccer referees? The relationship between them is based on what theory, and what their mechanism is, it needs to be further clarified. Clearly identify the gaps in the literature. Is there a specific gap your study is filling? Again, is this gap specific to soccer referees or can it be generalized to other referees?The hypothesis of this research needs to be clear.

Results
3.	Why is there no correlation analysis? Further analyze the moderating effects of gender and age on self-efficacy and impulsivity in soccer referees, and report it.

Discussion
4.	Please start the discussion by stating the main results, without interpretations in light of other research (ie "This study's results further support those theories or models). After reading the discussion, I as a reader am not sure what the contribution of this paper is to the greater literature of self-efficacy and impulsivity in soccer referees. It isn't highlighted which gaps in knowledge this research targets, and whether it has succeeded in closing the gap, or at least moving it in that direction. Can any of these results be practically applied? The limited part is not detailed enough, for example, longitudinal research can be used to further verify the results of this study, and more parts need to be considered.

Conclusions
5.	It is recommended to add the significance of this research and its contribution to this field.


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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors conducted and reported on a study about the relationship between self-efficacy and impulsivity in soccer referees. The authors indicated that soccer referee is exposed to stressful situations during the competition that can affect decision-making, being able to be more or less impulsive during the competition and therefore requires optimal psychological skills. I thought this is an interesting and very timely topic. Nevertheless, in its current state, I have some major concerns with the manuscript that limit its overall contribution to the literature in referees’ psychological skills building in stressful situations during the competition.
1. The main issue in the introduction is that the contributions of the study have not been clearly articulated. More specifically, the authors did not clearly identify the research gap in the existing research literature. That said, I cannot realize that understanding the relationship between self-efficacy and impulsivity is an important issue for the soccer referee. For example, the authors mentioned that these SRs need to acquire specific psychological skills, such as self-confidence, concentration, motivation, or self-efficacy. However, why did this study want to focus on SRs' self-efficacy? I suggest you should have a well-developed story to explain why SRs' self-efficacy is most important for SRs and provide the arguments to demonstrate the relationship you want to analyze.
2. On lines 54-97, I thought the structure of the introduction seems strange for the reader. As the authors argued that this study is aimed to understand the relationship between self-efficacy and impulsivity for SRs. That is, you should first explain why self-efficacy plays a key role for the SRs. Then, introduce the variable of impulsivity, and the influence of impulsivity for these SRs. Lastly, based on the theory or references to argue why SRs with high self-efficacy will have lower levels of impulsivity.
3. On lines 93-95, although the authors mentioned that SRs with greater self-efficacy will have higher levels of self-confidence and will perform better in matches since they will not be influenced by high levels of stress and anxiety that may impair their decision-making. However, this section lacked a specific theory and arguments to support your hypothesis. Accordingly, the authors need to be clarified within the introduction to improve the study rationale and the manuscript overall.
Experimental design: In the Materials & Methods part, there are some suggestions for the authors below.
1. On lines 112-113, the authors explain that a non-probabilistic sampling method was adopted in this study. And the participants were 21 soccer referees aged between 18 and 27 years old. I suggest the authors have to provide more detailed information regarding how to choose the samples. As the reference you provide on lines 70-72, impulsivity was influenced by age and experience. That is, only focusing on the younger SRs might not provide comprehensive results and insights for the readers.
2. On line 115, this study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of XXXXXXX. What is the University of XXXXXXX?
3. On lines 133-134, the authors mentioned that the scale of impulsivity in soccer references grouped into 4 factors. However, as you demonstrated later, this scale was grouped into 5 factors. Please check if this is correct or not.
4. On lines 153-155, the authors provide the exclusion criteria for the readers. However, I cannot understand why the exclusion criteria of data were referees had not suffered serious injuries in the last 6 months.
5. I suggest the authors provide how much data you got from 21 SRs. Because I cannot get any information regarding how many times you got the data from each SR or the amount of data from each SR. This is an important issue about the validity of your findings.
Validity of the findings: In the Results and Discussion part, there are some suggestions for the authors below.
1. MANCOVA test was applied to analyze test the hypothesis in this study. On lines 196-198, the authors mentioned that SRs’ age, category, and experience were control variables. I suggest you should provide the rationale to explain why these variables need to be controlled.
2. On lines 153-155, the authors mentioned that the objective of this study was to know and analyze the relationship between levels of impulsivity and self-efficacy of amateur SRs in the senior category. The sentence about the relationship between levels of impulsivity and self-efficacy seems not to correspond with your research topic.
3. On lines 243-244, according to the results, the authors demonstrated that SRs can control their responses and decision-making through greater self-efficacy. But this is a cross-sectional study to test the relationship between self-efficacy and impulsivity in soccer referees. I thought the authors' argument might be over-explain the result.
4. In addition, it seems to lack more details about the insights and contributions of this result. More specifically, I suggest the authors can provide practical intervention for SRs on how to improve their self-efficacy.

I hope these comments are useful when the authors further develop this paper.
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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments.
Experimental design: no comments.
Validity of the findings: no comments.
Additional comments: The author has responded to some questions, but some revisions are still required to meet the requirements of publication.

Materials & Methods
-Why is the sample size recovery 100%, an incredible result?
-Instruments needs to add some information, such as Cronbach’s alpha and Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
- Add Instruments factor loading of each item scope?

Results
-Max. and min. values should be included in Table 1.

Discussion
-The implications of this study need further clarification, and it is best to write a paragraph about the implications of this study.
-The Limitations section is obviously too small, and an additional paragraph describing the limitations of this study is needed.
- The manuscript requires English-speaking authors to revise the grammar of the full text.


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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have modified the manuscripts to respond to my suggestions. I congratulate the authors on their efforts. However, I expressed concerns with the arguments developed regarding the relationship between self-efficacy and impulsivity. In addition, the sentence about the relationship between levels of impulsivity and self-efficacy in the abstract and discussion was not consistent with your research topic. Below are more detailed comments.

1. On lines 98-100, although the authors mentioned they further synthesize the introduction according to the scientific results to explain SRs with high self-efficacy will have lower levels of impulsivity. However, I still can't find what theory and what mechanism can support your hypothesis, it needs to be further clarified.

2. The research topic is analyzing the relationship between self-efficacy and impulsivity in amateur soccer referees. However, the sentence in the abstract and discussion (on lines 227-228) demonstrated that this study was to analyze the relationship between levels of impulsivity and self-efficacy. I suggest the authors have to display consistency in the sentence.

I hope the comments are useful for the authors to further develop this study.
Experimental design: The authors have responded to my suggestions.
Validity of the findings: The authors have responded to my suggestions.
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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have provided answers to both my initial questions and the 2 fellow reviewers. I accept the current version of the manuscript.
Experimental design: The authors have provided answers to both my initial questions and the 2 fellow reviewers. I accept the current version of the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The authors have provided answers to both my initial questions and the 2 fellow reviewers. I accept the current version of the manuscript.
Additional comments: no 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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments.
Experimental design: no comments.
Validity of the findings: no comments.
Additional comments: The manuscript has been revised to the level of publication by the authors.


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: ANALYZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND IMPULSIVITY IN AMATEUR SOCCER REFEREES
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for the revision. I found it adequately addressed my concerns. The manuscript is well-written, and the modifications have proved effective in improving the manuscript.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: HURRICANE MARÍA DRIVES INCREASED INDOOR PROLIFERATION OF FILAMENTOUS FUNGI IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO: A TWO-YEAR CULTURE-BASED APPROACH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper reported about airborne fungi in flooded and non-flooded homes in Puerto Rico after a hurricane. The study used culture techniques to quantify and identify fungi collected by a multiple-jet impactor. Fungal concentration, composition, and diversity were analyzed and compared between flooded and non-flooded homes. I agree that the topic is important. The manuscript is well-written with professional structure. Relevant references are also properly cited.
Experimental design: The goal of the study is clear, i.e., to investigate mold problems in Puerto Rico, the less-studied region vulnerable to tropical weather. I agree that the findings are novel. The methods used seem appropriate with sufficient details provided in the manuscript, though I have some reservation about statistical methods used in this study (see my comments in other section).
Validity of the findings: I agree that the study is novel. I also agree that the findings of this study is useful in this field of research. The sampling and analysis was repeated with the sufficient number for meaningful replication. I have some comments on the statistical methods used, however. My comments follows:

Statistical analyses used in this study don't seem to be appropriate. The study sampled ~50 homes, each at 4 indoor locations of living room, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom (Line 177-178).  This means that samples are stratified, with “home” as the primary stratum and “location” and “year” as the sub strata. The problem is that each sample is considered independent regardless of sampled “home” and “location”. For instance, the samples collected at different locations in the same home are likely not independent (since they were collected in the same home). Looking at Figures 2 and 4 (also other figures showing statistical analyses), for example, it can be misleading as if the study sampled at ~200 homes. Some of the results are collected in the same home, so it may be more appropriate to consider them as replicates. To me, it is more reasonable to calculate the average of 4 indoor locations of each home, and then to compare the calculated averages between flooded and non-flooded homes. Alternatively, stratified analyses should be performed since the results are stratified by "home", "location", and “year”.
Additional comments: My additional comments follows”

Genus-level analysis
The authors said that analyses were at the genus level (Line 199). However, some taxa (e.g., Aspergillus) were reported at the species level, e.g., Aspergillus terreus, Aspergillus carbonarius, Aspergillus tamari, in Figure 5. The authors also used the term “Aspergillus spp.”. Does the term “Aspergillus spp.” or “Aspergillus” include or exclude the specific Aspergillus species, such as Aspergillus terreus, Aspergillus carbonarius, Aspergillus tamari? Were they separately analyzed from “Aspergillus spp.” for statistical analyses? It is confusing since the species-level information are included in the genus-level information.

Line 50 and others
The phrase "using molecular tools" is misleading since it gives impression that this study used molecular tools. More accurately, this study used tools originally developed for the data generated by molecular biology approaches.

Line 180
When was the number of open and closed windows counted?

Line 181
Usually, MEA stands for malt (not maltose) extract agar.

Line 190
Does this software have function of positive-hole correction? The positive-correction is necessary to correct for deposition of fungal spores on the same spot of multi-jet impactor.

Line 285
Why were only living room samples selected?

Line 349 and others
The word “spp.” shouldn’t be italic.

Line 414
division --> phylum

Lines 456-457
I disagree with this sentence. Now, DNA is used as a basis of fungal taxonomy. Therefore, all of scientifically proven species should have the molecular information. If the molecular information doesn't exist, it means that that species is novel. If the species is novel, we (who are not taxonomists) cannot identify regardless of the methods used. We have to ask taxonomists to define it.

Fig. 1
This map is not informative. For instance, there is no scale. Also, it is impossible to know the relative location of the sampling area in the island. Could you re-create?


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: HURRICANE MARÍA DRIVES INCREASED INDOOR PROLIFERATION OF FILAMENTOUS FUNGI IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO: A TWO-YEAR CULTURE-BASED APPROACH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting study where the authors compared culturable fungal concentrations in dry, water-damaged, and flood-damaged homes (total 50) followed by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. The authors may address following limitations of the study design to improve their manuscript.
Experimental design: Lines 132 - 133: This hypothesis is not so significant because it’s already well known that water damage from floods can increase mold growth and consequent higher indoor mold spore levels. Many articles were previously published on this topic. The authors may consider comparing fungal diversity and abundance in flooded versus non-flooded homes and hypothesize a particular type of difference anticipated in the tropical climate of Puerto Rico.
Lines 151 – 152: The sample sizes for different categories of houses were too small. Please acknowledge this limitation and provide some rationale defending this.
Line 170 – 171: One major disadvantage of the air sampling approach was it was solely focused on culturable fungi and many environmental fungi may not be culturable in the traditional MEA media. Different fungal species may proliferate at different rates on the culture media used, which is another problem. The authors used the word ‘spores’ in many places but some hyphal fragments can develop a colony and colony counts may not be equal to spore counts. Therefore, data obtained are not showing the true airborne fungal diversity in the studied homes. Calculated diversity based on culturable approach may not be useful for the understanding health risks from these fungi because allergic risks depend on both culturable and non-culturable fungal exposures.
Lines 205 and 562: This reference is incomplete. How this article enabled identifying so many different types of fungal species is unclear. This is another problem in the experimental design.
Line 266: How the indoor humidity levels became higher in June – July? Was it an effect of outdoor climatic conditions? Please provide an explanation.
Lines 440-441: These fungal species are common everywhere. This is unclear what different types of taxa were identified in flood-affected homes.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
Additional comments: None


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: HURRICANE MARÍA DRIVES INCREASED INDOOR PROLIFERATION OF FILAMENTOUS FUNGI IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO: A TWO-YEAR CULTURE-BASED APPROACH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting assessment of a culturable fungi after a major hurricane.  The convenience sample is a limitation in their paper, but there is still knowledge gained about fungal diversity within this convenience sample.
Experimental design: Three major issues need to be addressed:

1.	The authors keep calling their measurements, fungal spores.  However, they measured colony-forming units.  They did not measure individual spores.

2.	Please confirm that the control homes that were considered “dry” had not been water-damaged prior to Hurricane Maria.  Prior water damage would make a home an imperfect control.

3.	Positive hole correction is necessary for impactor devices.  The concept of multiple impactions through holes has been well established since the Andersen impactor was first described in 1958.

Positive hole correction is a recommended method in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH):

Macher, J., (ed.) Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control, ACGIH, 1999

Macher JM. Positive-hole correction of multiple-jet impactors for collecting viable microorganisms. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1989 Nov;50(11):561-8. doi: 10.1080/15298668991375164. PMID: 2688387.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2688387/

In the owner’s manual for the device that the authors used, there is a description of how the positive hole correction should be calculated: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/2034219/Cantium-Scientific-Microbio-Mb2.html?page=30#manual
Validity of the findings: Specific Comments

1.	Line 87:  Add the word, fragments.  Correct the units.  “Fungal spores and fragments less than 2.5 µm…”
2.	Line 88:  Why mention pollen in this paper about fungi?  I suggest adding that large fungal spores and clusters of small fungal spores can deposit in the upper airways.  Also, allergic rhinitis can be caused by not only upper airway, but lower airway deposition too.
3.	Line 108-111:  Aspergillus is not the most frequent causative agent of asthma and rhinitis.  It is “among the most frequent” triggers of asthma and allergic rhinitis.
4.	Line 116-117:  Please provide reference for 2017 outdoor fungal spore season being lower.  Also, I would change “halted” to just lower levels.  I am sure there were still outdoor fungal spores in the air.
5.	Line 499-500:  Recommended levels of relative humidity to avoid mold growth is lower than 65%.  https://www.epa.gov/mold/brief-guide-mold-moisture-and-your-home   “Indoor relative humidity (RH) should be kept below 60 percent -- ideally between 30 percent and 50 percent, if possible.”
Additional comments: No comment.


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

Input:
Title: HURRICANE MARÍA DRIVES INCREASED INDOOR PROLIFERATION OF FILAMENTOUS FUNGI IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO: A TWO-YEAR CULTURE-BASED APPROACH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I agree that the manuscript is well-written with professional structure. Relevant references are also properly cited.
Experimental design: I agree that the methods used are appropriate with sufficient details provided in the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: I agree that the study is novel. I also agree that the findings of this study is useful in this field of research. I also thank the authors to seriously consider my comment on statistical analysis.
Additional comments: I found that the authors carefully address my comments. I thank the authors for their efforts.


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: HURRICANE MARÍA DRIVES INCREASED INDOOR PROLIFERATION OF FILAMENTOUS FUNGI IN SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO: A TWO-YEAR CULTURE-BASED APPROACH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Revised version is well done.
Experimental design: Revised version is well done.
Validity of the findings: Revised version is well done.
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: TITANIUM DIOXIDE DENTAL IMPLANTS SURFACES RELATED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN BONE REMODELING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written and complete from different aspects. Data are well reported. I think can be improved in the introduction to the PICO and about the importance of this Review.
Experimental design: The article is a systematic review, the reporting items was correcty followed.
Validity of the findings: the findings from this research are something new in literature, I think that is relevant for its contents.
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: TITANIUM DIOXIDE DENTAL IMPLANTS SURFACES RELATED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN BONE REMODELING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article to this prestigious journal.
The manuscript is well presented but it presents some issues:

Abstract: Abstract should be revised and make it more appealing.

Keywords: To ensure a properly research in medical databases, use MeSH terms to find  appealing keywords that could be helpful in finding your article.

“From Line 46 to 50“ More citations are needed.

From 61 to 65 i would like to suggest the author to provide a figure describing the whole bone remodeling process (describing all the proteins take into account).

From 67 to 68 Citations are needed? What articles??????

Introduction should be revised to focus the attention to the AIM of this manuscript. Moreover introduction is too short please extend it.
AIM should be more appealing
Materials and Methods section is well written and describes a good job.
From Line 324 to 330 It is not clear what authors would comunicate. More clarification regarding ROS activities are needed.
Discussion seems a repetition of the RESULT section please modify
Conclusion must be entirely revised making it more appealing and expanded.
English spell revision is necessary.

Best Regards.
Experimental design: Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article to this prestigious journal.
The manuscript is well presented but it presents some issues:

Abstract: Abstract should be revised and make it more appealing.

Keywords: To ensure a properly research in medical databases, use MeSH terms to find  appealing keywords that could be helpful in finding your article.

“From Line 46 to 50“ More citations are needed.

From 61 to 65 i would like to suggest the author to provide a figure describing the whole bone remodeling process (describing all the proteins take into account).

From 67 to 68 Citations are needed? What articles??????

Introduction should be revised to focus the attention to the AIM of this manuscript. Moreover introduction is too short please extend it.
AIM should be more appealing
Materials and Methods section is well written and describes a good job.
From Line 324 to 330 It is not clear what authors would comunicate. More clarification regarding ROS activities are needed.
Discussion seems a repetition of the RESULT section please modify
Conclusion must be entirely revised making it more appealing and expanded.
English spell revision is necessary.

Best Regards.
Validity of the findings: Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article to this prestigious journal.
The manuscript is well presented but it presents some issues:

Abstract: Abstract should be revised and make it more appealing.

Keywords: To ensure a properly research in medical databases, use MeSH terms to find  appealing keywords that could be helpful in finding your article.

“From Line 46 to 50“ More citations are needed.

From 61 to 65 i would like to suggest the author to provide a figure describing the whole bone remodeling process (describing all the proteins take into account).

From 67 to 68 Citations are needed? What articles??????

Introduction should be revised to focus the attention to the AIM of this manuscript. Moreover introduction is too short please extend it.
AIM should be more appealing
Materials and Methods section is well written and describes a good job.
From Line 324 to 330 It is not clear what authors would comunicate. More clarification regarding ROS activities are needed.
Discussion seems a repetition of the RESULT section please modify
Conclusion must be entirely revised making it more appealing and expanded.
English spell revision is necessary.

Best Regards.
Additional comments: Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article to this prestigious journal.
The manuscript is well presented but it presents some issues:

Abstract: Abstract should be revised and make it more appealing.

Keywords: To ensure a properly research in medical databases, use MeSH terms to find  appealing keywords that could be helpful in finding your article.

“From Line 46 to 50“ More citations are needed.

From 61 to 65 i would like to suggest the author to provide a figure describing the whole bone remodeling process (describing all the proteins take into account).

From 67 to 68 Citations are needed? What articles??????

Introduction should be revised to focus the attention to the AIM of this manuscript. Moreover introduction is too short please extend it.
AIM should be more appealing
Materials and Methods section is well written and describes a good job.
From Line 324 to 330 It is not clear what authors would comunicate. More clarification regarding ROS activities are needed.
Discussion seems a repetition of the RESULT section please modify
Conclusion must be entirely revised making it more appealing and expanded.
English spell revision is necessary.

Best Regards.


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

Input:
Title: TITANIUM DIOXIDE DENTAL IMPLANTS SURFACES RELATED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN BONE REMODELING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: ok
Experimental design: ok
metanalysis lacks. I strongly suggest that the authors add it
Validity of the findings: moderate
Additional comments: I would like to congratulate the Authors for the efforts in writing the manuscript. The systematic review is well conducted. However, some improvements are required.
Why did not the Authors perform a metanalysis? Kindly explain the reason.
ABSTRACT
•	LINES 30-32: To validate the cellular and molecular cross talk in bone remodeling of the present review. A well-controlled clinical trials with a large sample size are required.
Kindly check the punctuation and remove the dot between sentences.
•	Kindly rewrite the keywords in alphabetical order.

RESULTS
•	Lines 155: kindly check this typo “nThree papers were rated as”
•	Line 180-181: “Of the fourteen studies, five of the fourteen publications were undertaken in vitro;” Kindly correct these sentences “of the fourteen studies” was repeated twice.

DISCUSSION
•	Lines 295-307: all those statements should be supported by evidence. Kindly add references in order to support what explained.
•	Line 362: “promote osteogenesis-angiogenesis coupling. Through activation of Wnt signalling pathways as depicted in figure”. Kindly check punctuation.
•	Kindly add a comment on the future perspectives and suggestions.


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: TITANIUM DIOXIDE DENTAL IMPLANTS SURFACES RELATED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN BONE REMODELING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is now suitable for publication.
Experimental design: The systematic review is well conducted, the applied methods are correct.
Validity of the findings: The findings are something new in literature about this topic.
Additional comments: Thank you for the hard work in improving this manuscript.
In my opinion, It's now suitable for publication.


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

Input:
Title: TITANIUM DIOXIDE DENTAL IMPLANTS SURFACES RELATED OXIDATIVE STRESS IN BONE REMODELING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: ok
Experimental design: ok
Validity of the findings: ok
Additional comments: Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The article is now ready for publication.

Best regards


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

Input:
Title: EAST PALEARCTIC TREEFROG PAST AND PRESENT HABITAT SUITABILITY USING ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written in professional, unambiguous language. Field background and literature references are adequate. Figures should be improved in quality for publication. The tables are adequate.

The results section lacks a description of the predicted climate refugia and habitat suitability and stability, which are briefly described in the first two sentences of the first paragraph in their discussion. This information must be detailed in their results section.
Experimental design: This is an original primary research within the Aims and Scope of the PeerJ journal. The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The research seems to have been conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.

I have some concerns regarding the method used to perform the ENMs, which should be clarified and improved before acceptance.  First, although MaxEnt has been widely used for ENMs in the last decades, ensemble models have been highly recommended to reduce uncertainty caused by differences among modeling techniques, improving the accuracy of the fitted models. In addition, MaxEnt treats the occurrence data as "true occurrences", which is likely to be problematic considering their data source (GBIF). Large-scale data aggregators such as GBIF can present much noise in data accuracy, thus requiring special filters and preparation to reduce errors and biased results. According to their methods, they only filtered data from D. japonicus Mainland clade to avoid overabundance and removed duplicate presence points within the same cell of the environmental layers. It is important to check the extent of occurrences found in GBIF, besides evaluating data for spatial outliers. It is important to process the occurrence data to remove erroneous coordinates and spatial outliers/uncertainty.

Also, they are citing Hijmans et al., 2005 as their data source, so I assumed they downloaded the environmental variables from the WorldClim database. However, this information must be stated in their methods section. In addition, it is important to report the version of the data source – in this case, I believe it should be v. 1.4 since v. 2.0 does not present LGM and LIG data available.

Finally, they state that "other parameters were unchanged from MaxEnt's base settings". This sentence requires an explanation of What other parameters they are referring to and why they kept MaxEnt's base settings.
Validity of the findings: All data to reproduce their results are available in public databases (WorldClim - I assumed- and GBIF). Although their methods must be improved, their findings are important to determine potential climate refugia for the analyzed clades, which is essential for conservation actions. Their conclusions are well stated and are linked to the original research question.
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: EAST PALEARCTIC TREEFROG PAST AND PRESENT HABITAT SUITABILITY USING ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is written in a clear and unambiguous way and structured correctly. However, the background/references are insufficient. There is extensive literature using species distribution models in amphibians and frogs in particular to estimate refugia and past areas of distribution that was not cited. Some investigating quite very similar questions in other geographical areas. Although the authors do not need to provide a full literature review or cite everything I suggest I do consider the current background to be insufficient to set up this work in the broad field.
To cite just a few:
Carnaval, A. C. et al. 2009. Stability predicts genetic diversity in the Brazilian Atlantic forest hotspot. - Science 323: 785–789.
Carnaval AC, Moritz C (2008) Historical climate modelling predicts patterns of current biodiversity in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. J Biogeogr 35:1187–1201
Pabijan M, Brown JL, Chan LM, Rakotondravony HA, Raselimanana AP, Yoder AD, Glaw F, Vences M. 2015. Phylogeography of the arid-adapted Malagasy bullfrog, Laliostoma labrosum, influenced by past connectivity and habitat stability. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 92: 11–24.
Paz, A. et al. 2019. Testing effects of Pleistocene climate change on the altitudinal and horizontal distributions of frogs from the Colombian Andes: a species distribution modeling approach. - Front. Biogeogr. 11(1).

There is also extensive literature on the past projections of species distribution models methods and caveats. Again just a few examples here:
Guevara, L., Morrone, J.J. & León-Paniagua, L. (2018a) Spatial variability in species ’ potential distributions during the Last Glacial Maximum under different Global Circulation Models: Relevance in evolutionary biology. Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, 57, 113–126
Guevara, L. et al. 2019. Spatial variability in species’ potential distributions during the Last Glacial Maximum under different Global Circulation Models: Relevance in evolutionary biology. - J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 57: 113–126.
Qiao, H., Feng, X., Escobar, L.E., Peterson, A.T., Soberon, J., Zhu, G. & Papes, M (2019) An evaluation of transferability of ecological niche models. Ecography, 42(3):521-534. 10.1111/ecog.03986.
Varela, S., Lima-Ribeiro, M.S. & Terribile, L.C. (2015) A short guide to the climatic variables of the last glacial maximum for biogeographers. PLoS ONE, 10, e0129037
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Although the field of species distribution models is far from agreeing on the best methods there is widespread agreement on the need to tune the parameters for whatever method is selected. The authors of this study failed to do this by using default Maxent parameters. The use of default parameters is problematic mostly leading to models that are overfit. Overfit models are particularly problematic when they are to be transferred in space or time as is the case in this study.
For tuning of maxent models in particular authors can review the following papers and references within:

RP Anderson, I Gonzalez Jr . 2011. Species-specific tuning increases robustness to sampling bias in models of species distributions: an implementation with Maxent. Ecological Modelling.

JL Brown, JR Bennett, CM . 2017. SDMtoolbox 2.0: the next generation Python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses
French – PeerJ.

R Muscarella, PJ Galante, M Soley‐Guardia, RA Boria. 2014. ENM eval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods in ecology and evolution.

RP Anderson. 2015. Modeling niches and distributions: it’s not just “click, click, click”. Biogeografía

For transferability issues here are some suggestions:
Qiao, H., Feng, X., Escobar, L.E., Peterson, A.T., Soberon, J., Zhu, G. & Papes, M (2019) An evaluation of transferability of ecological niche models. Ecography, 42(3):521-534. 10.1111/ecog.03986.

Wioletta Werkowska, Ana L. Márquez, Raimundo Real, and Pelayo Acevedo. A practical overview of transferability in species distribution modeling. Environmental Reviews.25(1): 127-133. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0045

Also the selection of modeling variables is problematic. The authors use topographic variables as predictors in their models. This selection might be good when modeling species distributions on the present (although do remember that species are not responding to elevation but rather variables that vary with elevation). However, when projecting in time the use of topography variables is inappropriate. As species are not responding to elevation itself but other correlates the relationship might not be maintained in time and the projection will thus be biased by the present elevational patterns (e.g. if a species is currently at 2000masl the projected model will try to keep it at the same elevation even if at this elevation temperature will be significantly lower at the LGM).  There is again a lot of literature on this topic, here are a few examples:

A.T. Peterson, J. Soberón, R.G. Pearson, R.P.Anderson, E. Martinez-Meyer, M. Nakamura, M.B. Araujo. 2011. Ecological niches and geographic distributions. Princeton University Press

C.S. Jarnevich, T.J. Stohlgren, S. Kumar, J.T.Morisette, T.R. Holcombe. Caveats for correlative species distribution modeling. Ecol. Inform., 29 (2015), pp. 6-15,

Maria Bobrowski, Johannes Weidinger, Niels Schwab, Udo Schickhoff. 2021. Searching for ecology in species distribution models in the Himalayas. Ecological Modelling. 458:109693

Furthermore, since this study is creating temporal projections of species distribution models it is advisable to explore when and where the model is being projected outside the training range of the variables (what conditions in the past are non-analogous to the current climate? In what area is the model then being extrapolated?). For this, one option is to create MESS maps (multivariate environmental similarity surfaces) and use these maps to locate areas where the model should not be trusted , in those areas the model should not be interpreted or at least should be more carefully interpreted.

In lines 146-149 the authors state they used a threshold using TSS which “maximizes true presences and absences”. However, the authors used a presence-background modelling method (Maxent) and only had observations of presence not absences of the species. I wonder why they selected a statistic that is dependent on “True absences”.
For the estimation of refugia the authors say the summed the logistic outputs of their models (also why not the newer clog-log output? ), this implies an area would be more stable with a higher total sum so areas with a higher logistic outputs (e.g  0.8) at the present time and a lower value (say 0.1) at the LGM would have a total of 0.9. But an area with mid prediction (e.g 0.5) in the present and a mid prediction in the past (e.g 0.4) in the past would have exactly the same sum and would evidently be more stable. I wonder if maybe the authors are missing part of the methodology here? If not then this computation seems inappropriate.
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: EAST PALEARCTIC TREEFROG PAST AND PRESENT HABITAT SUITABILITY USING ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper deals with species distribution modelling of tree frogs occurring in East Asia. As it stands, I cannot recommend it for publication, for several reasons.

My first concern is that ecological models have already been done on the particular species under focus, including past projections during the last glacial periods (Dufresnes et al. 2016 BMC Ecol Evol for D. japonicus, Borzée et al. 2020 PloS ONE for the D. immaculatus group). Here, the only obvious addition is the analysis of the two main clades of D. japonicus separately. Of course, the authors may have also incorporated some additional localities since 2016 and 2020 (did they?), but I do not see what those updates really brings more to our knowledge of these frogs, especially as their projections are nearly identical to those from the previous papers (which is expected as the same modelling technology was applied = Maxent).

Second, there is a lack of coherence among the delimitation applied here to build models from separate taxa. For the D. immaculatus clade, distinct models are built from D. immaculatus, D. suweonensis and D. flaviventris. However, phylogeographic (minor genetic divergence, widespread admixture) and phenotypic (overlapping morphologies and call properties) studies revealed that all three are one and the same species, the Korean D. suweonensis and D. flaviventris being glacial relics of the Chinese D. immaculatus (Borzée et al. 2020 PLoS ONE). These “species” may thus likely be synonymized in the near future by the community. I understand that this is not a taxonomic paper, but if you want to build separate models for the three glacial lineages (“species”) that compose the D. immaculatus clade, then you should also do separate models for the numerous glacial lineages of D. japonicus. Instead, for D. japonicus, the authors only separated the two main (Miocene-diverged) clades, although both of them feature multiple Plio-Peistocene lineages that all show greater divergence than the Korean “species”. Bottom line, one should stick to a coherent way to build and compare separate models between distinct lineage/species/evolutionary units. In this case, you can either build three models based on three clades that clearly warrants species recognition (D. immaculatus sensu lato and the two main clades of D. japonicus), or about ten models that account for the Pleistocene diversity of each clade (D. immaculatus, D. flaviventris, D. suweonensis, and the ~8 glacial lineages of D. japonicus).

Third, I was a bit confused how the authors use their own and publicly available data to delimit the D. japonicus clades. Both clades occur in Japan, with unclear limits. Did you discard records in areas where we still don’t know the lineage distributions? The paper is rather elusive on the distribution of these clades in general, and even in the way of referring to them, as a “mainland” and “Japanese” clade, even though the mainland clade is also largely found in Japan.

Fourth, and this is more a technical point, did you filter the GBIF dataset in any way? GBIF data often contains misrecords and records with very loose accuracy (dozens of kilometers). I could not find any information on the way you treated the occurrence data, although it is rather important since amphibian occurence largely depends on fine-scale environmental conditions (= microhabitats and microclimates), so inaccurate records are very likely to falsify the reconstructed models.

As it stands, the current manuscript falls short in reporting anything really new in respect to previous studies, plus in my view it misguides readers on the diversity of tree frogs in Asia. That said, the issues I raised can be solved by justifying clearly what novelties are brought here, and by considering a coherent way to build separate models among lineages/species.
Experimental design: See my comments above about the issues to run separate models for some shallow lineages but not others, and the lack of novelty in respect to previous similar studies on these frogs.
Validity of the findings: See my basic reporting above
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: EAST PALEARCTIC TREEFROG PAST AND PRESENT HABITAT SUITABILITY USING ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction is considered to be very brief. It is mainly based on examples of similar articles, rather than on a conceptual presentation of the different topics covered in the paper. There is a large amount of literature to support the use of the main methodological technique used (environmental niche modelling). As well as its use as a valid methodological approach to estimate past distributions.
Experimental design: There are relevant methodological steps that are not clearly explained. There is abundant literature in the ENM world showing that using only one technique (in this case Maxent) can lead to biases in the projections. In this case, this is a critical point, since projections are made in different time windows. For the particular technique used in this work, there are also specific tools that allow for greater validity of the results generated (see Muscarella et al. 2014, Kass et al. 2021).

Kass, J. M., Muscarella, R., Galante, P. J., Bohl, C. L., Pinilla-Buitrago, G. E., Boria, R. A., ... Anderson, R. P. (2021). ENMeval 2.0: Redesigned for customizable and reproducible modeling of species' niches and distributions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12(9), 1602-1608.

Muscarella, R., Galante, P. J., Soley-Guardia, M., Boria, R. A., Kass, J. M., Uriarte, M., & Anderson, R. P. (2014). ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal
model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 1198–1205.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Some minor comments are added that may help to improve the manuscript:

Abstract
56-57 This is an important point that is not addressed in depth in the manuscript, consider removing it.
Introduction
60 A paragraph on the main tool used in the research (ENM) is missing. In addition, the use of ENM as a tool to identify past distributions should be supported.
76-77 There are more up-to-date references for this point
97-98 The expression "we hope" could be changed to a clearer expression of what is expected from the analyses carried out.
Material & Methods
118 By including non-climatic variables in the projections, the concept of climate suitability loses its validity. It is suggested to keep the concept of habitat suitability throughout the text.
124-130 More information on the construction of the occurrence database should be provided. For example, add the date the GBIF data was obtained (including the DOI). Also explain the database found in Mendeley. In this database there are records without source, this should be explained in detail. A table summarizing the different occurrence numbers with which each species is modelled, and the different sources would be very useful.
129-130 Which tool was used for the subsampling, some R library?
143-44 The sources of the climate surface databases should be specified, it is assumed to be Worldclim, which version? 1.2?
145-146 With which tool were the TSS calculated? These are not obtained from the results provided by Maxent.
150 With which methodology and tools was climate stability calculated, was any GIS software used?
Results
156 Please be more cautious with the use of AUC for the evaluation of models. There is a large ENM literature showing that AUC results should be used with caution.


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: EAST PALEARCTIC TREEFROG PAST AND PRESENT HABITAT SUITABILITY USING ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I cannot really give a different assessment to the new version of the paper. The authors solved some of the issues raised by the other reviewers and myself, but they also prefer to disregard some main concerns raised, about the novelty of the study in respect to previous work, and the taxa/lineages they choose to distinguish in their analyses. Their rebuttal arguments make sense in general, but I do not think they convincingly apply in this particular case.

Regarding replicability, yes, science needs replicability, but replicability is more relevant when different approaches and datasets are used. As recognized by the authors, similar work was carried recently on the same species/populations, using a similar methodology (Maxent).
Regarding the taxa/lineage chosen, the authors supposedly follow currently recognized species (cf. their response) but they nevertheless distinguish two undescribed lineages of D. japonicus. As per my previous review, choosing to delimit taxa simply because they were described even though these arrangements do not follow the same species concept lacks coherence in my view. With a more comparative framework, your study could have tackled some interesting questions regarding niche evolution among the numerous glacial lineages of the D. japonicus/immaculatus diversification.

It seems that we will respectfully remain in disagreement regarding these points. But because the study is methodologically sound, the paper is well written, and as I understand that PeerJ is not about novelty, I am not opposing the acceptance of this paper.
Experimental design: see above
Validity of the findings: see above
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: EAST PALEARCTIC TREEFROG PAST AND PRESENT HABITAT SUITABILITY USING ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have developed the introduction more fully, incorporating points that help to give a better context to their analysis.
Experimental design: In this new version the methods are better explained and detailed.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: TRACKING MULTIPLE FISH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper presents two experiments that nicely extend previous studies of multiple object tracking (MOT). The question is how a real-world tracking example (fish within a fish tank) relates to standard lab tasks. The research questions are well-motivated and placed appropriately in context. All aspects of the paper conform to a high scientific standard and material is clearly presented.

I seem to recall some previous studies that had specifically examined occlusion in the context of MOT? As this is relevant – and mentioned as a factor here – perhaps chase these down?
Experimental design: Both experiments are clearly described in terms of methods and conform to appropriate ethical standards. Research questions are clear and statistical methods transparent. All material available online.

I like the use of d-prime as the summary of sensitivity. In this context, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of the bias measure. Perhaps help the reader by explaining how bias should be interpreted in the context of MOT? If I can’t tell items apart, how do I select in a biased manner? This becomes relevant in the results as the pattern of higher bias with small tracking size, could just be an artefact, no?
Validity of the findings: This set of findings is very interesting. Extends previous work suggesting that MOT is an ecologically relevant task. Also highlights some novel aspects of real-world tracking that will be useful going forward.

Would it be worth explicitly comparing levels of performance in the three conditions of Exp2? Figure 4 suggests, for example, that standard MOT leads to consistently higher performance than the fakefish condition. Forgive me if I missed the direct comparison, but if you didn’t explore this, might be a worthwhile addition?
Additional comments: Nice work!!


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

Input:
Title: TRACKING MULTIPLE FISH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is mostly very well written throughout. I spotted a few small typos:
- L26: I think this should be "similarities"
- L83: "by comparing the performance..." - remove "the"
- L142/143: "sudden movements of targets/distractors" might be clearer phrasing
- L172: I think this should be "commonalities"
- L177: the tenses here are a bit confusing, I would probably re-word to "allowed the fish to blend in or even to be temporarily occluded, making them more difficult to detect"
- L295: "that response bias..." - add "the"
- L312: I think this should be "MOTs" i.e. plural
- L316/317: phrasing seems a little awkward here - perhaps "as they are difficult to identify from each other"
- L320: "when number of tracked fish..." - add "the" i.e. "the number of tracked fish..."

The literature review seems good overall. One possible omission is re. L57 - there is some work from the camouflage literature that might be relevant here e.g. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2013.0064 (although the tasks are slightly different from MOT-type tasks).

The article is well structured, and the OSF directory is very complete and easy to use. I had only one minor comment with reference to the figures - in the caption to Figure 4, it might be worth using the phrasing "thick vertical lines" when referring to the 66% high density credible interval, to contrast with the "thin vertical lines" referred to later in the sentence.

There aren't really specific hypotheses given in the manuscript, but the study is clearly described and self-contained.
Experimental design: The work is clearly original, primary research and the extent to which laboratory tasks can predict more real-world behaviour is an important question. The work seems to have been done rigorously and ethics procedures followed.

The methods are clear and stimuli/code have been provided, which would help with replications/extensions.

One small point is that it would be helpful to include a reference for the Bayesian estimation of signal detection models (i.e. around L139) – I ended up reading more about it to understand how sensitivity/bias were calculated, and other readers might find this useful too.

Another very minor comment is that I found the phrasing on L191 "to make the distinction between conditions clearer..." a little odd - as I think you use the 'circle tracking MOT' notation when you want to lump several conditions together, so you are not distinguishing between them! I would suggest removing this phrase.
Validity of the findings: The data and code are provided, and are straightforward to follow (thanks to the authors for providing the R Markdown file, which makes it easy to check which variables in the code correspond to the numbers in the paper!)

My only comment about the conclusions is that in places, they seem a little strong, based on the data - for example:
L348/349: "Although using artificial fish trajectories increased the intra-individual correspondence between tracking accuracies using real and artificial stimuli"
L356-358: "Using motion trajectories in MOT that are derived from a real-world context of fish movement led to better prediction of performance for tracking real fish"
If I have understood the results correctly, there isn't much difference between the standard MOT trajectories and the "fake fish" ones? If this is the case, I would suggest rewording these sections of the discussion slightly to make this clearer.
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: LACUNES AND TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS HAVE A JOINT EFFECT ON COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. There are unclear descriptions in the manuscript. For instance, in the title, “…in patients with cerebral small vessel disease”; line 21, “…in patients with cognitive impairment”; line 84-85, “…in diabetic participants”. Which disorder was mainly studied? Similar issues can be found in many places in the manuscript. Please carefully rephrase these descriptions.
2. The language should be further polished by English editing service.
3. “p” and “t” should be shown in italics and some blank spaces were forgotten in the manuscript. Besides, the “p-value” applied in the manuscript were inconsistent. For example, “p-value” in the table 1-3, different from “p value” in the rest of the tables. Therefore, the manuscript needs another run of proofreading for typos and style.
4. Titles of all tables should be shown in formal format. The authors need to provide abbreviation in Figure 1 and all tables.
5. Some commas in Table 6 and parentheses in Table 4 were forgotten by the authors.
6. There are some grammatical errors, please have the paper revised by a native speaker.
7. In the References section, some journal names are in abbreviated forms, while others are not.
8. When abbreviation was used initially, it should follow the full word in parentheses, for instance, SVD.
Experimental design: 1. In the first paragraph, the authors enumerated the association between type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cognitive impairment, diabetes and CSVD. The relationships among diabetes, cerebral small vessel disease, and cognitive impairment were not clearly clarified in this part. For what I know, diabetes mellitus increases the risk of cognitive decline (Ott, A., et al. 1999); T2DM may be causally associated with CSVD, in particular with lacunar stroke (Liu, J., et al. 2018); CSVD is a leading cause of cognitive decline and functional loss in the elderly (Imamine, R., et al. 2011). The authors should clarify logic among these disease types follow a “T2DM-to-cognitive impairment, possible factors-to-CSVD, and joint effect of CSVD-related biomarkers and diabetes on cognition” order in detail.
2. The authors should clearly specify their hypothesis based on previous studies in the second paragraph.
3. Most of the advances in the diagnosis, pathogenesis, epidemiology, and overall understanding of CSVD in the last decade have resulted from the clinical and research application of brain imaging, in particular MRI (Wallin et al., 2018). However, the authors need to provide truthful evidence to support the statement “Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the best approach for detecting CSVD” (Line 65).
4. Please provide detail information about the inclusion and exclusion criteria for CSVD. Moreover, did all participants underwent MRI and cognitive assessment met CSVD criteria on MRI?
5. How many observers performed MRI analysis? How to evaluate interrater reliability? Please add this in the Materials and Methods section.
6. A total of 227 subjects were included in the manuscript while 241 in the “Raw_Data_2021.09.03”. Please the authors explain it.
Validity of the findings: 1. How to draw the conclusion “the joint effect of diabetes and lacunes on cognitive impairment tended to be larger than the sum of the independent effects” while only patients with T2DM were included.
2. The result indicates in patients with diabetes, cognitive impairment was significantly associated with the presence of lacunes. However, there is insufficient evidence to indicate the statement “the presence of lacunes is a characteristic of small vessel disease in diabetic patients with cognitive impairment” (lines 218-220). Please the authors explain it.
3. In lines 231-233, “Consistent with the results of our study, …diabetes is significantly associated with lacunes and increased odds of brain lacunes”. Do the results include the statement in the manuscript? Please check Results section in the manuscript.
4. Please provide evidence in support of the claim “…even healthy people without risk factors can have PVS” (lines 257-258).
Additional comments: The authors carried out an interesting study to explore the joint effect of cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD)-related imaging biomarkers and diabetes on the assessment of cognitive impairment. Results of this manuscript indicated that the joint effect of diabetes and lacunas on cognitive impairment tended to be larger than the sum of the independent effects. Nevertheless, the authors need to improve their manuscript specifically with respect to their research background and the description of their findings. Below are some specific suggestions for strengthening the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: LACUNES AND TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS HAVE A JOINT EFFECT ON COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors evaluates the joint effects of diabetes and cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD)-related imaging biomarkers in patients with cognitive impairment. They found that there was a significant correlation between diabetes and cognitive impairment, and so on. The author's English writing is good, but MRI results lack pathological results. I have got several comments and questions which are included below.
Experimental design: 1.To evaluate the joint effects of diabetes and cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD)- related imaging biomarkers in patients with cognitive impairment.
2.There are too many abbreviations in the abstract. It is recommended not to define abbreviations that occur less than three times.
3.There are other small problems with abbreviations, too. For example, “There was a significant correlation between diabetes and cognitive impairment (p< 0.001, X2 test). In patients with diabetes, cognitive impairment (CI) was significantly associated 34with both the presence of lacunes (p< 0.01, X2 test) and increased total SVD burden scores 35(p≤0.001, X2 test). ” Please check the abbreviations throughout the manuscript and define the abbreviations correctly.
4.Brain imaging (MRI), Brain imaging is not MRI.
5.This study adopted the use of high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) to scan participants in our hospital for analysis.  (HR-MRI) is not necessary. and other.

6.Line 83-85 “The aim of this study was to explore cognitive-related brain changes on
7.84MRI in diabetic participants and investigate whether the SVD score can be used to predict the 85occurrence of cognitive impairment in diabetic participants” but in line 20-21 (abstract) the objective is “To evaluate the joint effects of diabetes and cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD)- 21related imaging biomarkers in patients with cognitive impairment.” And I was very confused, this study was focused on patients with cognitive impairment, diabetic patients or diabetic patients with cognitive impairment? It is suggested that the author specify the main study object, and unified throughout the manuscript.
8.The inclusion and exclusion criteria for patients and controls were unclear.
9.Cognitive dysfunction not only aggravates the deterioration of the patient's physical condition but can also cause economic harm (Nasreddine et al., 2005). The reference here (Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL,357 Chertkow H. 2005. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive 358 impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53 (4):695–699. ) about the damage and damage caused by Cognitive dysfunction to patients and society is too vague and unresponsive. The reference here is a wrong reference. Please check all references and read the abstract or even the full text of the reference to ensure the correct reference.
10.Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the best approach for detecting CSVD, but also works as a highly informative neuroimaging biomarker in neuroscience research (Wallin et al., 2018). This is not a proper, correct sentence.
11.What each paragraph expresses in the abstract is not clear enough. It is suggested to re-paragraph to make the content of each paragraph more coherent and logical.
12.The content of the introduction is too little, lack of summary of previous relevant research results, and the content of the proposal and assumption of the research purpose is less and not clear enough. It is suggested that the author add several summaries of relevant research results to provide more details.
13.In Figure 1, the patient with TIA OR CI, please check if there is any error here. The author did not mention TIA or CI in the “study design and subjects”.
14.This study adopted the use of high-resolution MRI (HR-MRI) to scan participants in our hospital for analysis. Please specify the patient.

15.Line 163, All subjects were divided into two groups using MMSE-2 and MOCA scores. But the author does not make it clear how to group patients.
16.Please modify the table notes of all tables to ensure better specification.
17.Line 214-215. “In this study, we used MRIs to demonstrate changes in small blood vessel damage in diabetic patients with cognitive impairment. An HR-MRI technique was used to evaluate the SVD score of patients with diabetes and cognitive impairment.” diabetic patients with cognitive impairment and patients with diabetes and cognitive impairment, Please be consistent.
18.The authors need a thorough review of abnormal functional connectivity and topological indicators in patients with diabetes.
Validity of the findings: see Q2.
Additional comments: see Q2.


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: LACUNES AND TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS HAVE A JOINT EFFECT ON COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Did the authors let the paper be revised by a native speaker? Pleases provide the editing certificate.
Experimental design: 1.	In lines 90-93, “2. met the diagnostic criteria for diabetes (Harreiter & Roden, 92 2019a)”. However, how to ensure participants involved only included the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Please provide the inclusion criteria in detail.
2. Some blank spaces were still forgotten by the authors. For instance, “…with cognitive impairment (p≤0.001, χ2 test)” in line 213, “(n=17 )” and “Age(median)” in Table 4 and “95%CI” in Table 6. In addition, in the description “2/t” in Table 3 and 4, “2” should be shown using superscript like “2/t”.
Validity of the findings: 1.In the revised Table 1, there are some confusing expressions. First, there are significant differences between CI and non-CI subjects of the diabetic group measured using both the MMSE-2 (p < 0.001) and MoCA (p = 0.033). However, in the footnotes, “There were statistical differences in the MMSE-2 assessment in the diabetic group, so the MMSE-2 was selected as a scale for cognitive assessment before subsequent analysis.” Please the authors explain these inconsistent statements. Second, in the footnotes, the claim “a non-parametric t-test was selected” was not proper. Please clarify the statistical method used correctly. Third, how to calculate percentages in each group? Please provide these calculation formulas. Fourth, please double-check the values of two columns “p”.
2.	According to flowchart of the whole study (Figure 1), a total of 218 subjects, rather than 227 subjects, were included finally for further analysis. Please the authors explain it.
3. In lines 215-216, “Table 4 shows statistics on nondiabetic patients in the entire cohort and shows that increased age (p < 0.001, χ2 test) was associated with cognitive impairment”. Nevertheless, no significant association between increased age and cognitive impairment was observed in the revised Table 4 (p = 0.438). Therefore, this seems a wrong statement based on the Table 4.
Additional comments: I am so glad to find the amendment of the manuscript made by authors. I believe it improved the manuscript substantially. However, there are still some issues existed. Thus, the authors should fix them before publication.


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

Input:
Title: LACUNES AND TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS HAVE A JOINT EFFECT ON COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.The author has revised the questions I raised, but the following details still need to be revised.
2.Line 24-25: Cognitive function assessments were made using the Mini-Mental State Examination (version 2)， the made should be evaluated or assessed.
3.Are there too many words in the abstract? Please modify according to the requirements of the journal.
4.This study is a retrospective cohort study. A total of 227 participants (115 patients with T2DM) were enrolled in this study. It is suggested to add the information of the control group in here.
5.It is suggested that the key words imaging biomarkers should be modified to magnetic resonance.
Experimental design: 6.Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the existence of CSVD contributes to cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes (Wallin et al., 2018b, 2018a).
7.A brief introduction of previous relevant studies will give us a deeper understanding of the research background. It is suggested to add 1-2 summaries of relevant studies.
8.Please state your hypothesis and object in detail in the last paragraph of the introduction.
9.2.1 Study design and subjects. Is Study design written in materials and methods appropriate? As far as I know, the design and purpose of the experiment should be presented in the last paragraph of the introduction.
10.Inclusion in criteria : 2. met the diagnostic criteria for diabetes (Harreiter & Roden, 2019a);
11.but in Abstract “A total of 227 participants (115 patients with 24T2DM) were enrolled in this study” If the inclusion criteria is diabetes, why don't 227 people here have diabetes? What about the other 112 participants？
12.All subjects were divided into two groups (cognitive impairment group and noncognitive impairment group) using the MMSE-2 and MoCA scale scores. Please briefly explain what is the standard to group.
Validity of the findings: 13.We have reason to believe that the presence of lacunes is an important imaging biomarker in patients with cognitive impairment.  Or  in diabetic patients with cognitive impairment?
14.Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an effective approach for detecting CSVD and can provide a variety of imaging biomarkers in neuroscience research. I think we've seen MRI before.
Additional comments: 15.These results suggest that monitoring lacunes, as a neuroimaging biomarker, may help assess the deterioration in cognitive function in diabetic patients. This sentence needs revision.