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: SOCIAL COGNITION AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING IN PEOPLE WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER AND THEIR FIRST-DEGREE RELATIVES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Well written, appropriate referencing.
Experimental design: Novel study, with research question well defined and explained, and the rationale appropriately determined and cited.

Ethical approval was provided, but no English translation was available, so this could not be evaluated.

Methods well described. Recruiting both parents and children of people with BPD caused issues with matching samples, and demographic group differences, However this is acceptable given the nature of the research and is addressed in the limitations. Measures and their selection, as well statistical analysis techniques were described in detail and easy to understand.
Validity of the findings: Limitations are well covered. No research is perfect, and does not need to be, and thorough addressing of limitations is key for transparency. The research group does this well.

Conclusions are clear and appropriate, and further research paths are suggested.
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: SOCIAL COGNITION AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING IN PEOPLE WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER AND THEIR FIRST-DEGREE RELATIVES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript reports the results of solid study carried out a sound methodology and investigating a novel and important question: do the close relatives of individuals with BPD exhibit any signs of the difficulties in social cognition and interaction which are characteristic of individuals with BPD. This is relevant to attempts to better understand the aetiology, and hence also the treatment, of BPD. In addition, they report evidence of social-cognitive impairments in the BPD group which are consistent with previous research and thus contribute to firming up those previous findings.
Experimental design: One issue which may merit mentioning is that people with BPD do not always exhibit the same symptoms but, rather fluctuate between extremes and indeed also often exhibit no symptoms. This means that the results of the tests could depend on what phase they happen to be in during testing. One way to try to address this would be to attempt to trigger their symptoms, or to wait until they exhibit symptoms in order to test them.

The authors state that the study has been carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, yet there is no information about the pre-registration. Please clarify.

Confidence Intervals for the ANOVAs do not appear in the table; perhaps add them?
Validity of the findings: It is not straightforward that any potential impairments in interpersonal functioning of family members should be interpreted as evidence of a genetic component. A plausible alternative interpretation would be that living with a person with BPD can lead to such impairments — in particular among the children of individuals with BPD. This should be noted as a limitation.
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: SOCIAL COGNITION AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING IN PEOPLE WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER AND THEIR FIRST-DEGREE RELATIVES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Excellent, all my previous concerns have been addressed
Experimental design: Excellent, all my previous concerns have been addressed
Validity of the findings: Excellent, all my previous concerns have been addressed
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: SOCIAL COGNITION AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONING IN PEOPLE WITH BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER AND THEIR FIRST-DEGREE RELATIVES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.
Experimental design: The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.
Validity of the findings: The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.
Additional comments: The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.


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: CONSTRUCTION OF FIBRONECTIN CONDITIONAL GENE KNOCK-OUT MICE AND THE EFFECT OF FIBRONECTIN GENE KNOCKOUT ON HEMATOPOIETIC, BIOCHEMICAL AND IMMUNE PARAMETERS IN MICE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: The authors generate conditional fibronectin knock-out mice, which could be induced by tamoxifen. The authors monitored fertility and some histological, hematopoietic, biochemical and immunological parameters. The authors speculate that their animal model will help to elucidate the role of fibronectin in immune-related diseases in the future.

This is an interesting study. There are, however, numerous points the authors should address.

Major points:
1.	In the introduction of the manuscript the authors should explain in much more details the biology of fibronectin. The splice forms of fibronectin need to be mentioned and explained. Do the conditional fibronectin knock-out mice lead to the deletion of both splice forms?
2.	Along the same line: in Fig. 2, the authors use the abbreviations of the two spliced forms of fibronectin pFN and cFN. These spliced forms have not been mentioned and explained in the text.
3.	It needs to be explained in much more details how the conditional fibronectin knock-out mice work. What happens upon tamoxifen induction; in which cells is the functional fibronectin gene deleted? In Fig. 2C, many bands are shown but it is not clear whether they are derived from different tissues. Please explain.
4.	The authors claim that they studied behavior of the conditional fibronectin knock-out mice. These data are not in the manuscript. This claim should therefore be deleted.
5.	The authors mention the previous work on conditional fibronectin knock-out mice by the group of Fässler (ref. Sakai et al). They claim that the work of this group was not conclusive because they used mx-cre mice, which need to induced by poly I/C, which affects the immune system. The Fässler group also used albumin-cre mice and in later work the group extensively analyzed the role of fibronectin in many different pathophysiological states such as atherosclerosis and skeletal muscle regeneration and many others. It is very unfair to ignore this important work and to pretend that close to nothing is known about the biology of fibronectin. The authors should be fair about the extensive published work of other groups. The results obtained by the authors should be compared to the published work.

Minor points:
1.	The language of the manuscript should be corrected by a native speaker.
2.	It is not clear to this reviewer why a 810 bp DNA band should not be visible on a DNA gel (line 127).
3.	The right panes shown in Fig. 2E does not show anything in this reviewers copy.
4.	How many resistant clones have been identified and analyzed (line 65/66)?
5.	What is fibronectin type 3 (line 181)? Please explain.
6.	What is fibronectin EDA (line 190)? Please explain.


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: CONSTRUCTION OF FIBRONECTIN CONDITIONAL GENE KNOCK-OUT MICE AND THE EFFECT OF FIBRONECTIN GENE KNOCKOUT ON HEMATOPOIETIC, BIOCHEMICAL AND IMMUNE PARAMETERS IN MICE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, this is a very interesting manuscript focusing on conditional FN knockout and the hematopoetic system. The authors reliably established their model. There are some concerns though:

1)	Please specify in the results section at what age mice were injected with tamoxifen and for how long they were observed afterwards.
2)	Please specify the malformations seen in the offspring of FN KO mice.
3)	Please try to quantify the results of the KO mice.
4)	The differences between both models should be discussed more in detail – why did the authors not decide to get the already established model but rather establish a new model
5)	Please comment further on the described survival rate of the mice? What is meant here?
6)	Table 3: what was the reasoning of chosen these parameters? Why not including a basic metabolic panel which includes Na, Cl, K, HCO3?
Experimental design: 1)	The authors should include more detailed description about their control groups, which should include a FnLoxp+Cre+ group, which they did not inject with Tamoxifen to show the truly conditional nature of their knockout mouse.
2)	Please include information about what Fn antibiodies and ELISA kits were used.
3)	Fig. 2E should include a negative control as well and show higher magnifications.
Validity of the findings: Although this is a very thorough and elaborate approach and definitely important for studying the role of FN in the hematopoietic system, all results are here of descriptive nature and show that conditional FN deficiency does not seem to exert an effect at baseline, though the authors did not look at any functional outcomes, such as platelet function assays, coagulation cascade or immune cell function, which should be included.

In addition, I would recommend to further work up why the fertility is reduced in these mice by looking at the reproductive organs as well.

General comments
1)	Fig. 2D – please change order of Western blots to unify direction for both plasma and liver lysates.
2)	I recommend to label Fig. 3B and C including arrows to show the authors findings in a clearer way.
Additional comments: Minor spell check is required, otherwise, please see all comments above.


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: CYTOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATIONS OF A NOVEL 2A NULLISOMIC LINE DERIVED FROM A WIDELY-GROWN WHEAT CULTIVAR ZHOUMAI 18 CONFERRING MALE STERILITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written in unambiguous professional English.
Sufficient background along with references are provided.
The article is well presented in terms of article structure etc. With relevant results and hypothesis.
Experimental design: The research in the manuscript is original and within the aims and scope of this journal. The research question is well defined with relevance to wheat genetic research. And although similar in aims to other studies, it adds to those studies and shows different unique outcomes.
The investigation is thorough and technically sound and methods are described in sufficient detail.
Validity of the findings: All the relevant data has been provided and are robust and sound. Conclusions are well stated and linked to the research question. Some modifications to the conclusions are suggested below.
Additional comments: The manuscript titled 'Cytological and molecular characterizations of a novel 2A nullisomic line derived from a widely-grown wheat cultivar Zhoumai 18 conferring male sterility' details the characterization of a novel wheat line deficient in chromosome 2A. Although, 2A nullisomics have been previously reported for wheat (Xue et al., 1991 and 1992), the current manuscripts divulges some previously unknown functions of chromosome 2A.

The line characterized in this manuscript was previously identified by the same authors as a mutant that displayed three pleiotropic phenotypes - male sterility, multiple pistils and reduced plant height. In this manuscript the authors present further data that shows the absence of chromosome 2A (nullisomic 2A) as the main cause for the phenotypes observed. The authors have generated molecular and cytological data including, SNP association, SSR markers and chromosome painting towards the characterization of this mutant. This suggests that original mutant isolated was a spontaneous monosomic line for chromosome 2A.

Further, the authors have made an effort to dissect the molecular basis of male sterility through identification of anther-specific genes on chromosome 2A. Twenty-three genes were identified as candidates controlling anther and pollen development.

The manuscript advances the knowledge of wheat genomics and genetics and shows the various developmental aspects of wheat that chromosome 2A is involved in. Identification of 2A located anther-specific genes furthers the understanding of 2A genes involved in male fertility in wheat. therefore this manuscript is suitable for publication in PeerJ.

However, several revisions are required before the manuscript can be accepted.

1) As the authors mention in the discussion, several chromosome 2AS internal deletions in CS genotype show male sterility including due to meiosis defects, more information is needed on the developmental defects in the 2A nullisomic. Fig S2 should be expanded to include earlier stages of meiosis.

2) In the proposed model, two points should be clarified
	i) Is GAMYB homolog (TraesCS7B01G357900) anther-specific in wheat? If it is anther-specific a QPCR panel in figure 8 should be included. If it is not anther-specific then the emphasis in model (fig 9) should be de-emphasized.
	ii) Figure 8 includes expression of pollen germination-related genes, however, since pollen germination stages were not analyzed and since pollen are shown to be aborted at microspore stage in D mutants (Fig S2), pollen germination genes should not be expressed at the stages investigated particularly in D mutants.  Therefore, the DFGs  observed for pollen germination could be homologous  genes but not involved in pollen germination. This should be further looked into and clarified in the revised manuscript. The hypothetical model should be accordingly adjusted.

3) In line 289-291, the statement 'Tissue specific expression analysis showed that 188 genes on chromosome 2A were stamen specifically expressed genes (Fig. 6A)' should be rechecked in the text and figure.

Other minor comments:

1) It appears that the term 'proprietary' in line 50 is not appropriate and should be changed to 'novel'. if any intellectual property has been issued or applied for these genes then it should be mentioned.
2) Also consider changing the term 'wizened' to other suitable words such as 'shriveled'
3) Abbreviation 'TF' has been used at several places but it not described in the manuscript
4) In figure S5 all the figures should be arranged in a developmental order youngest to oldest (for anthers as well).
5) In table 2 check the description under F1 (Phenotype and observed lines at F2 (number))


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: CYTOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATIONS OF A NOVEL 2A NULLISOMIC LINE DERIVED FROM A WIDELY-GROWN WHEAT CULTIVAR ZHOUMAI 18 CONFERRING MALE STERILITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, authors described characterization of a 2A nullisomic line derived from Zhoumai 18 which is male sterile. The language is clear and professional; the methods used to address the hypothesis are appropriate, although some experiments were not necessary, for example, the SSR marker analysis. It seems authors did the cytology analysis last; other analysis was done before the cytology analysis. It is reasonable to include all the experimental data to support the hypothesis. The figures were relevant and raw data were supplied. However, two conclusions drawn from the study were a bit arbitrary; there is not enough evidence to support them. The first, the less expression of MYB transcription factor in D plant might lead to the wizened pollen grains (male sterility) of D plants. This hypothesis was drawn in Figure 9. It seems they excluded other TEs involvement.  The results didn’t show how much less expression and how significant it was for MYB. Table_S11 showed differentially expressed TFs. Could authors explain why MYB but not others involved in male sterility/fertility? A few literatures demonstrated that some MYB involved in pollen development. Some other TEs listed in Table_S11 could also be involved in pollen development or plant cuticle biosynthesis, such as C2H2, bHLH, and AP2/ERF (indeed, in Table 3, C2H2 and bHLH were listed).  Second, “there were 23 chromosome 2A proprietary genes were involved in stamen and pollen developments” (copied from the abstract).  This sentence was not quite appropriate, although data showed that there were 23 2A-specific genes were highly expressed in stamen. It can’t exclude other genes on 2A might be also involved in pollen development. In the case of wheat Ms1 gene on 4BS, it has homoeologs on 4A and 4D. Mutant ms1 is responsible for male sterile phenotype due to that homoeologous Ms1 on 4A and 4D were not expressed (due to methylation). Overall, the discussion part could be improved. Some genes in the list of 23 2A-specific genes could be candidates of key genes responsible for the male sterility, but not exclude other possibilities. Until the key gene/genes are identified, the molecular regulatory network will be elucidated.

Below is the list for minor revisions.

Line 137, “the fifteen bulks” should be “the fifteen samples”.

Line 161, “Clarke, 2013” should be Clarke, 2009”.

Line 227-228, “between stamens of T and D plants” should be “between T and D plants”.

Line 248, “In a word” should be “In another word”.

Line 299, if you use “TF” first time, it should be “transcription factor (TF)”.

Line 335, “gravely” should be “greatly” or “seriously”?

Line 348, “they all were male fertile but female sterile”. It is not correct. In Endo and Gill (1996)’s paper, 2A nullisomic and some deletion lines were described as they were sterile in both sexes.

Line 361, “Verma, 1996” should be “Verma, 2019”.

Line 391, “both the six chromosome 2As….” Should be “all the six ….”.

Line 396, “Same” should be “Some”.

Table 3, reference “Fu et al. 2018” was not in the reference list.

Table 4, two references “Li et al. 2018”, they should be 2018a, 2018b?

Please check the format of references cited in the text; they were not constant, sometime as “Li et al. 2018”, sometime “Li et al., 2018”. Please check the Journal’s guidance.

Fig. S5, samples should be described more clearly.
Experimental design: Experimental design to address the hypothesis is appropriate.
Validity of the findings: Some conclusions need to be revised. See basic reporting.
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: CYTOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATIONS OF A NOVEL 2A NULLISOMIC LINE DERIVED FROM A WIDELY-GROWN WHEAT CULTIVAR ZHOUMAI 18 CONFERRING MALE STERILITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is fine in these aspects, except for English expression.

I have attached a version of the Abstract and Introduction of the paper where I have corrected/made suggestion in word with track-changes and saved as a pdf. This will give the authors the ideas of what should be done in the rest of the paper.
Experimental design: Once again, this papers is fine in these technical aspects.
Validity of the findings: Also fine.
Additional comments: This paper is fine in all technical aspects, and very interesting, the researchers have done a nice job. English expression needs some work.

I have attached a version of the Abstract and Introduction of the paper where I have corrected/made suggestion in word with track-changes and saved as a pdf. This will give the authors the ideas of what should be done in the rest of the paper.


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

Input:
Title: ON LOCAL SCOURING DOWNSTREAM SMALL WATER STRUCTURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article must be written in English and must use clear, unambiguous, technically correct text. The article must conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
After reading the article, in my opinion the English language in the text is far from perfect. Although English is not my native language, I have the impression that the sentence structure and some expressions used in the article correspond to the structure of the Polish language. Undoubtedly, the text requires proofreading and the naming of technical terms by a native speaker. The parts of text and phrases that I have doubts about are marked in yellow in the text (PDF).

The article should include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced.
The subject matter of the publication concerns the technical aspects of the operation of hydro-engineering structures. It discussed the impact of a small weir on the stability of the river bed downstream the water structure and the formation of local scour. The article was submitted to the Environmental Science section of PeerJ Journal. The authors noted that the content of the article falls within the scope of the following topics: Coupled Natural and Human Systems, Natural Resource Management, Ecohydrology, Environmental Impacts Food, Water and Energy Nexus. In my opinion, the introduction lacks an analysis of the relationship between the main topic of the article (local scouring) and the listed topics of the Environmental Science section. It would be necessary to do additional research showing the relationships between them. Research in world literature should be significantly deepened in this area.

The structure of the submitted article should conform to an acceptable format of ‘standard sections’. Significant departures in structure should be made only if they significantly improve clarity or conform to a discipline-specific custom.
The article structure is correct.

Figures should be relevant to the content of the article, of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labeled.
The quality of the drawings is acceptable. The charts 9 and 10 are too small. Horizontal axes should be definitely longer than vertical. In addition, the information on these charts is not clear. For example, it is not known what the fields colored blue and red are. It is not known how to interpret the black horizontal dotted line (bottom edge, Fig. 9). In my opinion the figures 9 and 10 should be improved.
Experimental design: The submission must describe original primary research within the Aims & Scope of the Journal.
The article describes the original results of laboratory tests in the field of water engineering. The authors did not explicitly indicate the relationship of their research with the domain of Environmental Sciences. I leave the decision to the Editor whether the topic of the work falls within the journal area of interest (Aims & Scope). In my opinion it would be needed to do additional research showing the relationships of authors’ research with the field of Environmental Sciences before acceptance.

The submission should clearly define the research question, which must be relevant and meaningful. The knowledge gap being investigated should be identified, and statements should be made as to how the study contributes to filling that gap.
The research question is clearly defined. The paper focuses on the verification of some empirical formulas to estimate the scour dimensions in the case of local scouring processes downstream the small hydro-engineering structure (weir). The knowledge gap being investigated was identified as a uncertainty of the most often used formulas.

The investigation must have been conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard.
Laboratory experiments were carried out using well known measurement methods with appropriate measurement procedures. High-class measuring equipment with sufficiently good accuracy was used.

Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.
The test stand and the course of the experiments were described in detail. It is possible to repeat it by other researchers.
Validity of the findings: The data should be robust, statistically sound, and controlled.
The article presents the results of 29 measurement series. The way experiments are carried out and their results are beyond doubt. However, according to the research description, each experiment was carried out only once. This means that the authors have not examined (or do not mention in this article) the issue of repeatability of the results obtained. If the experiments were not repeated, then there is doubt as to their statistical quality. This requires explanation and commentary from the authors.

The data on which the conclusions are based must be provided or made available in an acceptable discipline-specific repository.
The authors have included all measurement data in a shared database. However, in some places there are descriptions in Polish, which makes data analysis difficult. All descriptions should be in English.

The conclusions should be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results. In particular, claims of a causative relationship should be supported by a well-controlled experimental intervention. Correlation is not causation.
There is some doubt about the conclusion about the optimized Straube formula. All available (made by the authors) measurement data were used to determine (optimize) the parameters of this formula. This process can be called identification. Next, validation of the optimized formula was performed based on field test (Czarna Weir). Unfortunately, the research process lacked an intermediate step - verification of the obtained formula. Such verification should be carried out before validation, using independent measurement results other than those used for the identification. Authors should fill this gap in the research procedure.
Additional comments: Some remarks
As a result of optimization (identification) of the Straube formula, the authors received positive values of parameters c, d and p (equations 18, 19 and 20, 21). According to the original formula (equations 13.15), their value is negative. This seems a mistake.
All units should be written using the exponential form. There is a lot of wrong forms in the paper.
Authors should avoid citing Polish literature if it does not concern publication of research carried out by Polish researchers. It is not allowed to cite and place in the bibliography publications with titles in Polish - Dabkowski et al., 1982. For classic formulas, the first sources should be given.


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: ON LOCAL SCOURING DOWNSTREAM SMALL WATER STRUCTURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The overall reporting within this paper appears sound.  There are some clarifications can be made throughout the text to improve clarity and understandability of the work.

The abstract and body of the paper both reference “many years” of disagreement on parameters that influence size and depth of scouring but does not provide sufficient evidence of this ongoing disagreement (whether through published papers or through reporting other evidence).  A discussion of why these previous papers could not come to the same conclusions as this paper would be helpful

Please also see comments to the authors.
Experimental design: The experimental design of the paper is clear, although would benefit from being introduced earlier in the text and the abstract and introduction referencing the intended work more specifically. Given the several components (laboratory work, field work, and several stages of analysis, a clear description of the procedures from beginning to end would make the work more easily replicated.

Please also see comments to the authors
Validity of the findings: The paper makes many good points and has a good experimental design with the overall framework supported by the material presented. However, there are some items presented that could benefit from additional clarification, to help prevent unintentionally misrepresenting the paper as more than it is. As discussed in “comments to the author,” the field evaluation of these equations would be greatly improved by either adding evaluation of additional structures and events, or by caveating the conclusions that these conclusions were tested against a single data point.
Additional comments: -	Overall, my opinion is that this is a generally well-written paper with the potential to add to the literature.  With revision, I believe this paper will be suitable for publication in this journal.
-	Line 68: This first sentence of the introduction is confusing as written.  It refers to “the river” several times but does not indicate which river (to speak generally, likely the correct phrasing would be by discussing “rivers” broadly).  There also appears to either be a word missing or some other issues, as “structures unavailable influences” is likely supposed to be either “structures causes unavoidable influences on…” or perhaps “structures unavoidably influences”.
-	Lines 69-71: These lines discuss several impacts of these structures, and are written as absolutes (that is to say, that these impacts *always* occur).  It is not clear if that was intended or if these are meant to be common or likely (but not certain) impacts.  Additionally, this list of impacts is not common knowledge and should be properly cited.
-	Lines 71-72: Especially at its first use, it may be preferable to clarify that “directly below” the structure refers to the area just downstream, as opposed to the area underneath the structure.
-	Line 73: Is “permanently” supposed to be “potentially” or some other word here? It would appear that although this damage can be considerable, isn’t necessarily permanent.
-	Line 89: Please define “recognition laws” and if appropriate provide a reference.
-	Line 90-92: This section refers to seeking “universal principles” but does not acknowledge that the variety of hydraulic and built-environment conditions means that it’s possible that universal parameters may not be appropriate to this concern.  These lines also discuss “many experiments” related to these concerns but does not cite said experiments
-	Line 98: The use of “on the other hand” should have a phrase before it with “on one hand”.  Otherwise, consider different phrasing.
-	Line 117: This sentence discusses “chosen empirical formulas” but does not state how said formulas were chosen.
-	Line 125: The phrase “basically comes down to” is a very casual phrase. Consider replacing with a more formal description of measurements made.
-	Lines 128-131: This section describes a series of parameters for the structure of the experimental model water structure.  Although these descriptions are welcome, they do not explain how the various parameters were chosen.  The paper would be made stronger by providing these reasonings.
-	Lines 168-171: This section provides a good description of LiDAR technology, but does not cite any references.  I recommend referencing relevant work.  Additionally, I believe that with appropriate references to information about LiDAR, Figure 6 will no longer be necessary and can be removed.
-	Lines 176-177: Although the description of the sustainable properties of the polyesters used is intellectually interesting, I’m not sure this description is relevant to the research and may be more distracting than helpful.
-	Lines 213-217: This section lays out a series of formulas.  Although various formulas were noted as being from different authors (e.g. Shalash and Franke) a single source is cited for all equations. I recommend citing the original source for each of these groups of equations.
-	Lines 292-310: It appears that this paper’s laboratory findings were validated against a single high flow event at a single water structure to demonstrate the correlation between modeled and measured scouring length and depth.  Because the laboratory data is only compared to a single field example, the authors should consider reviewing all of their conclusions to assure they are not portrayed as being broadly applicable.  Before the optimized equations could be considered to be representative, they would need to be compared to many events at many facilities at many events.


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: ON LOCAL SCOURING DOWNSTREAM SMALL WATER STRUCTURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Basically, this study presents an optimization of current gate scour prediction formula coupling with the Monte Carlo method. The presentation is proper and clearly understood. Besides, the authors themselves developed a laser scanning to detect the shape of the scoured hole downstream the gate, which is interesting.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I think that the authors need to elaborate how the install the laser scanning technique. I personally recommend the publication as long as the authors can commit a major revision with respect to the following comments.
-	Please cite the recent-5-year studies in the introduction to show the progresses of the local scour due to a gated check.
-	Line 44-47: Please rephrase the statement. It is not clearly stated.
-	Line 48: Please rephrase “researchers still disagree on the parameters that influence its size and intensity”.
-	Line 49: the authors say that there are no universal methods for estimating its magnitude. Does this mean that universal methods have been developed in this study?
-	Line 51: what is the “great dams”?
-	Line 58: “was applied to describe the shape”. “describe” is not proper here. Please revise.
-	Line 63-64: “basing on Straube formula” should be “basing on the Straube formula”. Also, please pay attention to any place of the same issue.
-	Line 68: “unavoidable influences” should be “unavoidably influences”.
-	Line 70: “Simultaneously erosion” should be “Simultaneously, erosion”. Similarly, please check the similar issues through the entire context.
-	Line 74: “The increased erosion of a riverbed is an unfavorable and undesirable phenomenon not only due to the slow degradation of the riverbed”. Not only … but also… Please rephrase.
-	Line 124-125: Why the flume is with no bed inclination downstream? This actually is not true for the real case. Please clarify the intention of this design consideration.
-	Line 129-131: What’s the consideration of “the bottom was non-washable”? Is there any existing study for reference?
-	The flume configuration: the sandy bed which the authors used the water to scour has a limiting downstream length. However, for a real case, the length should be long enough for scour. The downstream should have no impact on the scour pattern. So what’s the authors’ consideration?
-	What’s the drainage function with a pipe for?
-	Line 135: “A pin water gauges were used” Grammar error. The authors need do proof-reading for the entire manuscript.
-	Line 137: what’s the function of the moving disc probe besides the laser scanner device
-	Line 137: “sandy bottom was measured with laser scanner device” should be “sandy bottom was measured with a laser scanner device”. Also revise the similar issues for the entire context.
-	Line 139: the unit of roughness coefficient is problematic.
-	Line 140: “during the studies” should be “during the study”.
-	Line 142: “the following range Qw = 0,010 – 0,045” should be “0.010 - 0.045”.
-	Line 150: should be “due to the flow resistance”. Again, please pay attention to the use of “a, an, the” for the entire manuscript.
-	Line 188: zmax should be the elevation not the depth. Confused.
-	Line 195: should be “finer than the reported particle size” not “under the reported particle size”.
-	Line 214: “ ” this way is not scientific for a research paper.
-	Line 220-227: the description of the Monte Carlo method to evaluate the optimal parameters of the prediction formula is poorly stated. The authors need to detail how the authors used the Monte Carlo method for their intention, for instance the procedures.


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: ON LOCAL SCOURING DOWNSTREAM SMALL WATER STRUCTURES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no remarks
Experimental design: no remarks
Validity of the findings: no remarks
Additional comments: Dear Authors and Editors,

I read the letter of the authors of the article with great pleasure. I am pleased to say that the authors took into account all my suggestions for changing the structure of the article and supplementing it with a part related to the verification of their calculations on independent material. In addition, the section on indicating the relationship between the research and the field of environmental engineering has been significantly developed. There is also a visible improvement in the quality of technical English in the field of hydraulic engineering.

Finally, I must say that I am very impressed with the work the authors had to put into improving their article. I hereby recommend the revised article for publication in the PeerJ Journal.

In the attachment I am sending a pdf file with two marked places where I noticed minor errors.

Regards
Michał Szydłowski


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 14 IMMUNE-RELATED GENE SIGNATURE PREDICTS CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF KIDNEY RENAL CLEAR CELL CARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: /
Experimental design: /
Validity of the findings: /
Additional comments: A 14-immune-related-gene signature predicts clinical outcome of kidney renal clear cell carcinoma - for the journal PeerJ (#43459)

Comments:
Thank you for the paper. This article suffers from several major flaws:
1.	The lack of novelty
The clinic value of immune-related genes in a wide variety of human malignancies, including kidney renal clear cell carcinoma, had been extensively investigated and clearly elucidated in a great number of previous studies. The authors have failed to list the specific novel approaches and/or findings from their study compared to those of previous studies.

2.	The lack of any original datum from authors’ own studies
All the experimental data presented and analyzed in the current study were downloaded from a publicly available database. The authors of the current study have failed to contribute any original laboratory or clinic finding.

3. The lack of evidence
This is a simple replication of findings previously published in another tumor model. The conclusions are based on a single cohort. More independent cohorts needed to be used for the validation.


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 14 IMMUNE-RELATED GENE SIGNATURE PREDICTS CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF KIDNEY RENAL CLEAR CELL CARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: the language is poor and needs English editing.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: The study adopted the TCGA data and performed the bioinformatics analysis. First, the aim of the study is clear, the methods are clearly explained, and the results are interesting. But, the Discussion section is not adequate to discuss the results, and needed to do in-depth analysis.
Major revision:
1.	 The main limitation of this study is that the language is poor and needs English editing, because the manuscript had many grammar mistakes.
2.	The author had better to add some datasets to verify the result robustness, such as GEO dataset.


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 14 IMMUNE-RELATED GENE SIGNATURE PREDICTS CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF KIDNEY RENAL CLEAR CELL CARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: In this manuscript, Dr Yong Zou et.al established a 14-immune-related gene model predicting prognosis of KIRC patients based on tumor immune microenvironment. They also investigated KEGG pathways and GO terms correlated with the signature. In summary, the article may provide novel clinical immune targets. While, there are still some concerns as follows:

1) The authors should analyze expression of the 14 immune genes in tumor and normal tissue.
2) The authors should present a time-dependent ROC curve .(1 year,3year and 5 year)
3) The authors should use extra data to verify the accuracy of the model (GEO datasets)
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: A 14 IMMUNE-RELATED GENE SIGNATURE PREDICTS CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF KIDNEY RENAL CLEAR CELL CARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No more concern.
Experimental design: No more concern.
Validity of the findings: No more concern.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all my concerns.


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 14 IMMUNE-RELATED GENE SIGNATURE PREDICTS CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF KIDNEY RENAL CLEAR CELL CARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dr Zou et al. reported that they identified a combination of 14 immune-related genes that could predict clinical outcomes of kidney renal cell carcinoma in the TCGA data set.
This study was interesting, but there were several points to be mentioned.
Experimental design: In this study, mRNA expression data from only the TCGA cohort was mainly used though the author divided them into 2 groups as training and testing sets. The reviewer recommends that they would variate the usefulness of 14 immune-related genes using the other data set.
Validity of the findings: In Fig.2, the authors showed the data of PCA analysis of each data set. However, the sum of the explanatory power of the three principle components was less than 50% within all the groups. Also, the C-index of the testing sets was 0.6534, and it was statistically not useful as a predictive marker. The authors should clarify the reason they considered the combination of 14 immune- related genes as a useful predictive marker.

In Fig.3, the survival curve of the higher GDF1 group crossed that of the lower GDF1 group. Although there was a significant difference, the authors should clarify this interpretation if they intended to include this gene within their gene set.

In the GSEA analysis, the authors set the cut-off of FDR as less than 0.25. However, that value was not statistically appropriate as the cut-off of FDR. Also, this result was so important because this pathway analysis affected the basis of their conclusions.
Additional comments: (Minor problem)
1. Articles referred in this manuscript were so old.
2. The author should write gene names in italics and show the coding protein of those genes.
3. All abbreviations should be first spelled out.


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: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE METABOLICALLY ACTIVE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE RUMEN OF DROMEDARY CAMELS UNDER DIFFERENT FEEDING SYSTEMS USING TOTAL RRNA SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please refer to the attached pdf
Experimental design: Please refer to the attached pdf
Validity of the findings: Please refer to the attached pdf
Additional comments: The manuscript is a welcome addition to the field of the rumen microbiology, describing the functionally active microbial communities in camel. However, the paper needs to be majorly revised.
The introduction and discussion need significant improvement, especially in the use of professional English, connecting various sentences, and discussing obtained results in light of existing knowledge. Some of the sentences end abruptly, without any link to the next sentence, hence, need to be rephrased.
Please refer to the attached pdf for detailed 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: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE METABOLICALLY ACTIVE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE RUMEN OF DROMEDARY CAMELS UNDER DIFFERENT FEEDING SYSTEMS USING TOTAL RRNA SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is fairly well-written, and easy to follow.  The background provided is sufficient.
Experimental design: The sample sizes are low, particularly in the wheat straw group, but otherwise the experimental design and analysis of sequences is well described.
Validity of the findings: The findings are justified as presented.  The authors state (correctly) that very little work has been done on the camel rumen microbiome, despite their unique physiology and geographic locations, which must affect the rumen microbiota in interesting ways,
Additional comments: line 137: change 'grinded' to 'ground'
line 154: should the eukaryotic RNA be '(18S, 28S)'?


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: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE METABOLICALLY ACTIVE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE RUMEN OF DROMEDARY CAMELS UNDER DIFFERENT FEEDING SYSTEMS USING TOTAL RRNA SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This study reports the analysis of the abundance of rRNA from microbial communities from solid or liquid pseudorumen digesta samples from camels fed on three different diets. The method used here is superior to standard DNA metabarcoding for two reasons: first, analysis of rRNA allows examination of the active microbial community and second, the authors here use RNAseq thus avoiding any primer bias issues associated with metabarcoding approaches were only a small region of the rRNA locus is amplified. In the context of studies of mammalian herbivores this is particularly useful since it allows direct comparison of transcript abundance between the diverse microbial components and also avoids problems of missing species (esp. protozoa) whose rRNA is not amplified well/at all by standard metabarcoding primers.

L48: Use italics for genus/species names (here and later e.g. L62)
L60-70- it is worth reporting in the introduction that one new species of anaerobic fungus was recently discovered from camel and appeared to be specific to camels. Protozoa can show distinct patterns of host specificity, so would be useful to mention if any are distinctive to camles. Useful to link this to the pseudoruminant point below
L72-80: should mention that camels are not ruminant but rather pseudoruminants and discuss potential implications of this difference (ie example of convergent evolution)
 L87: Correct to “Most of molecular-based assessments of microbial groups in the rumen have hitherto relied on RNA/DNA-amplicon sequencing”. Here and elsewhere are examples of minor grammatical errors. One final proofreading from native English speaker would help expunge these
L100: as it is not reliant on primers for known microbes
L122: need more details of the feed. For example was G2 all fresh forage; authors state forage diet OR clover. Seems that the camels in this group did not receive a uniform diet. Can they state for each camel what the feed was? and for how long prior to slaughter the camels receive each diet
what was interval between last feeding and slaughter?
L137: were ground using liquid nitrogen

L186: A useful initial figure (clearer than Table 1 would be to show relative abundance of transcripts of the main microbial groups. Fungi are lower than other groups but unexpectedly not more abundant in the solid fraction. Is anything known about relative rRNA abundance per unit active biomass in bacteria vs archaea/eukaryotes. Or do these findings mean that bacteria comprise ca 90% of total microbial biomass in this habitat?
L186-195: Was any rRNA originating from the feed components detected, for example chloroplast rRNA. One treatment contained fresh forage so this would be expected.
L234: Methanobrevibacter
L239: Methanomicrobiales /Methanomicrobiaceae? (need to check the organism names, families etc  carefully!)
L241-264: Identification of eukaryotes was done with 18S but for fungi at least this locus shows poor resolution. Use of LSU would provide more accurate taxon identification, and probably for protozoa too.
L261: Odd to see Spizellomyces. Not an anaerobe but is associated with dung sometimes. Maybe was on the ingested forage.
Fig. 2: Some of the labels on the plot are difficult to read- can the plot be re-done to avoid this problem
L45 Fibrobacter spp.
Experimental design: The manuscript describes original primary research within Scope of the journal.
As  noted above, the methods are appropriate and innovative. Good that samples were separated into liquid/solid components to allow comparison of planktonic vs attached microbial communities. Similarly bioinformatic approaches are also appropriate.
I assume that experiments were conducted in compliance with ethical /legal guidelines in  Egypt.

The main thing that perplexes me with this study us the unusual choice of treatments and the uneven number of replicates (6,3,2; see L123-128). This is odd and is not explained. Having only 2 reps for one treatments greatly constrains subsequent statistical analysis.

I was also unclear why the three treatments were chosen. More precise detail of these is needed as noted above. Why did the authors not just pick simpler diets, e.g. 100% straw, 100% green clover and 100% clover hay. This would have more clearly addressed their first hypothesis (“get insight into the composition of
116 active microbiota in the rumen of camels reared under different feeding systems”)
Validity of the findings: The study is very interesting in that it assesses abundance of active biomass in a more effective way that DNA metabarcoding. It think that the identification of the eukaryote communities would be enhanced by analysis of LSU (28S) transcripts to obtain more accurate taxon identification.

It is also valuable in that the relative proportions of transcripts of members of the bacterial, archaeal, protozoan and fungal communities can been assessed together (and this aspect should be discussed in greater detail in the discussion)

Sadly, the odd experimental design and uneven/low replicate numbers compromises what can be deduced from the feeding treatments but I think the study is nevertheless valuable.
Additional comments: I think that the correct spelling of the 2nd author’s name is “Robert J Forster”


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: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE METABOLICALLY ACTIVE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE RUMEN OF DROMEDARY CAMELS UNDER DIFFERENT FEEDING SYSTEMS USING TOTAL RRNA SEQUENCING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please refer to the attached file.
Experimental design: Please refer to the attached file.
Validity of the findings: Please refer to the attached file.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE METABOLICALLY ACTIVE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE RUMEN OF DROMEDARY CAMELS UNDER DIFFERENT FEEDING SYSTEMS USING TOTAL RRNA SEQUENCING
Review round: 6
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: POLYLACTIC ACID AS A SUITABLE MATERIAL FOR 3D PRINTING OF PROTECTIVE MASKS IN TIMES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This work evaluates fused deposition modeling 3D printed PLA materials as protective shields against bacteria and viruses. It analyzes material porosity in the context of repeated disinfections and mechanical wear. Tightness is also tested using certified equipment, specifically designed to test the effectiveness of respiratory protective devices.

The paper is clearly written and well structured. The introduction provides the necessary background and explains the motivation in light of the relevant literature. The illustrations are of good quality, but I would eliminate the low-magnification (left) panels of Figs. 3 and 4.

1.1. There is one reporting flaw in this paper. SAVO is a brand name (https://www.unilever.com/news/press-releases/2013/13-04-08-Unilever-Czech-Republic-acquires-SAVO-brand.html), not a product name. Several chlorine-free disinfectants are commercialized under the same brand name (https://www.drogeria-vmd.com/savo-washing-gel-20pcs-white-linen-6278/). Thus, it is important to give a more precise description of the product employed for the disinfection of the PLA samples in this study. To refer to it, please propose an acronym based on chemical composition (e.g. 0.85% NaOCl or NaOCl). The brand name will be mentioned just in the Materials and Methods section, as usual for reagents and instruments.
Experimental design: The methodology is ample and well explained. The work can be replicated based on the text. I would improve the following:

2.1. The term "cytopathic effects" refers to structural changes in cells elicited by viral invasion. If you wish to refer to the impact of a chemical, consider using the term "cytotoxicity". Therefore, on line 265, I would replace "exhibited a cytopathic effects" with "exhibited cytotoxic effects".

2.2. Some raw data is missing:
- Please also present the raw data of filament size measurement (mentioned on line 239).
- Please provide the raw data for the statement "Disinfectants per se exhibited ... (data not shown)..." (line 265).
Validity of the findings: While this work is vast, encompassing several techniques, I have two concerns regarding the validity of the results and the strength of the conclusions:

3.1. Figures 2-4 nicely illustrate the impact of disinfectants on the surface microstructure of the 3D printed samples. Unfortunately, the SEM analysis has not been performed on several spots of each sample to provide descriptive statistics of pore sizes in various conditions (mean+-standard deviation). I would perform such a quantitative image analysis of at least 100 sites per condition and apply the analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test whether the mean gap sizes differ significantly between the 4 groups (untreated, 96% ethanol, 70% isopropanol, and 0.85% NaOCl). In this work, SEM merely highlights certain spots, so quantitative assessments and their interpretation is speculative. For example, it is not clear why long-term exposure to SAVO leads to smaller gaps (Fig. 4D2) than short-term exposure (Fig 3D2). A solid statistical analysis of the change in porosity caused by 5 cycles of 15 minutes of alcohol-based treatments would strengthen the recommendations given in Discussion (lines 387-395) as well as the Conclusions.

3.2. Also, NaOCl precipitates on the mask surface represent a safety concern, acknowledged by the authors  (line 391). Since NaOCl is water-soluble, the PLA sample could be washed thoroughly with water after disinfection. The SEM analysis would have been more informative after extensive rinsing. Did it help to remove NaOCl? How are the pores left behind?
Additional comments: PeerJ addresses a broad readership, not just the 3D printing community. Therefore, the Supplementary Material would be much more useful as a single narrative text, written as a complement of the paper's Results section. In this text, please provide a caption for each illustration.

Besides the 4 illustrations currently given as Supplementary Material, I would include at least one more figure, representing the digital models of the 3D printed structures that were tested in the paper. (Porosity and sturdiness do depend on the design.) Such a figure would render the text between lines 250-252 clearer.


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: POLYLACTIC ACID AS A SUITABLE MATERIAL FOR 3D PRINTING OF PROTECTIVE MASKS IN TIMES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper investigates polylactic acid as a suitable material for 3D printed personal protective masks.
Overall, the manuscript is well structured and professionally written using clear language. The illustrations used are thoughtfully chosen and appropriately described and discussed. However, several discrepancies appear between the scale bar size depicted in several figures (2B, 2D, 3A2-D2, 4A2-D2) and their description in the corresponding figure captions. I recommend the authors to resolve or explain these discrepancies in the revised version of the manuscript.
In addition, the authors might consider improving the clarity of Figures 2, 3, 4 and 6. For example, by increasing thickness of the yellow segments (used to mark and measure gap width), and/or changing their color, to improve their contrast. Further, the legend containing the SEM parameters could the magnified to increase readability or removed completely (since the relevant information is also included in the figure captions).
Experimental design: I commend the authors for the experimental design of this study. The methodology was appropriately chosen to consider all the practical aspects regarding material decontamination and degradation. In addition, the employed methods are sufficiently explained to enable the replication of their work.
Validity of the findings: The obtained results and their discussion are meaningful. Aware of the limitations of the study (especially related to the retention of sodium hypochlorite precipitate in the masks and its uncertain health risk), the authors proved that PLA is suitable material for the manufacturing of protective masks. Considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the associated shortage of protective equipment, this study is particularly interesting and useful. I congratulate the authors for the excellent work and recommend their manuscript for publication in PeerJ.
Additional comments: On line 6, there is a typo – the first affiliated institution is marked with letter “a”, while the others are numbered.


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: POLYLACTIC ACID AS A SUITABLE MATERIAL FOR 3D PRINTING OF PROTECTIVE MASKS IN TIMES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: How about printing a flexible mask? It could combine PLA with TPU. Check reference:
3D-printed flexible polymer stents for potential applications in inoperable esophageal malignancies.
Experimental design: What is the mechanical property after printing?
The author should provide more details about the structure, like dimensions.
what is the porosity parameter?
Validity of the findings: PLA is a biodegradable material. How does PLA behave under a mask situation?
Additional comments: How does the structure effectively protect?
What is the reaction between PLA and viruses? Will the mask contain the virus? Do you need to clean it after multiple uses?


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: POLYLACTIC ACID AS A SUITABLE MATERIAL FOR 3D PRINTING OF PROTECTIVE MASKS IN TIMES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been improved in comparison to its original version. The text has been revised, illustrations have been redesigned, and the Supplementary Material has been extended. Nevertheless, I still need to express the following concerns:

I further recommended to describe supplementary materials in a single file and provide captions for each illustration. It did not happen. While having a single file would serve the reader's comfort (and, hence, it is optional), figure and table captions are compulsory in scientific writing. The argument that the supplementary materials are commented in the main text of the paper does not hold, since the illustrations included in the paper are also commented and they have a caption, too. For me, Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 are clear, but I would need a figure caption and English annotations to fully understand Supplementary Fig. 3.  The second argument, that supplementary information is unimportant ("not crucial for the confirmation of the claims given in our work and their understanding") is puzzling to me. Why is it supplied then?

I strongly recommend to provide captions for supplementary Figures and for the raw data listed in the following files:
peerj-49258-Raw_data_adenovirus_contamination.docx
peerj-49258-Raw_data_bacteria_and_yeast_fungus_contamination.docx
peerj-49258-Raw_data_SARS_CoV-2_contamination.pdf

Also, please eliminate the brand name "SAVO" from Supplementary Table 1 and from the following raw data files:
peerj-49258-Raw_data_adenovirus_contamination.docx
peerj-49258-Raw_data_bacteria_and_yeast_fungus_contamination.docx
Experimental design: The authors chose not to perform a statistically relevant SEM analysis of inter-filament gap sizes. They consider it too time-consuming. By suggesting it, I did not intend to slow down the publication of this work; I meant to strengthen its message by a thorough analysis of the results. The absence of such an analysis does not invalidate the paper, but it is important to mention, as a limitation of the work, that the SEM analysis merely illustrates the 3D printed PLA surface morphology, and gap width measurements are not analyzed statistically.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I'm sorry that my review is still critical! I tried to respond fast to expedite publication (provided that the other referees recommend it), but I think it is in the interest of all of us (readers and authors) not to leave behind incomplete or confusing 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: POLYLACTIC ACID AS A SUITABLE MATERIAL FOR 3D PRINTING OF PROTECTIVE MASKS IN TIMES OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors addressed previous comments well and modified the manuscript accordingly.
For uniformity, the authors might also consider to change the commercial name "SAVO" to "85% sodium hypochlorite" in the supplemental files and raw data provided.

Again, congratulations to the authors for their 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: THE INVASIVE RED-EARED SLIDER TURTLE IS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE NATIVE CHINESE THREE-KEELED POND TURTLE: EVIDENCE FROM THE GUT MICROBIOTA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very interesting study which I feel should be published.  There are very few studies which examine the microbiota of reptiles, such as turtles.  However, I do have some questions about your Experimental Design and Validity of Findings.
Experimental design: According to the Materials and Methods one fecal sample/turtle was collected after 6 	months in your laboratory.  Why collect only one sample/turtle at the 6 months’ period of 	time?  Fecal samples could have been collected starting at time =0, 1 month, 2 months, 3 	months, 4 months, 5 months and 6 months.  You could have determined how the bacterial 	diversity changed over time and if the gut microbiota determined in Figure 1 is stable.
Validity of the findings: Unfortunately, I do not think it is valid of say (Line 48 and 49) “The invasive species 	is more successful than the native species, as revealed by two lines of evidence.”  In your study you only have 3 samples/ turtle species and one time point (6 months).  I think you need to say “The invasive species could be more successful than the 	native species as documented in this preliminary study.”  Parts of your manuscript, 	beginning with the title of the manuscript, should be rewritten to reflect this change.
	Follow up studies are going to be needed, including fecal samples from both turtle 	species living in the wild, to make a more definitive conclusion.  I see this current study 	as a first step.
Additional comments: 1.  Under Keywords add “turtle” since this is a study about turtles.
	2.  In the Introduction there is nothing mentioned about turtles.  I would begin by 	describing the Chinese three-keeled pond turtle and the red-eared slider turtle.  You state 	the red-eared slider turtle is invasive.  Where did the turtle originally come from?  Is it 	causing harm?
	3.  Line 110  “Roach 454 platform” should be changed to “roche 454 platform”
	4.  Line 131 Sample Sequencing.  Was there any library preparation/adapters used?  This 	needs to be mentioned.
	5.  Lines 238 and 239  The authors write “On the whole, the fecal
	239 microbiota was dominated by species of the phyla Bacteroidetes 	(78.02±8.00%)…”  Are you averaging the abundance of Bacteroidetes from all six 	samples to get 78.02%?
	6.  Line 294 The authors wrote “In the whole”  This should be changed to “As a whole”
	7.  Lines 341 Since there are relatively few turtle species which have been studied you 	should discuss the results of the study by Fugate et al. Curr Microbiol 2020 on the 	painted turtle.
	8.  Line 367  The study by McLaughlin et al. Mol Biol Rep  (2015) examined the gut 	microbiota of a Timber rattlesnake using a metagenomics approach.  Functional 	categories are discussed in their paper.
	9.  Line 711  The correct citation is Md Zoqratt MZH, Eng WWH, Thai BT, Austin CM, 	Gan HM. Microbiome analysis of Pacific white shrimp gut and rearing water from 	Malaysia and Vietnam: implications for aquaculture research and management.


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

Input:
Title: THE INVASIVE RED-EARED SLIDER TURTLE IS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE NATIVE CHINESE THREE-KEELED POND TURTLE: EVIDENCE FROM THE GUT MICROBIOTA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors assessed the gut microbiome of native Chinese three-keeled pond turtle and the invasive red-eared slider turtle by 16S rRNA sequencing approach, and discovered that the gut microbial diversity and richness of the gut microbiomes were different in two species.
Experimental design: The most important for this work is that the sample size is too small
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: The authors assessed the gut microbiome of native Chinese three-keeled pond turtle and the invasive red-eared slider turtle by 16S rRNA sequencing approach, and discovered that the gut microbial diversity and richness of the gut microbiomes were different in two species. I have some concerns as listed below. I suggest the authors to carefully revise their manuscript before further process.
 Major concerns:
1.	The most important for this work is that the sample size is too small, and Especially, In figure 3, there is individual in CR is different with the other two in the same group, which can affect the results.
2.	In the abstract, the authors said that the percentage of human disease-related functional genes was lower in T. s. elegans than in C. reevesii, suggesting a greater potential to colonize new habitats in the former species. Are you sure you can get this conclusion? as we know, turtles have lower defence mechanisms to protect them from disease compared with Human, and why compared with human?
3.	Gut microbiology may indicate species differences in diet, physiology, and other internal and external factors, and significantly more variation in faecal microbiome composition may enable them to adapt quicker to new environments, so I suggest that the authors compare and find the main OTU or bacteria species in turtles, which is helpful for turtles conservation and farm.

Referece:

Shanmuganandam S, Hu Y, Strive T, Schwessinger B, Hall RN. 2020. Uncovering the microbiome of invasive sympatric European brown hares and European rabbits in Australia. PeerJ 8:e9564 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9564


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

Input:
Title: THE INVASIVE RED-EARED SLIDER TURTLE IS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE NATIVE CHINESE THREE-KEELED POND TURTLE: EVIDENCE FROM THE GUT MICROBIOTA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript studied the invasive red-eared slider turtle is more
successful than the native Chinese three-keeled pond
turtle from the gut microbiota angle. It is clear and interesting.
Experimental design: The experimental design is  appropriate. The data supports their conclusions.
Validity of the findings: The findings is effective. The invasive species  harbors more microbes associated with gain mass. In addition, the the percentage of human disease-related functional genes was less in the invasive species.
Additional comments: This study mainly compared the microbes and gene functions in the invasive and native turtle. They found that the invasive animal harbors more microbes associated with gain mass. In addition, the the percentage of human disease-related functional genes was less in the invasive species. The experimental procedures are very detailed. And the experimental design is reasonable. In addition, the subjects of research are novel. However, there are still some problems in this paper.
1.	The distance of one letter in front of each paragraph rather than two Chinese characters
2.	Whether to record the altitude, longitude and latitude of the sampling site and the temperature at the time of sampling
3.	Why are the LDA scores distinct in difference of gene function and difference of bacterial abundances
4.	Please give a clear definition of the ‘dominant microbes’ in this study.
5.	It is suggested to supplement the composition of gut microbiota at genus level.
6.	How to define ‘more successful’ in this study.
7.	What statistical software and drawing software were used in this study？
8.	The abbreviation, such as T. s. elegans, should be stated in the previous article firstly, and can‘t be directly exported.
9.	Latin names should be marked When a noun appears firstly.
10.	From Line 294 to Line 316, the description of the results was not clear enough. It is suggested to reorganize the language.


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

Input:
Title: THE INVASIVE RED-EARED SLIDER TURTLE IS MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE NATIVE CHINESE THREE-KEELED POND TURTLE: EVIDENCE FROM THE GUT MICROBIOTA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is an interesting study which should be published.


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

Input:
Title: TVA-BASED MODELING OF SHORT-TERM MEMORY CAPACITY, SPEED OF PROCESSING AND PERCEPTUAL THRESHOLD IN CHRONIC STROKE PATIENTS UNDERGOING COGNITIVE TRAINING: CASE-CONTROL DIFFERENCES, RELIABILITY, AND ASSOCIATIONS WITH COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Review of manuscript number (#40638)
TVA-based modeling of short-term memory capacity, speed of processing and perceptual threshold in chronic stroke patients: Case-control differences, reliability, and sensitivity to cognitive training
By Richard et al.

Summary

The authors describe a combination of a case-control experiment and a training intervention study in chronic, mild stroke patients. They used a test based Bundesen’s theory of visual attention (TVA) to derive estimates of visual attention at the individual level to investigate if the patient group differed from a matched control group at baseline and if improvements in cognition following a computerised cognitive training intervention across several weeks in the patient group could be linked to their baseline attentional performance. Orthogonal to the cognitive training, patients participated in a tDCS protocol with half of the participants receiving active tDCS stimulation and half receiving sham stimulation. Additionally, the reliability of the attentional parameters derived from TVA-based testing was assessed in the patient group through repeated measures.
The authors found lower short-term memory capacity (TVA parameter K), slower perceptual processing speed (TVA parameter C), and an elevated perceptual threshold (TVA parameter t0) in the case-control comparison, indicating attentional sequelae even after mild stroke.
The longitudinal analyses linked to the training intervention revealed fair to good reliability of TVA-based attentional estimates and that higher processing speed before commencing training was associated with higher intervention gains.
The work undertaken to conduct this study is very impressive and the inclusion of chronic patients strengthens the results markedly.

Major comments

Introduction
While the interdiction is clearly written, it can be improved in both the description of the groups and of the hypotheses and their relative importance. In Hypothesis 1 (from line 91) there is no distinction between the three different TVA-based parameters. Does this mean that they are equally likely to be affected by stroke? Similarly, for Hypothesis 2, do you expect all parameters to be affected? As part of the test for associations between stroke subtype and TVA parameters, do you have any particular hypotheses? Also for Hypothesis 4, there is no distinction between the parameters. Does this mean that you hypothesise that they are equally predictive for larger cognitive improvement. Finally, in Hypothesis 3, it is hypothesised that TVA parameters will provide reliable and sensitive measures of specific attentional functions. While you test for reliability, it is unclear to me how you operationalise and test sensitivity.
At the end of the introduction, the use of tDCS as an adjunct intervention is presented, however, it is not clear whether any specific hypotheses are linked to this part of the intervention. Here it is also a bit unclear if the two patient groups are actually overlapping of distinct.

Materials and methods
Again, it is unclear from the text if the patients included in the two parts of the study are the same. If they are partly overlapping, what characterised the patients who dropped out?
In line 85, the patients are described as having a NIHSS score below 7, however Table 1, the range of NIHSS scores go from 0-7. Were patients with a score = 7 included or not? And how was <7 chosen as a cut-off for mild stroke, when this is in the lower range of “moderate stroke”. You might want to consider using another reference than Lyden et al. (2009) for this.

Table 1; Please state and explain all abbreviation in the table text.

If Figure 1 is to be used to support the understanding of the study flow, it should be improved and integrated more with the text; two different baseline assessments are shown, however, the rationale for this is not described in the text, nor does it comment on the waiting period. More importantly, even though baseline performance is hypothesised to be associated with cognitive improvement from training, it is never stated in the entire manuscript which of the two baselines this refers to (e.g., line 208). Finally, if Figure 1 is to aid my understanding of the flow, it should also depict the tDCS intervention. As a minor thing, please also write out abbreviations in the figure text.

In the description of the patient sample, I was surprised that there was no assessment of nor mentioning of visual impairments. I find it unlikely that none of the patients had visual impairments that could interfere with their performance in a visual attention test. This should be addressed and discussed.

Line 139; “three cognitive assessments”  - are these different from the TVA-based assessments and how?

TVA-based assessment; Thank you for clearly describing both the test and fitting procedure/model. In Table 1, the range for t0 is stated to be from 0 and up. This indicates that fits with negative t0-values, were refitted using 0 as a lower bound. Please state if this is the case.

Processing of Cogmed data and statistical analysis; The processing is elegantly done, but I would like the explanation to be a bit more elaborate. Could you state clearly that it is the beta-estimates (e.g., slopes) for each test and for each participant that are employed? Also, it may aid the understanding if you refer to the “common scores” as “factor scores”.
It would be instructive to know, how you calculated the Cohen’s ds that are used and what you consider to be the range for “good ICC”. There are different views on this, which directly impact how your results should be interpreted.

Results
In general, the results are reported in an orderly and intuitive way. I would suggest not write out the adjusted p-value, as what you adjust is the alpha-value and the additional text adds to the slight cluttering of the results. There is a marked shift between the number of results reported in the Cross-sectional/case-control section and in the Longitudinal section. I would suggest balancing this better.

Discussion
Overall, I find the discussion to be a bit short, of which a lot of time is spent overviewing/iterating the different results without discussing them against previous literature. As an example lines 283-287 are stating almost exactly the same as the first section of the discussion, and lines 296-299 are also an iteration. In relation to this, I do not see how the two null-findings highlight “…the complexity of the clinical etiology of long-term attentional impairments following stroke”. As a general comment, there is a general lack of references to studies conducted by other research groups. Likewise, more discussion on cognitive training in rehabilitation of stroke, would bolster the discussion further, as would considerations of the impact of age (which is also alluded to in your introduction).

It is nice to see (at least two) links to previous TVA-based studies of stroke patients and reliability of the estimates. I would, however, like to see a discussion of the size of the effects/the reliability. Are the same attentional parameters affected in other studies (there are a wide range of stroke studies with TVA-based measures available). Also, I would like to know if there are links between the Cogmed performance increase and the increase in TVA-based parameters across sessions, i.e., the possible transfer effects from the computerised training to the functions that may underlie performance (according to your own hypotheses).

Line 319 reads, “In line with one of the major aims of the study, we also tested for effects of tDCS on cognitive improvement…”. Going back to the introduction, where the tDCS-intervention was only introduced as some kind of add-on with no specific hypotheses related to it, I think that it is unclear what the role of the tDCS manipulation is. Is it really a major aim?
In the following it is stated that using the same sample, no differential effects of tDCS were found in previously. It is not clear if you have already investigated some of the same things that are reported here or if it is only the effect of tDCS on other cognitive tests that were previously investigated? More importantly, it is imperative that you discuss these (null-)findings with reference to other studies that the ones, you have conducted yourselves on the same group.

I appreciate the discussion around both the generalisability of the use of computational testing to more severely affected stroke patients and the possible limitations pertaining to training effects in the TVA parameters. Specifically, it is a worthwhile consideration that this is not a “pure reliability” study, as the ICC of the TVA parameters are could be affected by individual variations in the response to the training intervention. As stated above, an investigation of the simultaneous increase/change in Cogmed scores and attentional abilities, may help elucidate this question.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Minor comments
I would suggest going through the manuscript with an eye for sentence length. Some examples include lines 36-41; 82-88.

Consider removing “including social interactions.” (line 30), as this is not assessed nor discussed at any later point.

Consider rephrasing the sentence covering lines 303-306, as this appears unnecessarily convoluted.

Table 2; Please write out abbreviations + parameter names and make sure to change “Table 1” in the table text to Table 2.

Table 3; Please write out abbreviations + parameter names.


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: TVA-BASED MODELING OF SHORT-TERM MEMORY CAPACITY, SPEED OF PROCESSING AND PERCEPTUAL THRESHOLD IN CHRONIC STROKE PATIENTS UNDERGOING COGNITIVE TRAINING: CASE-CONTROL DIFFERENCES, RELIABILITY, AND ASSOCIATIONS WITH COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is very well written.  It is generally clear, follows a logical order and appears to be technically sound.  The one area of ambiguity surrounds the use of the term “higher processing speed” (see for example line 258) I think it would be clearer to the reader if the term “faster processing speed” were used.
The introduction covers many of the issues the authors are trying to address with their study.  The authors should make it clearer in the introduction that a number of publications have previously examined the use of TVA in stroke populations (for  example, Habekost and Rostrup 2006, Peers et al 2005, Bublak et al 2005) and explain how this investigation adds this literature.
The paper would benefit a re-working of the hypotheses section, for example, it is unclear from the introduction what predictions are being made about stroke sub-type (as assessed by the TOAST) other than it might be interesting to see.  Perhaps you could explain based on previous literature what you might have expected to find.  It would be good for further clarification as to what is meant by hypothesis 3 (that TVA parameters would constitute reliable and sensitive measures of attentional functions), being that the longitudinal study includes a cognitive intervention.  It seems that if you are testing the hypothesis in this design then you might expect that if the parameters are sensitive that they should be able to pick up subtle changes in cognitive function over the course of the intervention.  However reliability should be measured by consistency in the TVA parameter estimates at each time point.  Without a waitlist control arm where patients complete the TVA assessments without any intervening intervention it is unclear to me how this hypothesis can be addressed.
It is clear that a lot of work has been undertaken to collect an important substantial amount of both cross-sectional and longitudinal data from patients, and in the case of the cross-sectional data from healthy controls as well.  It is clear that data other aspects of this project has previously been published (Kolskar et al 2019, Richard et al 2019, Ulrichsen et al 2019).  The authors need to make it clearer how the cross-sectional aspects and longitudinal aspects of the data fit together to a single cohesive piece rather than a series of interesting but only loosely connected hypotheses.
The article is well structured this Figures and tables are appropriate and relevant to the points the authors wish to make.
Experimental design: The experiment fits within the aims and scope of PeerJ. As mentioned in the previous section the authors need to be clearer in the introduction as to how this project aimed to replicate or extend the existing findings in the field (particularly in relation to previous TVA stroke studies, see above , which are currently not discussed in detail).  Currently the hypotheses section provides a set of seemingly disparate hypotheses, it would be good for the authors to re-work this in to a single overarching question, and then state how their existing hypotheses fit in to this central question.
The study was carried out to a high ethical standard and appropriate measure were used to measure TVA parameters.  It is unclear whether measures such as the TOAST and NIHSS would be sensitive enough for the purpose of measuring the effects of severity or type of stroke on TVA performance, it would be useful for the authors to comment on this.  Furthermore the methods would benefit from an expanded explanation as to why the standard protocol was not used for the cogmed training(17 days rather than the standard 20-25 days) , and how and how and why there was deviation in the number of days between TDCs. I do, however, have serious concerns about the design of the longitudinal intervention study as it lacks a waitlist control arm which is critical in assessing the sensitivity and reliability of both the intervention (and more importantly in the case of this paper the TVA parameters).  This waitlist arm would be key in determining whether TVA is sensitive to measuring any form of change or whether any change measured is simply down to practise effects of repeated exposure to the tasks.  One way to potentially address this point would be to look at the amount of progress made on the Cogmed training tasks was associated with the extent of changes within the TVA parameters.  On a related note please could you provide some details in your results section about improvements on the cogmed tasks over the course of the intervention.
The methods are described in a suitable amount of detail to allow for replication
Validity of the findings: The authors have conducted a very large study assess of stroke patients, it would be great if they could provide a more detailed description in the discussion as to how these fit with previous findings of TVA assessment in stroke (for  example, Habekost and Rostrup 2006, Peers et al 2005, Bublak et al 2005).  The authors are clear in pointing out the limitations in their findings, however as I have previously noted the lack of a control arm in the longitudinal intervention arm really limits the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the sensitivity and reliability of the measures.  I do feel this situation could be potentially improved by examining the link between improvements on the cognmed tasks and changes in specific TVA parameters
Additional comments: No additional comments